Jubilee of Prisoners

The Jubilee of Prisoners is being marked in the days 12th-14th December 2025, with events taking place in Rome. In his Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year (n.10), Pope Francis suggested that signs of hope should particularly be offered to prisoners:

During the Holy Year, we are called to be tangible signs of hope for those of our brothers and sisters who experience hardships of any kind. I think of prisoners who, deprived of their freedom, daily feel the harshness of detention and its restrictions, lack of affection and, in more than a few cases, lack of respect for their persons. I propose that in this Jubilee Year governments undertake initiatives aimed at restoring hope; forms of amnesty or pardon meant to help individuals regain confidence in themselves and in society; and programmes of reintegration in the community, including a concrete commitment to respect for law.

This is an ancient appeal, one drawn from the word of God, whose wisdom remains ever timely. It calls for acts of clemency and liberation that enable new beginnings: “You shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” ( Lev 25:10). This institution of the Mosaic law was later taken up by the prophet Isaiah: “The Lord has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour” ( Is 61:1-2). Jesus made those words his own at the beginning of his ministry, presenting himself as the fulfilment of the “year of the Lord’s favour” (cf. Lk 4:18-19). In every part of the world, believers, and their Pastors in particular, should be one in demanding dignified conditions for those in prison, respect for their human rights and above all the abolition of the death penalty, a provision at odds with Christian faith and one that eliminates all hope of forgiveness and rehabilitation. In order to offer prisoners a concrete sign of closeness, I would myself like to open a Holy Door in a prison, as a sign inviting prisoners to look to the future with hope and a renewed sense of confidence.

In England and Wales, the Catholic Church engages in a ministry to prisoners and their families/friends through the annual Prisoners' Sunday/Prisons Week and the work of the Prison Advice and Care Trust (PACT).

Prisons Week aims to encourage prayer and awareness of the needs of prisoners and their families, victims of offenders, prisons staff and all those who care.

Pact is a pioneering national charity that supports prisoners, people with convictions, and their children and families. We are the leading Catholic charity working in the criminal justice system. We provide caring and life-changing services at every stage of the justice process: in court, in prison, on release, and in the community.

Prison ministry is also a work stream of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, with Bishop Richard Moth designated as a liaison between the Bishops' Conference and prisons.

One particular initiative in favour of prisoners is the International Prison Outreach of Alive Publishing. 

International Prison Outreach is an initiative supported through the kindness and generosity of our readers through which we provide subscriptions to Bible Alive, books and other Christian resources to prisoners throughout the world.

Through the generosity of our readers we are able to send Bible Alive into prisons in the UK, Ireland, Scotland, Europe and overseas.

In the annual mailing for this initiative, the tradition of Bishops visiting prisons to celebrate Mass on Christmas morning is also recalled. 

A measured comment on the Synodal pathway

 I have previously posted on the Synodal pathway: Synodality - without discernment? and   Synodality: Initial reflections of the Bishops' Conference . My key thought from these posts is that, as it is developing to date, the Synodal process lacks that dimension of discernment that I believe is a key component of the idea of synodality.

I recently came across a more complete assessment of the Synodal process. Unfortunately it has been posted on a blog with a strong antipathy towards Pope Francis, but I have not been able to find an original text elsewhere. I link to it in this location, therefore, with considerable reluctance:  Fr. Jon Bielawski on the Synod. I think Fr Bielawski offers accurate and sensible comment on the reality of the Synodal process. 

I observed in one of my posts that perhaps we should never have expected large numbers of the faithful to take part in parish and diocesan based meetings to reflect on the Synod themes. Fr Bielawski makes a comparable point early in his comments with regard to the ability of most faithful to grasp the purpose of the synodal gatherings:

What was at first very vague, gained a bit more clarity as Pope Francis clearly stated that this synod and synodal process was to be clearly based on the principles of, “communion, participation and mission”. He also stated that it was not to be a platform for personal opinions and agendas but a prayerful exercise invoking the Holy Spirit for discernment. This latter point, I regard as a spiritually high level request which the majority of the faithful would struggle to comprehend or carry out. (In this country, at least, good efforts were made to educate people on these points but it is something that cannot be accomplished in one good talk or exhortation).

Fr Bielawski continued:

Despite these good intentions, in practice, the synodal process was carried out in random
manner and method across the country with varying levels of competency and neutrality. Also, it was carried out in the absence of many priests, who perceived their presence would restrict the process. (In my own parish, 20 took part – each person was allowed to speak on the 4 points but there was no discussion. Notes on the points were recorded. For each point we had some quiet prayer time before the Blessed Sacrament).

Due to this reality, the National Synthesis Document (NSD) was, to a great extent, a compilation of opinions and agendas which is exactly what it was not meant to be. 

After observing that many of the opinions expressed in the Synthesis Documents reflect currents of thought from the wider secular world rather than the inspiration of Catholic faith, Fr Bielawski observes:

It is of vital importance that we do not fudge the damaging impact of these opinions by imprecise language or ambiguous general statements that try to have a superficial conciliatory tone that says everything and nothing at the same time. For example, a ”welcoming church” can simply be that; where a church is, for example, open all day for anyone to enter and has a good “welcoming team” for masses and services. This is quite different to another understanding of “welcoming”, which is wanting to be open and inclusive to LGBT ideology and practice which abandons Catholic morality and attacks our very humanity and reason, causing havoc amongst the youth. 

Father ends his observations by suggesting that we focus on the third of the three Synod principles, that of mission. 

Synod/Synodality has to be at the service of mission and evangelisation and as a means to initiate it. Otherwise it becomes a displacement of, and distraction from the essential mission of the Church. Likewise, it must not provide a platform for a voice which contradicts and undermines the teachings of Christ which are integral with that mission/evangelisation. 

It is worth reading the whole of Fr Bielawski's observations and not just my extracts, so follow the link, though with my word of caution about the blog on which they have been posted. I think he has achieved a realism of comment without that element of antagonism towards the institution of the Church that marrs much other comment.

Synodality: Initial reflections of the Bishops' Conference

The Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales have published a reflection on the national synthesis document of the Synodal process. Both the national synthesis document and the Bishops' reflection can be found at the Bishops' Conference website: Seeking Our Hearts' Desire.

In a section entitled "The bishop's discernment of heart", the reflection recognises the office of discernment that is proper to the bishop in the life of his own diocese. There is also an encapsulation of the essential charism of communion, to which the more everyday, human dimensions of communion direct us:

In every diocese, the unity of the Church is guaranteed through the bond of communion with the bishop, joined in apostolic faith with the successor of Peter.

But in the section entitled "Hearing the broken hearted", we read the following:

The voices of those who feel marginalised or unwelcome because of their marital situation, sexual orientation or gender identity have been raised and heard sincerely. Equally, others who feel excluded from the life of the Church, or identify as being on the peripheries, have not been forgotten in our synodal process of encounter.

I suggested in my previous post Synodality - without discernment? a discernment that could be offered with regard to those who feel marginalised because of their marital situation or LGBT identity. Whilst an "initial reflection" might not be the appropriate place for a full development of this discernment, surely it is the place for an indication of its direction. It would be to put some flesh on the notion of accompaniment that is the subject of the following section of the reflection entitled "The journeying of hearts together".

As a bit of an aside, I must admit to a certain bemusement by this observation in the reflection:

There are communal aspects of our individual diocesan syntheses which are likely to be prominent in our continued synodal conversations. Essential will be trying to engage the ninety percent who attend Sunday Mass but have not yet participated in any process.

It seems to identify participation in the synodal life of the Church in terms of taking part in meetings and the like. But, for the lay person, it is their daily life in their families, work places and participation in the Liturgy that defines their specific charism. Should we have ever had any expectation that more than a minority would choose to take part in parish meetings, and in the subsequent meetings at diocesan level?

Roe v. Wade overturned: what next?

I have not been able to keep track of all the reactions to the overturning of the Roe v. Wade judgement by the US Supreme Court. I also have my usual wariness of commenting on a situation whose details are beyond my own immediate knowledge - it is too easy to respond to the reporting of what someone said and to then find out that either they said something slightly different or that the fuller context of the remarks gives the quoted part a rather different sense.

What of President Biden?

His original remarks in response to the Supreme Court judgement can be found on the White House website: Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade. These remarks have worrying aspects to them, and reading them in full adds to that sense concern.

It was three justices named by one President — Donald Trump — who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country. 

Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law.  It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.

It is the idea that a judgement in law that opens the way to pro-life legislation to take effect in states of the US represents an "extreme ideology" that should give cause for thought. First of all, we should resist the idea that to be pro-life is to be an advocate of an "extreme ideology" - and in this phrase, the word "ideology" is as significant as the word "extreme". An ideology takes an aspect or part of a reality, and absolutises it at the expense of the complete picture; and, in doing so, it adopts a position that separates itself from objective reality itself. To be pro-life on the contrary recognises a reality - that abortion takes the innocent life of an unborn child, an unborn child who would otherwise be able to live their dignity as a human person. To argue, on the other hand, that abortion represents health care is to misrepresent the genuine meaning of the term health care as it would be applied in the wider generality of medical practice.

President Biden's reference to Donald Trump, though, highlights a hazard of that style of pro-life activity that allies itself to a particular political stance, a politics that can be fundamentally ideological in its real intent rather than having a genuine concern for the common good. More is needed to build a genuine culture of life in America than the legislative actions of Republican administrations, and too close an alliance to those legislative actions will be counter-productive to the wider building of a culture of life.

It is also interesting to contrast President Biden's narrative that:

The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.

with the rather different narrative from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops statement:

“America was founded on the truth that all men and women are created equal, with God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This truth was grievously denied by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized and normalized the taking of innocent human life. We thank God today that the Court has now overturned this decision. 

So far as I can tell, the essential import of the judgement to overthrow Roe v. Wade is that abortion should not now be seen in the United States as some form of right guaranteed by the constitution, and should never have been seen in such a way. And yet the barrage of criticism of the decision, following the lead of politicians such as President Biden, ignores this and continues to talk in terms of abortion as some form of human or constitutional right.

What of the culture?

In both the United States and here in the UK, abortion has been legally permitted for so long that it has embedded in medical practice and in the wider culture. The legal permission is only an aspect of that cultural embedding; the widespread hostility shown to the overthrow of Roe v. Wade exemplifies how deep this cultural embedding now is. I have thought for some considerable time now that our conversation about abortion should no longer be one characterised by "a woman's right to choose" or a "woman's right to have control over her own body". The stories of women who have had abortions - both those gathered by supporters of legalised abortion and those opposed - demonstrate the range of constraints that influence their decisions. In many stories, the experiences are such that the word "freedom" (in the full, philosophical sense of the term as applied to human actions) is difficult to apply as a descriptor of the decision making process. I cannot help but feel that, if our public conversation were to focus more clearly on the different narratives of  women seeking abortions, the practice of abortion in our society would change significantly. That conversation would need us to reflect more deeply on the nature of freedom in human acting, and how women seeking abortions can be supported to make decisions that manifest a fuller freedom of choice rather than expressing instead determining constraints. 

Perhaps the jolt given to the idea of abortion as a constitutional right by the recent Supreme Court ruling will enable this wider conversation to take place.

Four Cardinals and a funeral?

It is axiomatic ("self-evident" according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary) to much of the commentary and reaction to Amoris Laetitia that is visible in the media that:

there is something wrong with Amoris Laetitia;

and there is widespread confusion among Catholics as a result of Amoris Laetitia.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Amoris Laetitia, if it is read for what it actually says;  and I believe that a significant responsibility for the spreading of confusion lies with those who are themselves exerting great effort in decrying the said confusion. Had the great and good kept rather more of their own counsel, I suspect that there would have been rather less legitimisation of such confusion as might have existed.

On the latter point, I think most of the Church's pastors and faithful would see it rather as Aunty does here (but I don't share the sentiments of the comments), or as Bishop Egan described it in a pastoral letter in July 2016:

When Amoris Laetitia was published, there was a controversy about the care of the divorced and remarried. In fact, Pope Francis reaffirms Jesus’ teaching on chastity, marriage, sexuality and family life; he does not change Church discipline. But he does speak in a new compassionate way about those who have drifted from the practice of faith because they have found themselves in marital situations and patterns of behaviour at variance with the Gospel....

Given this perspective, there is a certain bemusement that pertains with regard to the efforts of 45 theologians and, more recently, four cardinals to seek clarification from Pope Francis in respect of what has not in the first place been denied. As far as the cardinal's letter is concerned, I am inclined to characterise Pope Francis' choice not to respond in a similar way as does Rocco Buttiglione - that he has considered it not opportune to respond rather than it constituting a refusal to respond. And in respect of the 45 theologians, I just wondered what, with all the doctorates represented among them, they thought to achieve by writing in the language of censure and the citation of authorities. It is difficult to appreciate their approach to capital punishment, for example, when the question of today is no longer about the exercise of justice by Christian rulers but about executions under Sharia law in countries like Saudi Arabia and the experience of "death row" in the United Stages to which Sr Helen Prejean gives witness.

I find fanciful in the extreme the idea that Pope Francis has in some way declined to exercise his teaching authority because he happens not to have replied to a particular communication from four Cardinals (or, earlier, to 45 theologians). That this has subsequently engendered a discussion - taken seriously in some particular quarters - about a "suspension of the Magisterium", "doubts" and "a formal act of correction" is even more fanciful; and all the more so for its appearance of learning. "Authoritative teaching" might suit the mind set of some; but Pope Francis more gentle style of such teaching does not represent the absence of teaching of which he is accused.

In September, I read the following in a blog post reflecting on the situation since Amoris Laetitia :

...I fear for many Catholics that rather than as Newman says, "I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first", we must make a conscious choice between Conscience and the Pope, and that choice will have very uncomfortable consequences for those who feel compelled to follow conscience. The Kasper doctrine which the Pope has signified he favours is for many of us a sign of the distancing of the Church from Revelation and the person of Jesus Christ, that is not what the Church is for ...

At the time, I wondered on the final destination of one whose orientation moves from an adherence to the exercise of the office of the Successor of Peter towards an adherence to a notion of Tradition or of ecclesial life that is in some way distanced from the exercise of that office (though in the blog post cited this was articulated as a choice of conscience). Perhaps we are now seeing the final working out of such a distancing, the emergence of an orientation towards a Tradition distinguished from a Magisterium rather than an orientation towards a Tradition that lives with a Magisterium.

I, for one, prefer to stay alongside the successor of St Peter.

[Postscript: It should be clear that this is not a question of having to like everything a particular Pope does and says. The question is indifferent as to whether I like what Pope Francis does or do not like what Pope Francis does. The question is an objective one about an ecclesial orientation.]

Theresa May and the Nuclear Option

During yesterday's debate on the renewal of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent, the Prime Minister affirmed in a most unambiguous way her willingness to authorise a strike using a weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction. The reporting of her answer to a question during the debate suggests that this explicit affirmation does not have any precedent from previous Prime Ministers, who have avoided directly answering such a question in public. It is certainly quite chilling to listen to the exchange, as embedded in the Independent's report. We should perhaps allow Theresa May some moral leeway, in that this affirmation has been made in a hypothetical context and does not reflect an actual decision made to deploy nuclear weapons "live" so to speak.

But, nevertheless, according to the teaching of Gaudium et Spes n.80:

The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a sombre reckoning of their deeds of war, for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today. With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes, and issues the following declaration.

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modern scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult men into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all men, especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race.

Gaudium et Spes continues, in n.81, to speak of the money spent on developing new and better weapons of war, making a point that all those MPs voting in favour of the renewal of Trident might consider:

.... While extravagant sums are being spent for the furnishing of ever new weapons, an adequate remedy cannot be provided for the multiple miseries afflicting the whole modern world. Disagreements between nations are not really and radically healed; on the contrary, they spread the infection to other parts of the earth. New approaches based on reformed attitudes must be taken to remove this trap and to emancipate the world from its crushing anxiety through the restoration of genuine peace.

Therefore, we say it again: the arms race is an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, and one which ensnares the poor to an intolerable degree. 

The statement made on behalf of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales ahead of yesterday's debate is more circumspect, being geared to a particular political occasion, but is also clear in arguing against the renewal of a nuclear weapons system.

Synodality: Pope Francis on "healthy decentralisation"

A full English translation of Pope Francis' address to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishing of the Synod of Bishops by Pope Paul VI is not yet available. There is an Italian text at the Vatican website (here) , and what is described as a "working English translation" here.

My first immediate observation is that it is necessary to read the whole, and read each of its elements in the framework of the whole, and not to take out just this section or that section for one-sided approbation or equally one-sided derision. The text is a whole, and the vision it presents of a "synodal Church" is a whole. If it urges a "listening Church" it does so in a framework of hierarchical communion, with and under the bishop in the diocese, and, at the level of the universal Synod of Bishops, with and under Peter's successor. This requirement of communion does not give permission to that dissent that Pope Benedict memorably observed should be recognised for what it is. To suggest such would be to do Pope Francis a great disservice. The urge to "listen" is also about a style of action, not an idea that anything and everything that is said has value.

The section of the recent motu proprio reforming the sections of the Code of Canon Law relating to annulment of marriages (I link to the Italian text at the Vatican website, where there is, as yet, no English translation) that struck me most was the preamble. I was struck firstly by how it presented the office of the bishop towards the people of his diocese as being one with a juridical character. But I was then struck by the indication of an intention for the provisions that came later in the motu proprio to be provisions that empowered a bishop in this regard. So the bishop is discouraged from seeing the operation of his diocesan tribunal as a delegation of his office; it is rather a necessary collaboration of others that enables him to fulfil his office (cf his responsibility for appointing a judge). The part to be played by the episcopal conference is not one that should intrude on the bishops closeness to the people of his own diocese, but rather must respect the juridical office of the bishop in his own diocese.

I think this background gives an insight into the notion of "synodality" as exercised in the local diocese. Firstly, we have to read the reference to "healthy decentralisation" in the context from which it is cited, a passage in Evangelii Gaudium n.16:

Countless issues involving evangelization today might be discussed here, but I have chosen not to explore these many questions which call for further reflection and study. Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world. It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.

We are looking at the discernment of the situation of a local diocese and of activity in that diocese, not at putting Catholic teaching up for debate. If we also read carefully the reference in Pope Francis' address to the notion of "hierarchical communion", the exercise of synodality in the diocese depends upon the exercise by the bishop of his office in favour of communion, both within his own diocese and with the universal Church. The diocesan synod, and the activity of the other organs of communion in the diocese, will be truly synodal in nature in so far as the bishop fulfils his proper office towards them as the guardian of communion. In what he says about the way in which bishops should exercise their office, he clearly takes up the idea of closeness and proximity to the people that is apparent in the preamble to the motu proprio. I think, too, in talking about the way in which the organs of communion are called to operate in a diocese, Pope Francis does not envisage them as a kind of bureaucracy but as an immediate closeness to the real lives of the people. [And, as an aside, I wonder whether "listening" is really about surveys and responses to surveys .... a pastor who is close to his sheep, be he bishop or parish priest, "listens" as he exercises his office.]

Pope Francis' reference to episcopal conferences as being among "mediate instances" of the exercise of collegiality in the same sentence that he refers to an "integration and renewal of some of the aspects of the ancient ecclesiastical order" (which, if the motu proprio and Pope Francis' text itself gives any indication, possibly refers to the situation of metropolitan sees?) I find particularly interesting.

The idea of "synodality", particularly at a diocesan level and particularly in reference to the participation of the lay faithful, prompts another thought. Just as Pope Francis is suggesting that it is not for the Pope to take over the office of the bishop of the particular diocese but rather to respect the bishop's proper office with regard to his diocese; likewise the bishop or his priest co-worker cannot replace the office of the lay person in the Church, or vice versa. However badly the one is at fulfilling his calling, the other cannot step in and undo it. Rather, the call is that both should take on and fulfil their office in accordance with its demands. This respect for the different offices in the Church is, I suspect, a dimension of the notion of "synodality".

I haven't time to translate it, but below is the section of the address in which Pope Francis summarises the different levels of synodality in a Church that is "entirely synodal". One should not underestimate the reference to a "dynamism of communion" in the first sentence - "communion" here referring to an ecclesial reality which has been increasingly recognised in the teaching of Vatican II by those of the Communio school and others.

In una Chiesa sinodale, il Sinodo dei Vescovi è solo la più evidente manifestazione di un dinamismo di comunione che ispira tutte le decisioni ecclesiali.

Il primo livello di esercizio della sinodalità si realizza nelle Chiese particolari. Dopo aver richiamato la nobile istituzione del Sinodo diocesano, nel quale Presbiteri e Laici sono chiamati a collaborare con il Vescovo per il bene di tutta la comunità ecclesiale[22], il Codice di diritto canonico dedica ampio spazio a quelli che si è soliti chiamare gli "organismi di comunione" della Chiesa particolare: il Consiglio presbiterale, il Collegio dei Consultori, il Capitolo dei Canonici e il Consiglio pastorale[23]. Soltanto nella misura in cui questi organismi rimangono connessi col "basso" e partono dalla gente, dai problemi di ogni giorno, può incominciare a prendere forma una Chiesa sinodale: tali strumenti, che qualche volta procedono con stanchezza, devono essere valorizzati come occasione di ascolto e condivisione.

Il secondo livello è quello delle Province e delle Regioni Ecclesiastiche, dei Concili Particolari e in modo speciale delle Conferenze Episcopali[24]. Dobbiamo riflettere per realizzare ancor più, attraverso questi organismi, le istanze intermedie della collegialità, magari integrando e aggiornando alcuni aspetti dell'antico ordinamento ecclesiastico. L'auspicio del Concilio che tali organismi possano contribuire ad accrescere lo spirito della collegialità episcopale non si è ancora pienamente realizzato. Siamo a metà cammino, a parte del cammino. In una Chiesa sinodale, come ho già affermato, «non è opportuno che il Papa sostituisca gli Episcopati locali nel discernimento di tutte le problematiche che si prospettano nei loro territori. In questo senso, avverto la necessità di procedere in una salutare "decentralizzazione"»[25].

L'ultimo livello è quello della Chiesa universale. Qui il Sinodo dei Vescovi, rappresentando l'episcopato cattolico, diventa espressione della collegialità episcopale all'interno di una Chiesa tutta sinodale[26]. Due parole diverse: “collegialità episcopale” e “Chiesa tutta sinodale”. Esso manifesta la collegialitas affectiva, la quale può pure divenire in alcune circostanze "effettiva", che con­giunge i Vescovi fra loro e con il Papa nella sollecitudine per il Popolo di Dio[27].

An aside on transferred days of obligation

Since the Bishops Conference of England and Wales decided to move the celebration of the Solemnities of the Ascension of the Lord and the Body and Blood of the Lord from their previously-customary Thursdays to the following Sundays, I have not had a particularly strong feeling one way or the other about the change.

I do have some sympathy for the reasoning of their Lordships at the time that, with a low adherence of the faithful to the practice of the obligations on a Thursday, the transfer to the Sunday would make it easier for the faithful to celebrate these Solemnities. There appears to me to be some analogy between this motivation and one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his letter to bishops accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum:

One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden.  This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. 

But, if I remember correctly, the Bishops Conference also intended that, in making the change, the faithful would celebrate the two Solemnities with a much greater appreciation of the mysteries that they celebrate. That requires that the Solemnities are celebrated at parish level in a way that makes rather more of them than the adjacent Sundays of Eastertide or of Ordinary Time.

In the parish where I most often go to Mass, though, today's celebration of the Ascension has been overwhelmed by the fact that young people in the parish are receiving Holy Communion for the first time at the principle Mass - and the same will happen again next Sunday on the Solemnity of Pentecost. I suspect that this is not unusual around the parishes of England and Wales during the "First Communion season". It does mean that the intention that a celebration of the Ascension on a Sunday would lead to a greater appreciation of the mystery being celebrated has somewhat gone by the board. The association of First Communions with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi works, as does the celebration of Confirmation on the Sunday of Pentecost, though an attentive linking of them to the mystery marked by the Church's liturgy of that day is required if the Bishops' intentions with regard to the faithful as a whole are to be met. The Sundays of the Ascension and the Trinity, though, are not the right days to use. There appears to me to be a significant discordance between Episcopal intention and parochial practice.

As the conundrums represented by the move of the Solemnities to their nearby Sundays comes round each year, I have reflected, too, on the way in which those with attachment to the Extraordinary Form have continued to celebrate the two Solemnities on Thursdays, almost as a way of getting round the Bishops' decision in this matter. Until such time as the calendars according to which celebrations in the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms are determined are brought together, it would be a gesture in favour of ecclesial communion if celebrations in the Extraordinary Form complied with the calendar being observed in the Ordinary Form in so far as these two Solemnities are concerned.

A Call to Communion: a bishop's blog and ACTA

One of the things that struck me about Bishop Campbell's blog post A Call to Communion in the Diocese of Lancaster with regard to ACTA was that he based his post upon his understanding of his own ministry as Bishop of Lancaster diocese as being a ministry in favour of ecclesial communion and unity:

“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, handed on to Peter to shepherd, committed to him and the other apostles to extend and rule, and erected for ever as “the pillar and ground of the truth”. This Church constituted and ordered in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although outside its structure, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found, which as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel towards catholic unity.” (LG 19).

My own favourite image (not excluding any of the others) is that essentially we are the baptised pilgrim People of God, and thus the Body of Christ; head and members united by the Holy Spirit in visible communion with the successors of the Apostles, united with the Pope as successor to Peter. Such unity forged in bonds of charity and communion in the Church is a precious – sometimes fragile – gift of the Lord to His Church – be cherished, protected and shared. 

As Bishop of Lancaster and thus as a Successor of the Apostles, I am charged, in accord with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, with a special care in my ministry as ‘overseer’ to uphold the unity of the Church in this Diocese of Lancaster and so to guard against any attempt to confuse the faithful regarding authentic Catholic teaching and ministry in this Diocese. 

In his BBC Radio Lancashire interview linked from the blog post (it is only available to listen again on line for a limited period), Bishop Campbell describes how he found it offensive (Bishop Campbell's very word) that an ACTA spokesman, interviewed earlier that same day, should suggest that he was in any way out of step with Pope Francis. Fr Alex Lucie-Smith's piece at the Catholic Herald web site relates something of the radio interviews: Bishop Campbell’s criticism of ACTA is spot-on.

It is from this perspective that Bishop Campbell then makes his carefully judged observations with regard to ACTA, observations that have some echo of Pope Benedict XVI's words about recognising dissent for what it is:

In this light there appears at times a momentum for certain pressure groups in the life of the Church Universal. Amongst these at the present moment is a small but vocal interest or lobby group self-styled A Call to Action (ACTA) which happens to meet within the Diocese of Lancaster and other dioceses and appears to espouse positions – at times and among others – in opposition to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals....

I need to make it clear here that in my judgement, as Diocesan Bishop, ACTA moves well beyond its self-described aim of ‘dialogue’ on controversial issues on its agenda and so does not provide an assured authentic forum or interpretation of sound Catholic teaching and sound pastoral practice in this Diocese. Accordingly great care is required here from priests and people. 

I believe that we need to understand Bishop Campbell's words in a catholic way - that is, we must take them as a whole. We must take both the critique of ACTA, and the urgency of communion in the diocese and with Pope Francis. Some of those who have heaped praise on Bishop Campbell's "calling out" of ACTA might need also to examine their consciences with regard to recognising the implication of his anxiety in favour of communion, and in particular communion with Pope Francis.

See also two earlier posts on this blog:

The Church we are in

Dialogue in the Church (or: What should bishops do about ACTA)

A word or two on marriage

The BBC News website reported just before Christmas that Sir Elton John and David Furnish marry. The BBC report includes the sentence:

Mr Furnish and Sir Elton, who have two sons, became civil partners in 2005.

We were all invited to join the ceremony and celebrations by way of the electronic media.

From the point of view of Catholic teaching, of course, Mr Furnish and Sir Elton did not marry. According to Catholic teaching, marriage can only take place between a man and a woman, and not between two men. Their two sons are sons of a surrogate mother, so they are not uniquely the sons of Mr Furnish or Sir Elton, as if two men were able to have children together.

I do think it is worthwhile, from time to time, to explicitly recognise that there is a discordance between the use of language about marriage in the wider world and the use that accurately reflects Catholic teaching. While same-sex marriages now provide an immediate occasion to avert to this, the marriage of celebrity divorcees has been presenting such occasion for decades. It would be unfortunate, in the light of the two Synods dedicated to the mission of the family, if Catholics were to so readily assimilate the two usages of language to each other that they were as a result no longer able to distinguish what is truly Catholic teaching.

The Feast of the Holy Family, celebrated on the Sunday after Christmas Day, is an opportunity to reflect on marriage and family life. In different ways, bishops in England and Wales are doing this in the form of pastoral letters:  Bishop Davies (Shrewsbury) has chosen to affirm Catholic teaching, Bishop Campbell (Lancaster) has thanked Catholic families for the care offered in the circle of the extended family; and Bishop Williams (Brentwood) quotes St Francis:

As we gaze at the scene from Bethlehem we can make some words of Saint Francis our own: “We are mothers of Christ when we carry Him in our heart and body through divine love and a pure and sincere conscience and give birth to Him through a holy activity which must shine as an example before others.”

In the news ....

Once again today's news demonstrate the power of sexual scandal to bring about a resignation from political office, and also from ecclesial office. Particularly as far as the resignation from political office is concerned, there is a certain irony that this can still occur in times that are by and large characterised by indifference to questions of moral right and wrong in the realm of sexual conduct.

As far as Brooks Newmark is concerned, events reported today remind all of us that our private lives can and do impact on our public lives. We are not just Christians on Sunday, but throughout the rest of the week, too. Our calling is to put our faith into practice in our public life.

Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith has written what I believe is a most authentically Catholic response to Bishop Conry's resignation: There is always a way back for everyone who fails. The suggestion that part of our response to this situation should be to go to the Sacrament of Penance appears to me particularly pertinent. A nuance of the word "Confession" used to describe this Sacrament is the sense of carrying, yes our own immediate sins, but also of carrying with the Church as a whole, the burden of the sins of others too. (I think this is one of the themes developed by Adrienne von Speyr in her book Confession, which, written before the Council, insists on the use of the word "confession" for the Sacrament.)

Also today, the papers are full of the news of the marriage of George Clooney and Amal Alamuddin. And, of course, most Catholics will happily speak in terms of the two now being married. But, in the light of the forthcoming Synods devoted to marriage and family life, should we not perhaps be a little more critical in asking whether or not their union is in fact a valid marriage (valid, but not sacramental)? The question is relevant, less from the point of view of being critical of George and Amal, but more from the point of view of how our attitude to their wedding is actually colouring our own understanding of what marriage is.  According to this BBC report:

Clooney was previously married to Talia Balsam, who he divorced in 1993.

If a Catholic couple marry with an understanding of marriage formed by that of George and Amal, it is not going to be a valid marriage. This ambient culture, antithetical to a Catholic understanding of marriage, does represent a pastoral challenge among the others that the Synod faces. It is naïve not to recognise how this culture impacts young people in the Catholic community.

Shock and Awe

I suspect that Blackfen is not the only parish in the country to have recently, or to be about to, experience a change in parish clergy. Such changes can lead to a certain shock among parishioners as new clergy with inclinations and pastoral orientations different than those of their predecessors establish their wishes in a parish. I suspect that it has ever been thus, and this is not a phenomenon that is particularly new to the Church of our own times. I recall my mother, for example, speaking of a Fr McCormack, who served in their Lancashire mill town parish in the early 1940's, as being a priest who inspired people and got things going (perhaps most remarkably two YCW sections, in which my mother and at least one of her sisters played a significant role). When he moved to other pastoral duties, I think I can reasonably surmise that a certain amount of disappointment was felt by some at least in the parish.

Part of the cause of such shock may be failings in charity on the part of arriving clergy - but remember, the clergy are as human as the rest of us, and we might well find similar failings among ourselves. But in our own times, I think there may be a more structural aspect, too. At the time that my own diocese learnt of the appointment of a new bishop, I commented on what I might hope for in the new appointment in a post entitled Hopes for a new bishop:

The experience of living in the diocese is that there are some parishes where I am happy to attend Mass and some parishes where I am not happy to attend Mass ... and most parishes that sit somewhere in between, not scaring me away but not exerting a positive attraction either. This is usually down to the parish priest because, for all the talk about lay ministry, it is still the parish priest who drives what happens in a parish. I am atypical in that, not having lived in the diocese when I was young, I do not enjoy a strong affiliation to one parish rather than another. So I look to the new bishop to achieve a greater unity among the priests of the diocese, so that lay folk like myself can live a greater unity of ecclesial experience from one parish to another. A unity in the celebration of the Liturgy and catechetical life seem essential to me in this regard.

 

A diversity in charisms and gifts among clergy is to be expected; but that does not militate against an underlying unity in the celebration of the Liturgy and in the catechetical life of a diocese. Indeed, the articulation of that diversity might well be linked to the charisms of religious serving in a parish or to the charisms of ecclesial movements with a presence in a parish, all of which can be lived within an underlying unity of diocesan life.

 

It does also have to be recognised that, at a human level, a new parish priest who wishes to make changes will be able to establish those changes more easily if he moves to implement them as soon as possible after his arrival.

 

All of which is leading me to suggest that the shock being experienced by some in Blackfen may have arisen most fundamentally from a situation of a lack of unity in the Liturgical and catechetical life of dioceses in general, and rather less from questions relating directly to the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. [The celebration of the principle Mass on Sundays and Days of Obligation in the Extraordinary Form could arguably itself have been out of sympathy with Pope Benedict's observation in his letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum that it would remain the Missal of Pope Paul VI, celebrated with a reverence and obedience to rubrics, that would unite parish communities.] As such, it is a shock alike to that which may be experienced in other parishes. It's only unusual dimension is that it has attracted national and international attention.

 

And now for the awe. Mgr Marcus Stock has been appointed as the new bishop of Leeds. A blog post at the Tablet describes him as being "among the most able clergy of his generation" and "quietly orthodox". I think he is unlikely to do something one of his predecessors, the then Bishop Heenan did. After an early round of clergy moves, the clergy of Leeds in Bishop Heenan's time reportedly greeted each other with the words "where are you?" rather than "how are you?" The attention that Mgr Stock is indicating towards the priests of the diocese matches both Pope Francis' thoughts and, indirectly, my wishes for my own new bishop referred to above. I have wondered what I would feel is an appropriate state of mind of a newly appointed bishop. I would suggest "awe", not just at the human level in reacting to the scale of the task to be undertaken, but at the nature of the office (in the Balthasarian sense) that is about to be assumed. There is a rightful awe in the power of the priest to celebrate Mass and to forgive sins in the person of Christ. But the bishop is a successor of the Apostles, the person whose presence in the particular geographical location represents the corner stone on which all other ecclesial stones in that geographical location are aligned in order to have "communion" with the universal Church and the Successor of Peter (and, indeed, since the announcement of his appointment, Mgr Stock has expressed his fidelity to the Successor of Peter).

 

Many years ago now, Mgr Mario Oliveri expressed this in a talk that I heard in Oxford, giving an account of the teaching of Vatican II's decree on the Pastoral office of Bishops in this regard:

The essential characteristics of a Diocese or of a particular Church are ...:

(a) a community of the faithful;

(b) The presence in them of a Bishop as Shepherd to whom the pastoral care is entrusted and who is assisted by a Presbyterate (Sacred Ministries);

(c) the adherence of the faithful to the Bishop;

(d) the unity of the faithful in the Holy Spirit realised by the Bishop through the Gospel and the Eucharist (faith and sacraments).

Mgr Oliveri identified a further characteristic as being essential so that in the local Church the universal Church of Christ might be present and active, a characteristic which impinges particularly on the office of the Bishop:

It is necessary that the individual Church should be in communion with all the other (local) Churches and their respective Pastors and particularly with that Church which has the Successor of Peter as its Pastor and which alone can definitively guarantee the authenticity of Faith and fidelity to Christ.

This office of the Bishop is something that rightly fills with awe.

It's not fair! (UPDATED - again)

I have already observed that, in my view, Bishop Campbell accurately identified the problems inherent in Protect the Pope in the statement that the Bishop's office has already made about the situation:

.... the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church.

I would bracket the word "ordained" and suggest that the duties apply to any Catholic who blogs, particularly if they blog about Church affairs.

It has been taken for granted by all and sundry (at least as far a I can  tell) that Bishop Campbell's intervention had to do with Deacon Donnelly's criticisms of dissent in the Church, and that the blog is being silenced because of that. I do not think it had to do with that at all. It had to do with whether or not what was posted, and the "spin" given to it, was or was not true. And in at least some situations that I am aware of what was posted was not true.

I don't live in the bubble which seems to thrive on accusing the Bishops of this, that and the other. A consequence is that I do not see such an accusatory attitude as being "heroic defence of the faith". And it is this that became the problem inherent in Protect the Pope and which Bishop Campbell's statement referred to with the words "unity in the Church" - not, in my view, any concerns about the content otherwise of posts.

The Catholic Herald report - Popular blog closed down by bishop - ends quoting Deacon Donnelly:

"Maybe some of you will even consider setting up your own versions of ‘Protect the Pope’. I’d be happy to give you advice about how to go about this.”

Which leaves me thinking that there is some way to go before the real issue at stake has been understood.

I have also pondered in the last week or so the notion of "parties" (in the sense of factions) in the Church which, if I recall correctly, was something of Newman's experience of the Church of England. And I wondered whether the "faithful and loyal Catholic" of the brouhaha around Protect the Pope is not the "I am for Paul", or the "I am for Apollos", or the "I  am for Cephas" or the "I am for Christ" of the First Letter to the Corinthians. After all, the very nature of the Christian mystery, epitomised by the Sacrament of Penance, is one of failure and rising again; of a dialogue between returning to the attempt to be faithful after having failed in that faithfulness. The call to be Catholic does not need qualification by additional descriptors such as "faithful" or "loyal", the additional descriptors all to easily coming to represent a party or faction in the Church.

But why is all of this so, so unfair?

The one person who of the nature of the situation is not able to defend their position in the electronic media is Bishop Campbell.  And his action is currently the target of a significant campaign in that media. As a medium of communication, blogs (and, more so, twitter) can be profoundly asymmetrical in their impact - and this appears to me to be one of those situations. It does not appear to me that this has come about by accident.

UPDATED: The Apostle in Lancaster provides further comment that is worth considering, in the light of my post above.

UPDATED AGAIN: Bishop Campbell has issued a statement - something that I find unexpected, given the nature of the matter - which gives an account of his actions with regard to Deacon Donnelly and Protect the Pope: Bishop Campbell did not close down Protect the Pope. I would share the comment made by Mark Lambert in his post about Bishop Campbell's press release:

In fact it is clear that Bishop Michael has done his level best to handle this with diplomacy and dignity and his hand has been forced—largely by Deacon Nick—into making this statement. 

Hopes for a new bishop

Towards the end of my absence from blogging, the appointment of the next bishop of Brentwood was announced. Fr Williams has, according to the Brentwood Diocese website, presented himself as a "listening bishop".

In the diocese, the faithful had been encouraged to use the following prayer from the Roman Missal to pray for the appointment of the new bishop:

Father, Eternal Shepherd of your people, you never cease to lead your Church with unfailing providence and to guide and nourish your flock. In your goodness grant to your Church of Brentwood a holy Shepherd under whose watchful care we may grow in love and grace.

I am also drawn to Pope Francis' remarks when speaking about the part played by the Congregation for Bishops in helping him to fulfil his apostolic ministry.

In every age and in every place we shall receive this petition from the lips of the Church: give us a Bishop! The holy People of God continues to speak: we need one who will watch over us from above; we need one who will see us with the fullness of God’s heart; we do not need a manager, a chief executive officer of a company, nor one who remains at the level of our pettiness and little pretensions. We need someone who knows how to raise himself to the heights of God’s gaze over us and in order to lead us to him. Our future lies in God’s gaze. We need someone who, owing to his greater familiarity with the wide expanses of God’s field than with the confines of his own narrow garden, is able to assure us that what our hearts aspire to is not a vain promise.

It is also interesting to read his address to a meeting of newly appointed bishops in September 2013, and, in particular, his remarks about the responsiveness of a bishop to the needs of his priests. He speaks of the priests of the diocese as being the "first neighbours" to whom a bishop owes care.

During the (long) time that it has taken to appoint our new bishop, I have had two particular thoughts about what I might look for from a new bishop (and a third point, as a bit of an aside).

To start with the third point. I do rather hope that other people will not project on to Fr Williams their own agendas. His office will be defined by the pastoral care of Brentwood Diocese and a participation in the College of the Successors of the Apostles - and this isn't to be measured by particular agendas that I or anyone else might have. So please do not hijack my new bishop for your own cause!

My second thought has been about the priests of the diocese and therefore has some affinity to Pope Francis' remarks to new bishops in September 2013. The experience of living in the diocese is that there are some parishes where I am happy to attend Mass and some parishes where I am not happy to attend Mass ... and most parishes that sit somewhere in between, not scaring me away but not exerting a positive attraction either. This is usually down to the parish priest because, for all the talk about lay ministry, it is still the parish priest who drives what happens in a parish. I am atypical in that, not having lived in the diocese when I was young, I do not enjoy a strong affiliation to one parish rather than another. So I look to the new bishop to achieve a greater unity among the priests of the diocese, so that lay folk like myself can live a greater unity of ecclesial experience from one parish to another. A unity in the celebration of the Liturgy and catechetical life seem essential to me in this regard.

My first thought, though, has been that, for a diocese that has a sense of "drift" about it, at least in my experience, I need a new bishop who offers something inspiring. As Pope Francis expresses it, I need a bishop who "owing to his greater familiarity with the wide expanses of God’s field than with the confines of his own narrow garden, is able to assure us that what our hearts aspire to is not a vain promise." A bishop who will make me feel that it is all worth while, rather than its being a struggle. As Pope Francis points out, this is not achieved by a bishop who is a "chief executive" or by a bishop with well planned "programmes".  Rather it is achieved by a bishop with a vivid sense of his charism as a successor of the Apostles, a bishop who has the "odour of his sheep".

These are my hopes for my new bishop.

PtP: What is the real question? - UPDATED

I have come late to the story of the "silencing" of Protect the Pope/Deacon Donnelly. The clearest reporting on it that I can find is here, at the Catholic Herald website: Bishops shouldn’t try to censor the blogosphere, says priest blogger. [UPDATE: Caroline's observations are also worth reading: Catholic blogging.]

I am not able to comment on the "politics" - that is, about the speculation about who might, or might not, have put pressure on who to bring about the intervention of Bishop Campbell. Since that intervention, there has been a reaction that brings out a "political" dimension to the intervention itself - but I am not at all sure that that really captures the essence of what took place.

I have had my own encounter with Protect the Pope: Protect the Pope: the publican or the Pharisee? (and see the approach of some of the comments received from PtP's supporters), and in commenting on his post with regard to the film Philomena: Steve Coogan mendaciously blackens the name of Sr Hildegard McNulty in his film Philomena. I have since, somewhat by accident, come to recognise some of the networking among the commenters on the PtP, and that does shed some not inconsiderable light on the content of posts and comments.

But what is the real question that is raised by Bishop Campbell's intervention?

Is it really the silencing of a heroic defender of the faith? According to the Catholic Herald report linked above, Deacon Donnelly identifies the aim of the blog as being:

“to compare and contrast what’s being said and done in the Church with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That can never be wrong.”

At the very least, I think it is possible to look at the content of posts on PtP and examine the extent to which they do and do not meet this aim. My own encounter with the blog indicated that there is more to PtP than this aim. At the time, I suggested that those who viewed the blog in these terms should think about it a bit more carefully.

Is it really "censoring" the Catholic blogosphere? Or the action of a bishop who "doesn't get blogging"? The discussion along these lines, which appears to have been extensive, seems to me to miss the point. There is an aspect of this discussion that does not appear to be attracting comment. What would a lay person do, approached by their bishop with the same request to take a period of prayer and reflection whilst desisting from blogging? It is not just a question of "jurisdiction" but one  of "communion".

I am not convinced by the line of discussion that suggests that the internet has a "self-correction" mechanism whereby errors are raised and corrected without need of "censorship"; and that a bishop can correct a view by making his own use of the modern means of social communication. I have a distinct impression that a whole range of Catholic blogs just "talk to each other" without reaching outside their own circle, like talking to like in a closed circle.

I do happen to think that the statement from Lancaster Diocese, as reported by the Catholic Herald, very accurately identifies the questions pertaining to the PtP blog (my italics added):

“After learning that a notice had been placed upon the Protect the Pope website on March 7 saying: ‘Deacon Nick stands down from Protect the Pope for a period of prayer and reflection’ the Bishop’s Office at the Diocese of Lancaster was able to confirm that Bishop Campbell had recently requested Deacon Nick Donnelly to voluntarily pause from placing new posts on the Protect the Pope site.

“Meanwhile, it was also confirmed that the bishop asked Deacon Nick to use this pause to enter into a period of prayer and reflection on the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church. Deacon Nick has agreed to the bishop’s request at this time.”

My own encounter with PtP clearly manifested the need to consider questions of truth and charity in terms of the content of blog posts and comments. The question of considering the unity of the Church seems to me more subtle - the question here is not about posting to criticise dissent but more about the spinning of such posting against bishops. And as I imply above, exactly these same duties oblige the lay Catholic who blogs on matters Catholic.

More than anything else, I would suggest that Bishop Campbell's intervention calls each and every one of us to an examination of conscience with regard to how we conduct ourselves in cyberspace.

Dialogue in the Church (or: What should bishops do about ACTA)

According to the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.161:

The Church has but one faith, one sacramental life, one apostolic succession, one common hope, and one and the same charity.

This description of the visible dimensions of the unity of the Church provides an inalienable basis for any dialogue that takes place within the Catholic Church, among her own members. It describes succinctly what is held in common by all who describe themselves as being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. The nature of such dialogue "within" the Church is fundamentally different than the dialogue which the Church might have "without" the Church precisely because of this basic foundation of what is held in common.

Within his diocese, a bishop has a particular responsibility for promoting this unity among those entrusted to his care. (As an aside, reflecting on what I feel will be the particular demand placed on the new bishop of my own diocese, when one is eventually appointed, I have for some time now thought that promoting unity among the clergy of the diocese will be that demand.) This enjoins upon him a duty to enter into dialogue only in a manner that reflects his mission in favour of the authentic unity of the particular Church entrusted to his care.

Taking the components of that unity described in the Compendium, I would suggest that any dialogue on the part of the bishops should be based upon:

acceptance, whole, entire and without equivocation, of the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf, for example, the role that the Catechism has as the "rule of faith" for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham)

the celebration of the Liturgy of the Church in faithfulness to its rubrics and using the juridically approved texts (which do themselves contain a generous pluralism)

a fundamental attitude of communion with the ordained hierarchy, be that local bishop or the Holy See (whilst this does not need an acceptance that every decision of the hierarchy is a good decision, it excludes the adoption of a permanent attitude of contestation directed against bishop or the Holy See - what Hans Urs von Balthasar characterised as an "anti-Roman attitude")

a recognition that the hope shared is that of communion with the life of the Trinity, through the life of the Church here on earth, and, in future, in heaven (thereby excluding a characterisation of hope for the future in terms of structures seen essentially in terms of power)

a charity manifested in a care for all in the diocese, and which does not see an exercise of juridical authority as a sufficient in itself (though there might be points where it can be appropriately exercised)

So how should bishops react to the group A Call to Action?

So far as I can tell, the present reaction is either one that is non-committal or one that ignores A Call to Action entirely. Whilst this avoids the hazard represented by lack of charity, it creates the hazard that views being expressed by A Call to Action might gain over time and by way of the means of social communication a traction that is undeserved. (Is their stance against the new English translation of the Roman Missal, for example, one that is really representative of ordinary parish life up and down the land? If my own experience is anything to go by, it is highly un-representative.)

I do think that the bishops should take the request for dialogue contained in the published mission statement of A Call to Action at face value. However, in the same way that A Call to Action is publishing its positions in letters and on its website, the bishops should equally publish the basis on which they are able to undertake dialogue "within the Church" - see my points above. This, indeed, would represent the first step in such a dialogue.

In engaging in this dialogue, the bishops will need to be willing to challenge, and not simply accept, everything said to them by A Call to Action. This would represent an exercise of openness on their part, mirroring that desired by A Call to Action. (The assertion, for example, that the new English translation of the Missal was imposed without consultation - still being made on the A Call to Action website - is simply untrue.) That, of course, is of the nature of dialogue, and can be done in a way that is genuinely open. A particular issue the bishops will need to face is that of determining how representative, or otherwise, positions being expressed to them are.

A Call to Action appear to wish to engage in dialogue at the level of individual dioceses, with individual bishops. This does mean that the individual bishops need to ensure that they understand the nature of what is taking place - they will need to do their homework (and have their own media strategy in place, too!).

Same-sex marriage: ecclesial aftermath

Legislation is currently in the House of Lords, having passed its stages in the House of Commons, to enable same sex couples to marry. Similar legislation has recently become law in France. The situation in the UK reflects a growing international movement in the direction of legalising same-sex marriage.

A conversation recently made me realise that, in reflecting on the votes in favour of the same-sex marriage legislation in the House of Commons, it had not occurred to me to look at those votes in terms of how Catholic MPs voted. It simply didn't occur to me to do so, either from my own private interest or from any thought of publicly considering the question in those terms in a blog post.

On reflection, there seem to be two reasons underlying this. One is a sense of the rightful autonomy of the lay person in the exercise of political activity, an autonomy that does not give me any expectation of Catholic MPs voting as a kind of "bloc" directed by the Catholic hierarchy (exaggeration for effect here, but I think the essential point is correct). Gaudium et Spes n.76 recognises an autonomy of political activity on the part of the Christian (my emphasis added):

It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.

The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.

And the decree on the lay apostolate articulates the particular responsibility of the lay person,  Apostolicam Actuositatem n.7, again with my emphasis added:

The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation. Led by the light of the Gospel and the mind of the Church and motivated by Christian charity, they must act directly and in a definite way in the temporal sphere. As citizens they must cooperate with other citizens with their own particular skill and on their own responsibility. Everywhere and in all things they must seek the justice of God's kingdom.

The second reason is a sense of an "appropriate secularity" that recognises a particular role of religions in offering (ethical) critique of matters of public policy and participation in public debate about such matters, but which does not constitute an exercise of political power as such. Pope Benedict expressed this latter principle in Westminster Hall in 2010:

The Catholic tradition maintains that the objective norms governing right action are accessible to reason, prescinding from the content of revelation. According to this understanding, the role of religion in political debate is not so much to supply these norms, as if they could not be known by non-believers – still less to propose concrete political solutions, which would lie altogether outside the competence of religion – but rather to help purify and shed light upon the application of reason to the discovery of objective moral principles.

Pope Francis has spoken in similar vein to visiting French politicians more recently. And the first part of a recent post describes my own experience of this idea in a different context, before considering the more immediate question of same-sex unions: Secularity, laicite and gay marriage.

The particular question I was being asked in my recent conversation was, at core, whether or not the bishops in the UK should apply the provisions of Canon Law to those Catholics who voted in favour of the same-sex marriage legislation in Parliament. In the light of the considerations above, my first observation was that it is really for the lay Catholic to act "on their own responsibility" and that, if they fail to do so, whatever action a bishop might take cannot make up for that failure on the part of the lay Catholic and for its adverse impact for the mission of the Church. My second observation was that, if a (public) canonical penalty is to be applied it needs to follow a due process, part of which would be a clear promulgation of that penalty as part of law being applied in the relevant local Church (diocese).

In our conversation, the relevant provision of Canon Law being referred to was:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This provision which applies to the minister of Holy Communion is followed by a provision that places an obligation on the person who approaches to receive:

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

The application of this latter provision will in most cases be private rather than public, and so considerations of due process in the application of a canonical penalty do not apply.

 

Also referred to in our conversation was the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine's Considerations regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons with regard to political support for same-sex unions:

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

The point made to me in response to what I had said about clear promulgation of the penalty was that this statement from the Congregation for Doctrine, in asserting the "gravely immoral" nature of a vote in favour of legislative provision for homosexual unions, was in effect such a promulgation. Since the nature of this document was "to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world", I do think that the judgement that a vote in favour of a particular legislative proposal was "gravely immoral" would have to be taken up and affirmed by the bishop in application to the specific legislative proposal involved in order to achieve the element of promulgation that I believe is needed.

What conclusion do I draw at the end of all of this?

1. The real and most fundamental issue at stake is that of the effectiveness of the witness of the different members of the Church to her teaching on marriage. For the priest and bishop that will involve confidently and positively presenting that teaching in homily, in pastoral letter, in the pastoral encounters of sacramental preparation and catechesis, and, at times, through the means of social communication. This teaching includes Humanae Vitae - as was pointed out to me in the conversation that has prompted this post, the failure with regard to catechesis on contraception wrecks any defence of the purpose of sexual complementarity against the promotion of same sex unions. It also includes the permanence of marriage - one of my observations in our conversation was that, with the ready availability of re-marriage after divorce, UK law had already re-defined marriage compared to its Christian integrity. For the lay faithful it means being willing to "undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience" the demands of acting in favour of Catholic teaching. And if the priest or bishop fails in their part of the enterprise, the lay faithful are not able to make up for that failing (and certainly not by launching public criticism of the priest or bishop). And vice-versa, too, since, as the events surrounding Catholic adoption agencies and the votes on same sex marriage amply demonstrate, the priest or bishop is not able to make up for a failing that might occur on the part of the lay faithful.

2. The question of applying Canon 915 to bar from Holy Communion those  Catholics who have voted in favour of the present legislation going through Parliament does, I believe, need to be answered in this context. Such an application would do something to establish in the public consciousness, and in the consciousness of the Church's own members, that there is a contradiction between supporting such legislation and an authentically Catholic life. However, if that application is simply undertaken as an act of authority or discipline on the part of the bishop(s) - and this is the sense I gain of the desire of Traditionalists to see such an application - then it is not going to deliver the witness to Catholic teaching on marriage that it intends, being diverted instead into an argument about the authority of the bishop over the lay person (which in the particular sense discussed above, I do not believe the bishop has). If it is going to be undertaken with an intention of "reversing" in some sense the poor witness of lay Catholics, again, it is just not going to deliver that.  The whole manner of such an application needs to be carefully thought through and undertaken in a profoundly pastoral rather than authoritarian way. However, the promotion of the demands of Canon 916 - that those who have supported the current legislation should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion - might well provide an alternative that can be explored and that might just as effectively offer a witness to Catholic teaching on marriage.

3. What is a parish priest to do? I would suggest that they reflect on what is their part of the enterprise of witnessing to Catholic teaching on marriage .... that is, teaching about it in homily and pastoral encounter, and the need for this was part of my recent conversation. If some of the lay faithful are not doing their bit for the enterprise, the priest cannot replace them in the sphere of politics and culture to undo what they have done or not done.  He can only teach again ....