In All Things

The Church of England's Parliament, known as the General Synod, meets this week, beginning today with an announcement on women bishops which is certain to have an impact on the numbers of Anglican traditionalists choosing to take up the Pope's ordinariate offer.

Synod voted two years ago to move towards consecrating women bishops, but is yet to come up with a formula for doing so which doesn't at the same time alienate traditionalists who oppose the move. Suggestions of an "alternative network" of traditionalist bishops overseeing traditionalist parishes -- an extension of the current "flying bishops" model -- have so far failed; and the so-called "Revision Committee" -- created to examine the various options -- will say today (a) that their work is unfinished, and will be until at least July; (b) that attempts to find a safe space for traditionalists have not succeeded. Ruth Gledhill at The Times has been leaked today's speech by the bishop in charge of the Revision Committee, whose tortuous language and stupendous opacity will give little comfort to opponents of a female episcopate.

The circle is closing on the traditionalists in other ways. Ruth writes:

The existing three flying bishop posts are to be abolished and not replaced. Instead, any women consecrated bishops will be asked to “delegate” authority to another bishop, such as a suffragan, to carry out confirmations and other episcopal duties in parishes that refuse to accept her ministry.

Does this make it more likely that C of E traditionalists will accept the Pope's ordinariate offer? Yes and no. For those that have already decided, in principle, to accept the offer and are waiting on the details, it will confirm their decision. But the view among most traditionalists I have spoken to is that an early exodus would weaken their attempts to safeguard the 'Catholic' place in the Church of England. Supporters of women bishops be able to say, in effect, "they're going anyway. Why agree to what they want?" As long as traditionalists remain in the C of E, the threat of their departure is likely to make supporters of women bishops more likely to negotiate.

Hence the decision by leading Anglo-Catholic bishops -- including those who went to Rome to ask for the ordinariate -- to postpone their response to the Pope's offer. Initially they had scheduled 22 February as the day in which they would vote on whether to accept the ordinariate offer and begin negotiations with the bishops of England and Wales. One of the "flying bishops", Andrew Burnham, told the BBC that 22 February had been designated as "an appropriate day for priests and people to make an initial decision as to whether they wish to respond positively to and explore further the initiative of the Apostolic Constitution". But this had assumed that this week's Synod would debate the Revision Committee's proposals for accommodating opponents of women bishops. Because that debate has been delayed until the Synod next meets in York on 9-13 July, the flying bishops now view 22 February "as a day of discernment and prayer, and not a day of decision".

So what was going to be a major Easter story -- a vote by most of the traditionalists on whether to explore further the ordinariate -- looks like it's been kicked into the long grass.

But my hunch is that there will still be some parishes who will vote anyway to negotiate with the Catholic bishops, because they have long since given up on Synod. They will be few in number. But what they negotiate will open up a path for the majority of traditionalists to go down after the summer, helping to assuage their fears.

A well-briefed, media-trained speakers' bureau of Catholics is being set up in the UK in advance of Benedicts XVI's visit in September. Declaration of interest: I'm one of those behind it.

Catholic Voices is a project of the Catholic Union, a venerable institution created in the late nineteenth century to raise the voice of the Church in the public sphere, whose president, Lord Brennan, is one of the project's patrons, along with a Benedictine abbot, Christopher Jamison, known to millions through his role in the hit BBC series The Monastery.

Zenit has the story here, the Guardian here. The Catholic voices website is here.

Without mentioning us, the Tablet columnist Clifford Longley makes an excellent case for Catholic Voices in this week's issue.

He writes of his frustration at the media spin that developed around the Pope's remarks to the English and Welsh bishops on Monday (see earlier post). Although the Pope was almost certainly not referring to the Government's Equality Bill recently rejected by the House of Lords, but to the anger felt by Catholics at the forced closure of their adoption agencies following legislation enacted in 2007 -- in other words, about past, not current, legislation -- the template set by the media assumed that this was an "unprecedent intervention" (BBC) in UK politics, which was "improper" according to one commentator. 

Clifford explained the facts to one correspondent, whose paper still ran the "pope-intervenes-in-UK-politics" story. "I later asked the correspondent who had rung me why the false interpretation had persisted beyond the point at which it had been realised," writes Clifford, "and the reply was: 'As you know, sometimes newspapers are afraid to be a lone voice'." The story had been fixed in a particular way, and a result "for ever and a day, people will believe that the Pope had joined the debate over legislation before Parliament, and they also believe this was in some way unprecedented and ... uttterly improper". 

The template here is about religion, and Catholicism in particular, as an anti-progressive force in society. So even if the Pope didn't mean to attack the Equality Bill, the "greater truth" served by this type of news reporting was that he would have done if he had thought of it. And never mind that he was speaking carefully, defending the church's religious freedom while praising the British tradition of freedom of speech, and indeed, of promoting equality. He was deemed to be trampling all over gay rights in general, not to mention parliamentary sovereignty.

And he concludes:

What the Catholic Church neeeds is a sophisticated media-rebuttal unit that knows the way the media thinks, and than can intervene to put out media fires before they can take hold. Sometimes spin-doctoring is a necessary evil.

The UK media outcry over Pope Benedict's remarks Monday to the English and Welsh bishops caught me by surprise. 'Anger as Pope slams UK equality law' is the Press Association headline, which could stand for all the others. 

The Pope told the English and Welsh bishops in Rome:

Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. 

His words have been interpreted by the BBC and The Times and almost everyone else as referring to the Equality Bill now before Parliament, which consolidates the past 40 years of equality legislation by expanding rules stopping employers from discriminating against gay employees because of their sexuality. Churches and religious organisations are currently exempt from the legislation, but last week an amendment to the Bill aimed at closing that loophole. It was defeated in the House of Lords with help from the Anglican bishops who are also exposed to any expansion of the equality legislation.

But it as more likely that Pope Benedict was referring more generally to a series of laws enacted by Parliament implementing European anti-discrimination legislation, which have already resulted in the closure of Catholic adoption agencies.

Behind the row is a conflict between legal equality and religious freedom. And behind that is a dispute over the role of the state.

The Labor Government has increasingly adopted a secularist view more typical of the French than the English, one that  assumes that the state conditions society rather than the other way round. This conflicts with with the Church's view that the state should not attempt to impose any one cultural norm but should regulate the public sphere to ensure basic standards and fair play. Because the cultural norm in this case -- the view that gay unions are equal to marriage -- violates the Church's understanding of the human person, Pope Benedict's opposition is all the stronger.

Because gay rights are regarded as one of the great achievements of the Labor Government, the fury at that opposition has not been backward in coming forward. The National Secular Society (NSS) is mounting a broad protest movement ("Protest the Pope") against Benedict XVI's visit which includes secularists, gay groups, family planning organisations, pro-abortion groups and “anyone who feels under siege from the Vatican’s current militancy”.

While the Pope objects to the state imposing cultural norms alien to the Christian conception of the human person, the secularists object to the UK state ('Make the Pope pay') footing the estimated £20m cost of the papal visit. Their view is that the taxpayer is funding the visit of a foreign potentate whose bigotry flies in the face of British tolerance.

Add to this mix bruised Anglican sensibilities over the ordinariate proposal and a dash of traditional English distrust of Rome, and the visit starts to look distinctly exciting. There are many live wires involved, and Pope Benedict seems happy to trip over all of them. No wonder Ruth Gledhill, The Times religious correspondent, says today: "Pope Benedict XVI is a religion correspondent's total dream. What fantastic news he makes."

Pope Benedict XVI has given the first official Vatican confirmation that he will be visiting the UK in September to beatify Cardinal Newman. The full text of his address to the English and Welsh bishops at the conclusion of their ad limina visit is here.

He doesn't give any further details, nor even names the date, although 16-18 September is circulating among the bishops. The fact that he doesn't suggests that the itinerary is still very much under discussion. Perhaps he is leaving it to the bishops to give the details, which have been at the heart of their discussions in Rome. 

The Pope's address homes in on the battles in Britain currently being fought over equality legislation, especially in relation to gay people, which have a strong potential impact on the capacity of Catholic organizations to remain true to their beliefs while at the same time receive public funding.

"Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society," he tells the bishops. "Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

He calls for a robust Catholic presence in public conversation, appealing to the British tradition of free speech:

"Continue to insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society. In doing so, you are not only maintaining long-standing British traditions of freedom of expression and honest exchange of opinion, but you are actually giving voice to the convictions of many people who lack the means to express them: when so many of the population claim to be Christian, how could anyone dispute the Gospel’s right to be heard?"

And he calls for the bishops to mobilize lay people to ensure that presence:

Make it your concern, then, to draw on the considerable gifts of the lay faithful in England and Wales and see that they are equipped to hand on the faith to new generations comprehensively, accurately, and with a keen awareness that in so doing they are playing their part in the Church’s mission. In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

These comments suggest that his UK visit will be a grand opportunity to pit Pope Benedict the defender of Reason + Faith against the apostles of scientism who promote a new, aggressive British -- although many would say very unBritish -- secularism. And the main tool of this counter-attack will be, of course, Cardinal Newman.

Cardinal Newman realized this, and he left us an outstanding example of faithfulness to revealed truth by following that “kindly light” wherever it led him, even at considerable personal cost. Great writers and communicators of his stature and integrity are needed in the Church today, and it is my hope that devotion to him will inspire many to follow in his footsteps.

He also calls for "generosity" in implementing Anglicanorum coetibus, his apostolic constitution which allows for the creation of ecclesial structures to accommodate Anglicans wishing to cross the Tiber while retaining their River Thames swimwear. "I am convinced that, if given a warm and open-hearted welcome, such groups will be a blessing for the entire Church," the Pope says.

The Economist's brilliant cover of a haloed Steve Jobs carrying his new iPad made me think that -- pace the Vatican spokesman's  warnings about obsessing with cyberspace  - Apple's new gizmo could well transform church life.

Christians already use their smartphones and handhelds to read the Breviary, or listen to meditations on Scripture, or check a Scripture reference. But the small screens make it hard work. I sometimes bring out my Palm to follow the Mass readings, but it's hard for older members of the congregation not to think I'm distracted by my mobile phone -- which in turn distracts me. Whereas the iPad is definitely for readers; that's its point. 

Spool forward, then, just a few years, to when the prevalence of the iPad and its inevitable competitors is taken for granted, when wasting paper is considered a serious sin. And imagine Sunday Mass at your local parish church, which by then is fitted with a wireless network. As the reader steps up to the ambo, people pick up their iPads and scroll to the reading of the day.

The problem would be how to get people just to stay with the text, which would be inevitably be crammed with hyperlinks and cross-references to other parts of Scripture -- not to mention the thoughts of exegetes which, the celebrant will vainly hope, would arrive via an app bearing the local bishop's Nihil Obstat.

But think of the advantages when it came to the parish notices, which would of course be downloaded directly from the parish server. The celebrant would ask all those who can make it to next Wednesday's meeting to press the "OK" next to the announcement, and an appointment is created in your electronic Calendar. No more "sorry, Father, I forgot to put in my diary."

Far-fetched? I don't think so.

Tony Blair, who gave evidence today to an enquiry in London set up to draw lessons from the Iraq disaster, has disappointed many people by refusing to express regret about his decision to go to war. "Unrepentant", "defiant",  "righteous" are some of the inevitable headline words, but they strike the wrong note. Having watched the final two hours of today's six-hour grilling, I think "tormented" better captures his state of mind.

His agony is not that of a man who has done wrong; he doesn't believe he has. "I genuinely believe that if we had left Saddam in power, even with what we know now, we would still have had to deal with him in circumstances when the threat was worse," he told the enquiry under Sir John Chilcot, "and possibly in circumstances when it was hard to mobilise any support for dealing with that threat." His argument throughout the day was that Saddam was a monster whose removal was necessary because of his willingness to manufacture WMD; the fact that no WMD were eventually found has not affected his judgement. "Suppose we backed off," he told the enquiry. "What we now know is that he retained absolutely the intent and intellectual know how to restart a nuclear and chemical weapons programme when weapons ­inspectors were out and the sanctions were changed." This view of Saddam was formed in the aftermath of 9/11; the attack on New York, Blair believed, "changed the calculus of risk". 

But he admitted that the mission came close to failure when Iran and Al-Qaeda exploited Saddam's removal to engage in a brutal strategy of destabilizing Iraq. "If we had known what we know now we would have done things very differently. People didn't think that al-Qaida and Iran would play the role that they did. It was really the external elements of al-Qaida and Iran that really caused this mission very nearly to fail."

Blair admitted to other failings: he said Britain had planned for a non-existent humanitarian disaster in the immediate wake of the invasion, but had not foreseen that the Iraqi state could not function. That's not a small admission. That's not a small failure.

The result of these errors, he did not say -- it didn't need saying -- was a massive loss of human life. You could see how much this weighed on him when one of the commissioners read to him the statistics on the violent deaths of Iraqis month by month over the period 2003-2007. As Blair rightly pointed out, these were not deaths caused by the Coalition but by murderous Islamic fanatics paid for by Iran and trained by Al Qaeda; but he knows that it was the Coalition's failure to ensure security in the post-invasion period which allowed the terrorists to move in so spectacularly.

So what Blair is left with are no regrets over the invasion, but a deep sense of responsibility for its massive human cost. 

That's not an easy place to be.

"I had to take this decision as prime minister," he said today. "It was a huge responsibility then and there is not a single day that passes by that I do not think about that responsibility, and so I should." You knew, watching him, that this was true. It torments him.

I imagine that this came up frequently in his 2007 process of becoming a Catholic. Is there anything you want to tell me? "I took my country into the Iraq war, Father."

He used the word "responsibility" again when asked if he had regrets. "Responsibility – but not a regret for removing Saddam Hussein", he said, to boos from the gallery. "I think he was a monster."

You can deplore his manic self-belief, his sometimes tortured arguments, and his unshakeable conviction. 

But my respect for Blair increased today. It is much easier, in many ways, to repent of something you now regret. How much harder it is to live with the cost of something you still believe was right. We who never faced - -nor will have ever to face --- a decision of that magnitude cannot imagine it. It doesn't make his decision right. But he does not flee the responsibility that came with it, and faces it every day.

A month away from the Vatican report on the future of the Legionaries of Christ, its head has written to its members asking for an end to damaging debates over the Congregation's future.

According to the Peru-based ACI Prensa, Fr Alvaro Corcuera has sent a letter to Legionaries to ask for charity and forgiveness to prevail in a vigorous internal debate between the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking members of the Congregation over how it should deal with the legacy of its now notorious founder, Fr Maciel Degollado.

A Legionary source tells the agency that (my translation) "it's about differences which more or less follow cultural and linguistic lines". Some mostly English-speaking Legionaries are calling for an open discussion of Maciel's double life and a "change in the internal culture" of the organization; while the other group, mostly Spanish and Portuguese-speaking, "believes the sins of the Founder should be put behind us" and the Congregation recalled to its "foundational spirit". 

In a 24 January letter, the Director General warns his fellow Legionaries that "the exchange of opinons by email between numerous groups of priests" ran the risk of "generating misunderstandings and oppositions."

He calls for a period of reflection in order to respond to "what God is calling us to at this time, especially through the guidelines we are expecting from the Holy See. For the time being let us leave the matter to mature in the hearts of each of us, helping us to purify and build this work to which God has called us".

Among the topics being vigorously discussed in the emails was the resignation of a prominent US Legionary, Fr Richard Gill, who left the Congregation over disagreements with its leaders over how to handle the Maciel legacy.

Catholics in Vietnam are mobilizing in prayer vigils following the savage beating of a Redemptorist priest amidst escalating violence by the Government against the Church, according to the Fides News Service in Rome.

The Redemptorists have sent a letter to the Hanoi authorities asking them to lift a siege of the church of Dong Chiem, according to the Order's Superior General, Fr. Michael Brehl.

"The situation is tense, not only for the Redemptorists but also for many lay people, especially those active in pastoral work", he told the agency.

The unrest began on January 6 when parishioners tried to stop a large contingent of police and troops who destroyed a crucifix on top of a mountain in Dong Chiem.

According to a report carried by Independent Catholic News:

"The attack is the latest incident in the parish, since the authorities blew up a cross in a cemetery on 6 January.  Following the destruction of the cross, on 20 January a delegation from the archdiocese went to the area to visit the parish. Redemptorist Fr Peter Nguyen Van Khai said they were set upon by police at Xay Bridge, about one-third of a mile from the church. A layman was slightly injured, but Redemptorist Br Anthony Nguyen Van Tang was beaten so severely by police that he lost consciousness."

Hanoi archdiocese says hundreds of anti-riot police, militiamen and plainclothes police are manning checkpoints and preventing people from entering the area. Loudspeakers are broadcasting  threatening messages around the clock. According to its statement, Dong Chiem’s pastor, Fr Nguyen Van Huu, and the assistant priest, Fr Nguyen Van Lien, have been repeatedly summoned and interrogated by police.

“Parishioners have been subjected to beatings and massive arrests,” it says, listing the names of 16 detainees.

In the past few days prayer vigils have been held in St. Joseph Cathedral in Hanoi as well as at the Redemptorist monastery in Ho Chi Minh City. The Provincial Superior of the Redemptorists in Vietnam, Fr. Vincent Pham Trung Thanh, celebrated a Mass before an assembly of more than 2,000 Catholics, calling in his homily for an end to the persecution.

The letter sent by the 300 Redemptorists in Vietnam to the Hanoi authorities call on them to lift the siege of the Church of Dong Chiem, to end the intimidation of Christians, to release arbitrarily detained prisoners, to prosecute those who attacked and hurt the Catholics and especially Br. Nguyen Van Tang, and to respect the freedom of religion and symbols of Christian faith.

An online petition has been launched (ht/ Ruth Gledhill) to protest the beatification of Pope Pius XII, expected next October together with that of Pope John Paul II.

The decision by Pope Benedict XVI to proceed with the beatification, made just before Christmas, has led to a spate of Jews spitting at Christians in Jerusalem.

The evidence is, in fact, considerable that Pius XII did an enormous amount to assist Jews facing Nazi persecution, both practically and prophetically -- but Jewish sceptics insist that only when the relevant Vatican archives are made available can that conclusion be reached.

Their case rests on the myth that Vatican archives are being kept "secret". The new petition for example calls on the Pope "to suspend the beatification process for Pope Pius XII until still-secret Vatican archives from World War II are declassified and made fully accessible". But they are not secret, and they do not need to be declassified. The problem is that they have not yet been catalogued -- a massive exercise which has only recently been completed for the pontificate of Pius XI. 

In spite of this, and in order to satisfy Jewish demands, the Vatican fast-tracked the cataloguing of 12 volumes of Pius XII archives and made them available to a joint Catholic-Jewish panel of six historians to study. But the panel fell apart after its Jewish members complained that they weren't being given access to the "full" records. (See the statement in Osservatore Romano by the Pius XII relator, Fr Peter Gumpel SJ, here).

Pope Benedict has not been rushed into the decision to beatify Pius XII: he has studied the evidence and taken advice for two years. He knows that the archives, when they are finally catalogued and studied, will not contradict the evidence that Pius XII assisted the Jews.

But that won't stop Jewish-Catholic relations becoming more tense in 2010, with likely repercussions (because everything here is interrelated) on Vatican-Israeli relations. That may make it harder for Rome to speak out more forcefully against the Israeli strangulation of Bethlehem and the annexation of Palestinian Christian lands.

On the other hand, a little tough talking on both sides may make it easier to name a few uncomfortable truths.

Here in Barcelona I've just finished a long, noisy family lunch which began with children opening presents. Today, the Feast of the Epiphany -- we've lost sight of it in the US and the UK, since it was merged with last Sunday -- is the day when, in Spain, gifts are given, commemorating those presented by the magi to the Holy Family.

It's a beautiful tradition, which theologically makes much sense: Christmas Day is a feast day, when families come together as they do in the rest of the Christian world; but today, the "Day of the Magi", families gather again to exchange presents. Young children learn that the Kings came during the night on their dromedaries bringing them gifts (in Mexico, apparently, children leave their shoes filled with hay for the camels to eat). No reindeer or chimneys here, and the three kings are much more universal than our Nordic old man, representing, as they do, Europe, Arabia and Africa. 

Last night we went out on the street to meet the Kings -- each barrio here organises floats with elaborately dressed magi, who toss candy as they go past. The children recognise the Kings with the same ease as children in the UK and US do Father Christmas -- and they shouted their names as they passed: Gaspar! Melchior! Balthazar!

Our Epiphany lunch ended with a Roscón de Reyes, a cake made with orange blossom water and butter, and decorated with candied fruit. Baked inside was the figure of baby Jesus and a bean: the one who gets the first wins the euros we all contributed; the one who gets the bean pays for the cake.

It's a great reminder that it's still Christmas -- at least until tomorrow.

So whatever you're doing today: Felices Reyes!

The former primate of all Ireland, Cardinal Cahal Daly, who died on New Year's Eve aged 92, was the Irish Church's leading intellectual. As a priest he wrote background papers for the bishops attending the Second Vatican Council; as a bishop he worked tirelessly for peace and ecumenism, speaking out forcefully against the IRA's mystique of violence. He was made Archbishop of Armagh in 1990 by Pope John Paul II after eight years as bishop of Down and Connor at the height of the sectarian murders in his native northern Ireland. 

He wrote many books, including The Minding of the Planet Earth in 2004, a lodestar for Christian ecologists whose call on the Churches to make the environment a theological issue fell often at the time on deaf ears -- see his Tablet interview on the issue here.

His period as Primate (1990-1996) would have been outstanding were it not for the Irish Church's crucifixion over its handling of abuse allegations. Cardinal Daly was an outstanding theologian and bishop --- but by the time he had a platform to match his abilities, the Irish had stopped listening.   

There is an excellent obituary by Louis McRedmond in the Guardian, while his role in the peace process is detailed in the Telegraph. The Irish Times obit is here, and The Times of London -- also very good -- is here.

I met him once. He was a good man: clever, holy, wise.