Good Pope John in Turkey

(This was published, slightly edited, in The Scottish Catholic Observer on Friday, April 25, 2014, to coincide with the Canonisation of Good Pope John, and Pope John Paul II.)

Spy Wednesday — the Wednesday of Holy Week; so called because it is taken by tradition to be the day upon which Judas Iscariot sold out his Master for thirty pieces of silver — found me reading a recently published book, an early birthday present, which I had put aside to read specifically on that day. (Since you ask, my birthday was on April 17, Holy Thursday this year. I shared it with Victoria “Posh” Beckham and Brian down The Gates Bar. Isabel, the owner, got Brian and me a pint. Posh didn’t turn up.)

                                                                

“A Spy Among Friends” (see above, I have an odd sense of humour), by Ben Macintyre, is about someone who sold out his masters, his country, his friends and his family (he spied on his own father).  It is the story of that most notorious and treacherous, as well as most lethally successful, spy of the 20th century: Harold Adrian Russell “Kim” Philby (see picture).

                       

And Good Pope John gets an honourable mention.

As Europe was for a second time in the 20th century set at war, Archbishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli had been Apostolic Delegate to both Greece and Turkey — something which would be unthinkable now — since the end of November of 1934. Prior to that, for over nine years he had been, firstly, Apostolic Visitor (1925-31) and then, secondly, Apostolic Delegate (1931-34) in neighbouring (to both) Bulgaria.

"A man of peace does more good than a very learned man." Thomas a Kemps, The Imitation of Christ, Chapter 28, but often in a slightly different form mis-attributed as an original quote to God Pope John

In the war, Turkey, like the Holy See, was neutral and so Mgr Roncalli made his base there and not in Greece. However, just like most of the diplomatic corps, he based himself not in Ankara, the capital, but at Istanbul, a mere 40 miles from the border with Bulgaria. By 1942, Bulgaria was occupied by the Nazis and this great teeming metropolis, the gateway from Europe to the Orient, and potentially the quickest way for the Third Reich to the oilfields of North Africa, had become “an espionage hothouse… the scene of a fierce, secret war”.

                                                                                                                           

Which war was being fought out by no less than 17 different intelligence organisations, not including the host nation but most definitely including the Italians. And part of their effort was being waged from within the Apostolic Delegate’s residence. But not by the future Pope and Saint.

It was to Istanbul in 1942, to lead MI6’s counter-espionage operations, that one of the, appropriately enough styled in this connection, “Young Turks” of the Secret Intelligence Service, Nicholas Elliott, was sent. Elliott was Kim Philby’s best friend and greatest supporter within MI6. Twenty one years later he would beg to be, and was, allowed to confront him in Beirut in January 1963 with final proof of his treachery.

But in Istanbul Elliott became involved with another interesting piece of treachery. And it involved the Apostolic Delegate’s secretary, a Mgr Rici, “a most unattractive little man.” He had, Elliott discovered, been “operating a clandestine wireless set on behalf of the Italian military intelligence.” Elliott tipped off the authorities and Mgr Rici was arrested. It was left to Elliott, “with some embarrassment”, to inform his friend, Archbishop Roncalli, that his secretary would be “spending a considerable period breaking rocks in an Anatolian penal colony.”

Since Elliott later stated that His Excellency “merely shrugged” and gave him the impression that “he was not altogether displeased”, it would seem unlikely that the future John XXIII would have quickly or strenuously prayed diplomatic immunity in his underling’s behalf.

The spy and the prelate had become friends because Elliott — who was not a Catholic, his father being Sir Claude Aurelius Elliott, then headmaster of Eton — had fallen in love with his secretary, Elizabeth Holberton, a “quite posh” and devout Catholic. Mgr Roncalli officiated at the wedding in his own private chapel on April 10, 1943.

Elliott (through Macintyre) summed up Archbishop Roncalli thus: “Roncalli… proved to be a fund of good intelligence, and a vigorous anti-Fascist. Like so many in wartime Istanbul, Roncalli was playing a double game, dining with von Papen and taking his wife’s confession, while using his office to smuggle Jewish refugees out of occupied Europe.” (Von Papen and the German Military Attaché were seated at the next table during Elliott’s stag party in the Park Hotel, Istanbul not Glasgow.)

Two things registered about this. Firstly, Papa Roncalli was entirely human. Here is a man we can admire not as an alabaster likeness on the mantelpieces of the devout but as a heroic character in an entirely profane drama.

Secondly, in this singular man — whom Mgr Domenico Tardini, the Secretary for the Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Holy See, the Vatican’s Foreign Secretary as it were (who as his first and most important administrative act Good Pope John would appoint as his Cardinal Secretary of State), dismissed as an intellectual nonentity who should never have been recruited to the diplomatic service of the Holy See — this secret agent of His Majesty’s Government, who despite his love for his bride had no love for her religion, clearly discerned a prelate putting the exceedingly profane, the dark arts of the intelligence operative’s world, his world, to a saintly use: the saving of the lives of countless thousands of Jews from their hellish destiny: the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Over nearly twenty years, Mgr Roncalli had built up contacts at all levels, in the Church and out, throughout the region: in Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia, the Levant and, of course, back in Italy. And he used them all to save the Jews in their hour of need. And I am confident that time will prove that he did so with the approval of Pope Pius XII and the help of his friend, Mgr Giovanni Battista Montini, who would later succeed him as Pope.

Bishop Campbell, you HAVE closed down Protect the Pope!

In a statement issued on May 2, the Rt Rev Michael Gregory Campbell OSA, Bishop of Lancaster, said, and I quote a length: “Back in 2010 Deacon Nick Donnelly set up the Protect the Pope website/blog, as a direct response to the campaign of hostility and ridicule from sections of the media and lobby groups against Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI’s historic visit to the UK in September of that year.

“Protect the Pope was particularly successful at this time in articulating a strong defence of the Petrine Office, the Catholic Church, and its teachings against certain secularist and anti-Catholic activists. In the last couple of years, however, Protect the Pope appears to have shifted its objective from a defence of Church teaching from those outside the Church to alleged internal dissent within the Church. With this shift, Protect the Pope has come to see itself as a ‘doctrinal watchdog’ over the writings and sayings of individuals, that is, of bishops, clergy and theologians in England and Wales and throughout the Catholic world.

“Protect the Pope makes it clear that the site is a private initiative and is in no way officially affiliated with the Diocese of Lancaster. The fact, however, that its creator and author is a permanent deacon of the Diocese of Lancaster and holding some responsibility here fosters in the minds of some people that Deacon Nick Donnelly is somehow reporting the views of the diocese.

“It is my view that bishops, priests and deacons of the Church – ordained and ‘public’ persons – are free to express themselves and their personal views, but never in a way that divides the community of the Church, ie through ad hominem and personal challenges.

“Increasingly I have felt that Protect the Pope, authored as it is by a public person holding ecclesiastical office (an ordained deacon), has, at times, taken this approach its own posts – but has also allowed for this by facilitating those who comment online.

“I note that Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, speaking at a media conference in Rome on April 29, said: ‘We adhere to the best and highest standards’, indicating that this doesn’t only pertain to the latest in technological advancements, which are ‘critically important’, but also to ‘the way we use that technology’, because ‘how we say
something is just as important as what we say’.

“Cardinal Dolan also noted the importance of never caricaturing or stereotyping those who oppose the Magisterium. He exhorted that even when confronted with those who attempt to distort what the Church says, or who issue ‘mean, vicious, and outward attacks’, we must ‘always respond in charity and love’.

“On several occasions, I asked Deacon Nick, through my staff, for Protect the Pope to continue its good work in promoting and teaching the Catholic Faith, but to be careful not to take on individuals in the Church of opposing views through ad hominem and personal challenges. Unfortunately, this was not taken on board.

“Consequently, as a last resort, on March 3 and in a personal meeting with Deacon Nick Donnelly, I requested, as his Diocesan Ordinary, that Deacon Nick ‘pause’ all posting on the Protect the Pope website so as to allow for a period of prayer and reflection upon his position as an ordained cleric with regards to Protect the Pope and his own duties towards unity, truth and charity.

“The fact that this decision and our personal dialogue was made public on the Protect the Pope site and then misinterpreted by third parties is a matter of great regret. In fact, new posts continued on the site after this date – the site being handed over and administered/moderated in this period by Deacon Nick’s wife, Martina.

“On April 13 Deacon Nick requested in writing that he be allowed to resume posting again from the date: Monday April 21. I did not accept this request as the period of discernment had not yet concluded.

“Again, the fact that this decision was forced, misinterpreted and then released publicly on the site – and miscommunicated by certain media outlets and blogs – claiming that I had effectively ‘closed’, ‘supressed’ or ‘gagged’ Protect the Pope was regrettable and does not represent the truth of this situation. To be clear: I have not closed down Protect the Pope.

“I am certainly aware of the need of the Church and the Diocese of Lancaster to engage positively with the new media, social media, blogs, and the internet for the sake of spreading the Gospel to the people of our age. Indeed, our Diocese has a good track record of such engagement in reaching out to a much wider audience through our active use of the new communication technologies. I have a weekly blog myself.

“I am, of course, also conscious, that no bishop can ever ‘close down’ or supress blogs and websites – such a claim would be absurd. Bishops can and must, however, be faithful to their apostolic duty to preserve the unity of the Church in the service of the Truth. They must ensure that ordained clergy under their care serve that unity in close communion with them and through the gift of their public office: preaching the Truth always – but always in love.”

Ah, the Truth! Pity this seems to be the Jonathan Aitken version of the "trusty sword of truth".

To be clear: Bishop Campbell, you HAVE closed down Protect the Pope! 

Concordat Watch: an epistle to

I came across a particularly virulent anti-Catholic Blog this morning called Concordat Watch. They begin their invective against the Church by averring, or havering: “A concordat is a legal agreement between a country and the Vatican. It can set up a theological fiefdom where certain human rights do not apply — and where they can never again be reintroduced without the consent of the Catholic Church. This is why concordats represent a fundamental threat to both democracy and human rights.”

I have sought to communicate with them in electronic epistolatory manner as follows:

"I refer to the section “Germany”, see: http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showsite.php?org_id=858

You begin by stating: “Just one of the “Fascist concordats” is still substantially in place. Italy has got rid of the Mussolini concordat, Spain has replaced the Franco concordat, Austria has eroded through amendments the Dollfuss concordat and Portugal has scrapped the concordat made with Salazar. Only Germany still retains its concordat with Hitler.”

I presume that the final sentence quoted above has been garbled in translation: “Only Germany still retains its concordat with Hitler.” This is meaningless. Germany made no treaties with Hitler. In points (1) and (2) above (should be “below”;  I had changed the running order of what I had written, went and made a cup of tea, came back and sent it forgetting to make consequent edits and then was unable to edit it after sending) I have presumed hat what was intended to be stated was: “Germany alone retains in force the concordat negotiated between the Holy See (and NOT the Vatican) and Germany under the Nazis.”

On that basis two points require to be made, firstly (point (1)), Italy, Spain, Austria and Portugal have freely decided how to deal with their various treaty obligations and entered into negotiation with the appropriate representatives of the Holy See to adjust things to their satisfaction. That was their right. Many of the German Lander have done exactly the same but have chosen, in some though not all cases, to keep things as they were, more or less. That was also their right. It is called the democratic process.

Secondly (point (2)), although some of the matters retained under the concordats between the various Lander and the Holy See are mirrored in the Reichskonkordat signed in Rome on July 20, 1933, it is not that which they have chosen to continue but the concordats made between the Holy See and some of the various German States during the Weimar Republic 1919-33): Bavaria (March 29, 1924); Prussia (June 14, 1929), and; Baden (October 12, 1932). I need only refer you to “Religion and Law in Germany” by Professor Gerhard Robbers of the University of Trier (and a judge of the Constitutional Court of Rhineland-Palatinate).

You conclude this section by stating: “… no one got excommunicated, as is generally the case when churchmen violate Church doctrine.” That is a blatant falsehood. There is absolutely no “generally” about it. Members of the Church find it very difficult to get themselves excommunicated. And not just in Germany where currently a few Bishops and, indeed, one Cardinal in the opinion of orthodox Catholics like myself well merit such interdiction. It is also the case almost else- and everywhere. And most particularly in the USA. Think John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Mario and Andrew Cuomo.

I realise from the entirely biased, indeed bigoted, tenor of the content of your Blog that objective truth will hold little attraction for you and so I hold out no prospect of the preceding being of any interest or consequence to you. But where there’s life… I suppose."

Funnily enough, leaving aside the tenor and intent of their commentary, this site was extremely helpful to me in enabling me to get access to translations of concordats I was interested in for a piece of research I am doing for an article (hopefully) on the election of bishops. 

Harriet Harman: The Herald fails again

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

On Tuesday, February 25, in response to an article in the Herald (same date) I sent in the Letter to the Editor copied below.

Dear Sir

In 1997, Peter Tatchell wrote, in part, to the editor of another newspaper: “While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.” (Guardian, June 26, 1997)

This echoed what Dr Edward Brongersma, a Dutch politician and academic wrote in the The Magpie, the Mag(azine) of the P(aedophile) I(nformation) E(xchange) in the late 1970s: “A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.”

The Paedophile Information Exchange had been affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberty from 1975. That affiliation was not terminated until eight years later when it had become an embarrassment.

In 1976, the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee considering a proposed Protection of Children Bill — proposed over  concerns related to child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children  — claiming that the Bill would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’. Then echoing their good Dr Brongersma and presaging their good friend — then as now — Tatchell, it stated: “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage. The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.’

Harriet Harman, who had been employed as a solicitor by Brent Law Centre since 1974, and therefore must have been fully aware of all that the NCCL was up to, was appointed the NCCL Legal Officer in 1978. Her husband, Jack Dromey, Shadow Minister for Communities and Local Government, sat on its executive 1970-79.

Can either point to anything they did, said or wrote at that time that distanced themselves from these disgusting positions? A letter of resignation for example?

Yours etc

Today (Wednesday, February 26) they found it fitting to find room for letters on: food banks (one); litter (two); Coronation Street (one); phoning BT (one); Giraltar football (one), and; Mauchline and curling (one). I cannot and do not complain about the five published all much longer than mine relating to Scottish politics and flying visits by UK and Scottish cabinets to Aberdeen. But a topic which this morning has seen several other newspapers take up or continue the story, and The Times of London devote an editorial to it, is not deemed worthy of (less expensive) comment by The Herald? Surpassing strange. Bearing in mind that on the last occasion I submitted a Letter to the Editor which they saw fit to publish, they also saw fit to delete a very telling point against the homosexualist lobby — homosexuals fell outwith the ambit of the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942, and thus had no part in the Final Solution and their attendance at Holocaust Memorials was an affront to common decency; they were not marked out for extermination and were sentenced to hard labour and NOT the gas chambers; and, yes, many did die of starvation, untreated illness, other neglect and by murder at the hands of their gaolers, and quite possibly other prisoners but the numbers involved were more likely to be in the hundreds and not the thousands, let alone many thousands (I did not go into it to this length) — I am left to wonder whether The Herald is in hock to that lobby?

First Franciscan Consistory

Some interesting assignments of churches

Two assignments have a Scottish connection.

Cardinal Nichols is not expected to visit the Barras any time soon despite having been assigned as his titular church Santissimo Redentore e Sant’ Alfonso in via Merulana, the Redemptorist church in Rome dedicated to their founder. Neo-Gothic in design, that design was authored in the early 1850s by a Scot, George Wigley, the building being erected between 1855 and 1860. Wigley is often mistakenly identified as English because he was one of the thirteen founders of the Society of Saint Vincent DePaul in London in or about 1844 after he had written, at his friend Frederick Ozanam’s suggestion, some letters to The Tablet, then still a Catholic publication, about the organisation newly formed at Paris. (For non-Scottish readers, the Barras,a major mixed street/indoor market in the East End of Glasgow, is located in the parish of St Alphonsus. Many Catholic visitors to one of a Sunday take the opportunity to visit the other.)

The Korean Cardinal, Andrew Yeom Soo-jung (70, South Korea), was assigned the church of San Crisogono (the martyr Chrysogonus). This was the titular church of Gioacchino Pecci, Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903). This Pope Leo’s first formal act on the first working day following his coronation (Monday, March 4, 1878) was to sign Ex supremo Apostolatus apice, the Apostolic Letter by which the Episcopal Hierarchy in Scotland was restored. A further Scottish interest derives from the fact that Archbishop Leo Cushley’s first boss when he was missioned to Burundi was Archbishop Emil Paul Tscherrig (67, Swiss). He was later Apostolic Nuncio to South Korea, and Mongolia, 2004-08.

San Crisogono had earlier been the titular church of Camillo Borghese, Pope Paul V (1605-21). This particular Borghese Pope is admired in some quarters for purportedly having put out a contract on the life of a canon lawyer who had seriously discomfited him, Fr Paolo Sarpi, and, in others, for having founded “il Banco di Santo Spiritu” (The Bank of the Holy Sprit). This was the first national bank in Europe (being the bank of the Papal States) and the first bank in Rome in which the general public could lodge funds (and receive loans from). (The Vatican only lost control of the bank when it was nationalised by Mussolini’s Fascist government in 1935).

The photograph below of the Korean Bishops and His Excellency Archbishop Tscherrig was taken in St Peter’s Basilica on the morning of Monday, November 26, 2007. The second consistory of Pope Benedict’s pontificate had been held on the Saturday before. The Korean bishops were on their ad limina pilgrimage. I believe Cardinal Yeom Soo-yung is third from the right (the second prelate on the right).

Before the consistory, there were 157 titular churches in Rome and 13 of them had no cardinal protector. However, 16 of the new cardinals were being assigned to the order of Cardinals Priest (the presbyteral order of cardinals). In consequence, three of the new cardinals were assigned new titular churches established on the day (February 22, 2014) especially for this consistory: Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin (59), Santi Simone e Giuda Taddeo a Torre Angela (Saints Simon and Jude Thaddeus); Chibly Langlois, Bishop of Les Cayes, Haiti, San Giacomo in Augusta, and; Fernando Sebastián Aguilar (84, Spain), Sant’ Angela Merici.

One of Pope Francis’s first acts as Pope was to appoint his former Auxiliary Bishop (2002-08) Mario Aurelio Poli (66) to succeed himself as Archbishop of Buenos Aires. He has now also assigned him his own former titular church, San Roberto Bellarmino.

Philippe Nakellentuba Ouédraogo (69, Burkino Faso) was assigned Santa Maria Consolatrice al Tiburtino, which had been Pope Benedict XVI’s titular church.

Cardinal Eijk: Dominus Iesus revisited

Mark de Vries is a 34-year-old lay Catholic from the Netherlands who converted at the start of Easter of 2007. He has a most interesting Blog “In Caelo et in Terra”, see: http://incaelo.wordpress.com/

Recently Mark has been recording and commenting on a brouhaha which has erupted over recent comments of Cardinal Eijk on the Council of Trent. Dutc Protestants, seemingy, are incensed at a Catholic Church prelate, a Cardinal no less, speaking the truth AS CATHOLICS SEE IT; well, at least faithful Catholics. This has reminded me of our own little local difficulty when the CDF released Dominus Iesus in 2000. And so I copy below an unpublished article I wrote at that time regarding misinterpretations and misrepresentations (lies, you might say and you might not be so very wrong) published in both The Times and The (Glasgow) Herald.

Dominus Iesus

by Hugh McLoughlin

Magnus Linklater in The Times (7 September, 2000) stated that in his opinion Dominus Iesus might well have been intended as “the first stirrings of a papal campaign”, that it “sets out the official position on church unity” and “will dismay many ordinary Catholics.”

In short: it wasn’t, it didn’t, and it shouldn’t have.

And Linklater would have known this had he even bothered to read as far as paragraph 2 of the document wherein it is written: “In considering the values which these religions witness to and offer humanity, with an open and positive approach, the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions states: ‘The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men’.”

Linklater also went on to state that: “Superficially Dominus Jesus (sic) adds little new to Catholic doctrine.”

Nonsense! It added absolutely NOTHING new to Catholic doctrine.

As Archbishop, now Cardinal, Tarcisio Bertone, the then Secretary of the Supreme Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made clear at the press conference held to launch Dominus Iesus, it was simply a “Declaration” and as such it was “not teaching new doctrine, but rather reaffirming and summarising the doctrine of the Catholic faith defined or taught in previous documents of the Church’s magisterium, indicating its correct interpretation, in face of doctrinal errors or ambiguities diffused in today's theological and ecclesial ambience.”

In the Scottish press, The (Glasgow) Herald columnist Ron Ferguson (sometime Church of Scotland minister) noted that in a recent radio interview Fr Danny McLoughlin (no relation), then of the Scottish Catholic Press Office, had stated that he regretted if “members of non-Christian churches” had been offended. Ferguson then went on to snidely remark that he presumed that this was “a simple mistake, and not a Freudian slip” on Fr Danny’s part.

It was neither.

Another gem from the Linklater pen: “It goes on to examine other Churches including the Church of England.” Oh no it didn’t! And barely mentioned them, except in passing.

Tarcisio Bertone’s boss, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, stated quite clearly at the press conference that it was written not with the ongoing discussions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant and Anglican churches in mind, but rather the affairs of the Catholic Church in relation to the non-Christian (and, indeed, non-Jewish) churches. As the Document puts it the concern was with and in: “the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other religious traditions” (Introduction, paragraph 3).

Neither the Church of England, nor the Church of Scotland (nor, indeed, any other Protestant church) is anywhere mentioned in the Document, but section IV on Unicity and Unity of the Church does, indeed, apply to them. However, if the document is read carefully there is nothing therein that will surprise anyone, Catholic, or Protestant, or Anglican.

(The Vatican always distinguishes between Protestant and Anglican. In part this goes back to Pio nono, Pope Pius IX, and his anxious desire that Blessed Dominic Barberi’s crusade to convert England should go well. There was great rejoicing in the Papal household when word reached Rome that this saintly Passionist had received John Henry Newman into Holy Mother Church.)

Paragraphs 16 and 17 in that section are simply a re-statement of Catholic Church teaching from Vatican II onwards: absolutely nothing new, controversial, frightening or offensive for anyone already involved in ecumenical dialogue. And that is a lot more than can be said for the uninformed offerings of the various pundits supposedly in the know which were inflicted on us at the time of the document’s publication.

Essentially the text here simply restates what we Catholics have held, hold now, and always will hold to be the case: that the Church of Rome is the one, true, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that the Orthodox Churches can claim ─ despite the Schism, which arguably in any case might not really have been a true Schism since neither side at the time authoritatively excommunicated or anathematised the other (at least as far as I am aware) ─ direct apostolic succession and are, therefore, most close to our Catholic hearts.

So how then could Linklater talk of the “ecumenical movement” being “saddened” or even “horrified”? (Whatever the “ecumenical movement” actually is or was meant by him to be.) Presumably he thought that it consisted entirely of people like him who had not taken the time to read the Document, never mind attempted to understand it within its proper context.

Ah, context!

Although formally addressed to the “bishops, theologians, and all the Catholic faithful”, Dominus Iesus was primarily aimed at Catholic theologians working as either missionaries or as “native” priests, or in some other way involved with both of these categories. Most especially, Dominus Iesus was meant as a cautionary restatement of authentic Church teaching for the benefit of those working in the Indian sub-continent, parts of Africa, and South East Asia.

The late Archbishop Marcello Zago, then Secretary of the Congregation for Evangelization, and himself a former missionary priest in Laos, tried to put the document into its proper context in an interview with the Vatican News Agency, FIDES.

He said in part: “Too many theologians question the need for evangelization, and refrain from suggesting conversion from another religion.” (ie from a non-Christian religion!) He went onto say: “… the Church’s claim to offer the unique and complete means to salvation has prompted sharp opposition from some Asian religions ― particularly Hindus in India and Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere. Some Christian missionaries respond by watering down the content of the Catholic faith and this is a mistake.”

Cardinal Burke

In light of the storm in a Roman coffee cup stirred up by Pope Francis not renewing Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke's membership of the Congregation for Bishops, I thought it might be opportune to publish here a piece I wrote on him five-and-a--half years ago (May 2008). But first, some common sense.

When, shortly after Pope Francis was elected, it was announced that all superiors of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia were to continue in post “donec aliter provideatur”, that is pending any future possible arrangements being made, in effect until further notice, one important point was not highlighted and only became clear when Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, sostituto (Secretary of State Substitute for General Affairs, effectively the Papal Chief of Staff) was interviewed by L’Osservatore Romano on May 1 (published May 2). The operation of the “quinquennium” had also been suspended.

Normally, appointments to positions within the Roman Curia are for a five year term (the quinquennium). This is stipulated by Article 5 §1 of Pastor Bonus: “The prefect or president, the members of the body mentioned in art. 3, § 1 (that is the dicasteries, the various departments of the Roman Curia), the secretary, and the other senior administrators, as well as the consultors, are appointed by the Supreme Pontiff for a five-year term.”

When Cardinal Burke was appointed a member of the Congregation for the Clergy it was doubtless felt that he was up to speed with who was who and what was what at home in the USA. After more than five years in Rome that quite clearly can no longer be the case. So why NOT get someone else in who DOES know what side is up?

I cannot for the life of me see any reason to regard this as some sort of purgation.

Anyway, back to what I wrote over five years ago (slightly edited).

Burke’s Law

Raymond Leo Burke did not exactly rise without trace to succeed His Eminence Justin Cardinal Rigali as Archbishop of St Louis.

His academic record alone makes him stand out from the clerical and, indeed, prelatial crowd. Majoring in Philosophy, he graduated BA and MA from the Catholic University of America (1970 and ’71 respectively); STB (Bachelor of Sacred Theology), Pontifical Gregorian University (1974); MA (Theology), Gregorian (1975); Licentiate in Canon Law (LCJ), Gregorian (1982); Diploma in Latin Letters, Gregorian (1983); Doctor of Canon Law (JCD, specialising in Jurisprudence), Gregorian (1984).

It is hardly surprising that Archbishop Burke’s only known hobby is reading!

Ordained priest in St Peter’s Basilica by one Pope ― Paul VI, on June 29, 1975 ― and bishop at the same venue by another ― John Paul II, on January 6, 1995 ― he had between times been appointed as both a visiting Professor of Canonical Jurisprudence at the Pontifical Gregorian University (1985-94) and (in 1989) the first American Defender of the Bond for the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (he succeeded Fr William O'Connell OFM; when Cardinal Winning returned to Scotland in 1966 and became my PP at St Luke's, North Forgewood, Motherwell, it was wrongly asserted that he was the only British priest who was an Advocate of the Sacred Roman Rota; obviously Fr Willie and he made two) (Pope Benedict would later appoint the by then Archbishop Burke a Member of the College of Judges of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, in July 2006). Pope John Paul II named him a Prelate of Honour (Rt Rev Mgr) on 12 August 1993.

On November 23, 2003, the Solemnity of Christ the King, while still Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, Mgr Burke issued a Notification to the clergy of his diocese in which he pointed out that he was bound to be “solicitous for all the faithful entrusted to my care” (Code of Canon Law, canon 383 §1).

His went on to explain that in conformity with the teaching contained in Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, the document promulgated by the United States Conference of Bishops, he had “a fundamental responsibility of safeguarding and promoting the respect for human life” and, therefore, it was his duty “to explain, persuade, correct and admonish those in leadership positions who contradict the gospel of life through their actions and policies.”

He reminded the clergy that His Holiness Pope John Paul II had frequently reminded us that “those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Doctrinal Notes on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life [November 24,  2002, n4 §1])

The Notification then spells out the obvious: “A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion or euthanasia, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Universal Church law provides that such persons are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (CCL, canon 915).

Within his then diocese, three Catholics active in politics ― two state representatives and a congressman ― had supported anti-life legislation and had ignored their bishop’s request for them to call on him and discuss the matter. Renewing his call for these Catholic legislators to “uphold the natural and divine law regarding the inviolable dignity of all human life”, Archbishop Burke reminded them again that to fail to do so “is a grave public sin and gives scandal to all the faithful” and he formally cautioned them that if they continued to support procured abortion or euthanasia then they “may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion.”

He then went further than any other member of the American hierarchy had previously done and instructed his clergy that if these legislators did present themselves for Holy Communion “they are not to be admitted…until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust practices.”

This created a sensation not merely in Wisconsin, and not solely within the Catholic Church, but throughout North America and, indeed, around the world. That sensation as well as spreading among the believers of other Christian communities, also stirred adherents of different religions and of none. And it didn't solely generate opposition.

The way of La Crosse

The American Life League, which with over 370,000 members is one of the biggest pro-life groups in the States, launched a campaign to mark the 31^st anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wade-v-Roe which legalised abortion. It featured Mgr Burke’s clear and concise statement and, naturally, they called their campaign “The way of La Crosse”.

From scarcely being a household name in his own back yard, Mgr Burke soon rocketed not only onto the national, but also onto the international stage. For, no sooner had he been translated to the Archdiocese of St Louis, Missouri, than a supposedly Catholic Democratic candidate for the Presidency rolled into town. When asked by a local journalist what would happen if Senator John Kerry approached his altar rail at Communion, the newly installed archbishop could only give but one reply: “I would have to admonish him not to present himself for Communion. I might give him a blessing or something. If his archbishop has told him he should not present himself for Communion, he shouldn’t. I agree with Archbishop O’Malley.”

(Archbishop, now Cardinal, O’Malley, who had then but recently replaced Cardinal Law in Boston, had called on legislators who do not support the Gospel of Life to refrain of their own volition from presenting themselves for the Blessed Sacrament. But, of course, Archbishop Burke was going further.)

This, then, was one American Roman Catholic bishop prepared to refuse Holy Communion to a potential President of the United States of America. Inside the Vatican named him one of the top-ten People of the Year along with the likes of Mel Gibson and Dolores Hart. (“Dolores who?” You might well ask. Well, Dolores was in her younger days only the first ever actress to kiss Elvis Presley on screen. Now living the contented life of a Benedictine nun, many years later asked: “What is it like kissing Elvis?” She chuckled a bit at the memory and then said: “I think the limit for a screen kiss back then was something like 15 seconds. That one has lasted 40 years.” HT Wikipedia. )

But critics were not hard to find, especially among the ranks of the “liberal” Catholics.

William Bablitch, a former Justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, was quoted as having said: “Certainly the bishop has every right to express his own views to an elected official. But to invoke the moral authority of the Church in a threatening way (!) to a legislator seems to cross over a line that has been very carefully drawn and is very well respected in this country.”

Strange might it seem to us on this older side of the Atlantic that a Catholic judge would regard as being “threatening” a Bishop advising members of his flock of the mortal danger to their souls of their own actions. Thankfully, however, two Catholic American Professors of Law also found that odd.

Robert George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Programme in American Ideals at Princeton University, and Gerard Bradley is Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame and President of the American Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. In National Review Online they defended Archbishop Burke. 

They argued that since the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress are professed Catholics who support the so-called “woman’s right to choose”, it was about time that a member of the American hierarchy spoke out. Noting that he has been called a “fanatic” ― surprise, surprise by a Professor of Theology at a Jesuit run University ― and of having “crossed the line” (see Bablitch above), they dismissed both ideas as being absurd. They pointed out that Archbishop Burke had merely exercised his constitutional right to the free expression of his religion and that in doing so he was “not denying others of their rights. No one is compelled by law to accept his authority. But Bishop Burke has every right to exercise his spiritual authority over anyone who chooses to accept it. There is a name for such people. They are called Catholics.”