Jubilee of Synodal Teams and Participatory Bodies

 A Jubilee dedicated to Synodal Teams and other participatory bodies in the Church is being held 24th - 26th October 2025. It is being held under the aegis of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops. I should, perhaps, declare a certain bias in my own sense of the process of Synodality to which this particular Jubilee refers - see An Aside on Synodality. An explanation of the working of the Synod of Bishops (in general, not just referring to the current Synod on Synodality) can be found here: The Synod. It is possible to recognise in the changes introduced by Pope Francis the pattern of preparatory, discussion and implementation phases that are a feature of the Synod on Synodality and which now would apply to every meeting of the Synod. 

One of the features of the Synodal process that may have been experienced in parishes, and will be the subject of one of the workshops at the Jubilee, is that of Conversations in the Spirit: see here and here. 

Watching the video clip, its three rounds reminded me of the "See, Judge, Act" of Cardinal Cardijn's Young Christian Workers (YCW). There is an account of one such Young Christian Workers meeting that has a specific family connection. During the section meeting one week my mother apparently could only think to mention that she had received a pay rise. This was during the "See" part of the meeting, when each member of the section mentioned some activity since the previous week's meeting. It became apparent that another girl in the group, who worked in a different factory, had not had a pay rise. This triggered a chain of events in which my mother introduced this girl to her trade union, and then to the establishment of the union in what had previously been a non- union factory. In due course, mother received a letter from the Secretary of the local branch of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers (NUTGW) thanking her for the work she had undertaken to get the union established in that factory. 

We found that letter amongst mother's things after she died ... and there then followed a chain of research into the whole story, both from the point of view of that particular YCW section (I have some letters from mother's then YCW colleagues, including from the girl she first recruited to the NUTGW) and the situation of the cotton industry at the time. 

This particular "Conversation in the Spirit" took place in ....  1942.

I have only just realised that Pope St John XXIII explicitly referred to the "See, Judge, Act" methodology in his Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra of 1961 (nn.236-237), and we might see that as a foreshadowing of the practice of Conversation in the Spirit:

There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.

It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it. Knowledge acquired in this way does not remain merely abstract, but is seen as something that must be translated into action.

Pope Francis on the anniversary of the opening of Second Vatican Council

On the memorial of St John XXIII, Pope Francis reflected on the 60th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council.

This is the first way to look at the Church: from above. Indeed, the Church needs first to be viewed from on high, with God’s eyes, eyes full of love. Let us ask ourselves if we, in the Church, start with God and his loving gaze upon us. We are always tempted to start from ourselves rather than from God, to put our own agendas before the Gospel, to let ourselves be caught up in the winds of worldliness in order to chase after the fashions of the moment or to turn our back on the time that Providence has granted us, in order to retrace our steps. Yet let us be careful: both the “progressivism” that lines up behind the world and the “traditionalism” – or “looking backwards” – that longs for a bygone world are not evidence of love, but of infidelity. They are forms of a Pelagian selfishness that puts our own tastes and plans above the love that pleases God, the simple, humble and faithful love that Jesus asked of Peter.

Speaking of the Council, Pope Francis said: 

It led her to return, like Peter in the Gospel, to Galilee, to the sources of her first love; to rediscover God’s holiness in her own poverty (cf. Lumen Gentium, 8c; chapter 5). Each one of us also has his or her own Galilee, the Galilee of our first love, and certainly today we are all called to return to our own Galilee in order to hear the voice of the Lord: “Follow me”. And there, to find once more in the gaze of the crucified and risen Lord a joy that had faded; to focus upon Jesus. To rediscover our joy, for a Church that has lost its joy has lost its love. 

I like that reference to "the Galilee of our first love", a phrase that Pope Francis has used before. The Holy Father indicates a second way to look at the Church:

This is the second way of looking at the Church that we learn from the Council: looking around. In other words, being in the world with others without ever feeling superior to others, being servants of that higher realm which is the Kingdom of God (cf. Lumen Gentium, 5); bringing the good news of the Gospel into people’s lives and languages (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36), sharing their joys and hopes (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 1). Being in the midst of the people, not above the people, which is the bad sin of clericalism that kills the sheep rather than guiding them or helping them grow. 

And there is a third way to look at the Church:

Do you love me? The Lord then says: “Feed my sheep”. He does not mean just some of the sheep, but all of them, for he loves them all, affectionately referring to them as “mine”. The Good Shepherd looks out and wants his flock to be united, under the guidance of the Pastors he has given them. He wants us – and this is the third way of looking at the Church – to see the whole, all of us together. The Council reminds us that the Church is a communion in the image of the Trinity (cf. Lumen Gentium, 4.13). The devil, on the other hand, wants to sow the darnel of division. Let us not give in to his enticements or to the temptation of polarization. How often, in the wake of the Council, did Christians prefer to choose sides in the Church, not realizing that they were breaking their Mother’s heart! How many times did they prefer to cheer on their own party rather than being servants of all? To be progressive or conservative rather than being brothers and sisters? To be on the “right” or “left”, rather than with Jesus? To present themselves as “guardians of the truth” or “pioneers of innovation” rather than seeing themselves as humble and grateful children of Holy Mother Church. All of us are children of God, all brothers and sisters in the Church, all of us making up the Church, all of us. That is how the Lord wants us to be. We are his sheep, his flock, and we can only be so together and as one. Let us overcome all polarization and preserve our communion. May all of us increasingly “be one”, as Jesus prayed before sacrificing his life for us (cf. Jn 17:21). And may Mary, Mother of the Church, help us in this. May the yearning for unity grow within us, the desire to commit ourselves to full communion among all those who believe in Christ. 

 I have always felt that living a Catholic life in the light of the Council is to have a deep sense of the Church, a sense that to live a Catholic life is to live an ecclesial life. This makes it at once also the living of a Catholic life that has a Marian character. I think Pope Francis indicates this by choosing in his homily to speak of the ways in which we can look at the Church. Whilst in the course of things we might prefer some ecclesiastical initiatives rather than others, I do not think it is possible to live a genuinely Catholic life and remain in a state of semi-permanent contestation with ecclesial authority, be that from a "progressive" stance or from a "traditionalist" stance.

Almighty ever-living God, 
who chose blessed John the Twenty-Third to preside over your whole people
and benefit them by word and example, 
keep safe, we pray, by his intercession, 
the shepherds of your Church 
along with the flocks entrusted to their care, 
and direct them in the way of eternal salvation.

Love the Church, love the Pope

I have previously written on this blog of my conviction that the Church has been gifted in recent times, not only with holders of the Papal Office of high ability, but also with precisely those holders of that office that corresponded to the needs of the Church at their time. I refer particularly to Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI (and, in passing, to John Paul I, whose homilies/addresses during his short pontificate are a very striking foretaste of those of the Pope Emeritus during the early months of his pontificate); and, yes, to Pope Francis. John XXIII I know less well, but I have no doubt that my conviction would extend to include him.

Each brought to the Office of the Successor Peter their own particular "style" or gift: Paul VI's docility to the prompting of the Spirit, manifested in the declaration of Mary as Mother of the Church and in Humanae Vitae, both offered when many in the Church would not have wished for them; that of the philosopher in John Paul II, with his particular contribution in terms of the dignity of the person at Vatican II and in his subsequent apostolate; that of the theologian with Benedict XVI; and, finally, that of the pastor with Pope Francis.

In this context, I do find two things increasingly distasteful - and certainly, despite the claims of their authors to be "Catholic", profoundly un-Catholic. The first is a persistent denigration of Pope Francis words and actions by way of misrepresentation. To exemplify this, we can look at LifesiteNews report on the new statutes of the Pontifical Academy for Life:

Another drastic change for the PAV is the removal of the requirement for members to sign a “Declaration of the Servants of Life,” an avowal geared to members who are physicians and medical researchers, which makes explicit the members’ willingness to follow Church teaching on the sacredness of human life and an obligation to not perform “destructive research on the embryo or fetus, elective abortion, or euthanasia.”

The removal of such a statement can hardly be seen as removing something superfluous. The very founding of the PAV aimed to counteract cultural trends of the “culture of death,” as St. Pope John Paul II has called secularized modern culture.

What their report fails to say is that there are provisions in the new statutes that give effect to what would previously have been intended by the signing of the Declaration:

Article 5 n.5 (b) New Academicians commit themselves to promoting and defending the principles regarding the value of life and the dignity of the human person, interpreted in a way consonant with the Church’s Magisterium. ..... 

n.5 (e) Status as an Academician can be revoked pursuant to the Academy’s own Regulations in the event of a public and deliberate action or statement by a Member clearly contrary to the principles stated in paragraph (b) above, or seriously offensive to the dignity and prestige of the Catholic Church or of the Academy itself. ......

The second thing I find distasteful are some of the evaluations of Pope Francis being offered to mark the fourth anniversary of his election to the See of St Peter. Two examples, rather different in style, are here and here (with their publicity offered to a particular coterie of commenters). Both are, frankly, nothing more than gossip, more or less recycled, with an effect that is certainly malicious. I do think a serious examination of conscience on the part of these authors is called for.

As suggested at the start of this post, I stand with Pope Francis, and want to learn from him how I can be a better Christian. This is what appears to me an authentic Catholic attitude.

Why saints? .... Why blogs?

From time to time - and perhaps rather less so now than in the past - I have had cause to write about "saints" in a broad sense; that is, about men and women who, whether formally recognised by the Church as saints or not, offer inspiration to us in the living of the Christian mystery. I recall quite consciously trying to do three things whenever I did so:

1. To describe something of the saints personal life journey

2. To give some sense, usually by anecdote, of what it would have been like to know the saint as a person

3. To identify the particular charism of the saint, the particular gift that they represent to the Church and for the world.

It will always be the case that a saint, in this broad sense, lives at a particular time and in a particular place and so their charism has roots in a particular time and a particular place - and, indeed, perhaps in a particular activity in that time and place. A particular dimension that occurs when the Church officially recognises such a saint in the processes of beatification and canonisation is the recognition of a universal significance to that charism from a particular time and particular place. At this point, it is perhaps my second and third points that are most in play, though they cannot be completely separated from the first.

The teaching of the Second Vatican Council's constitution Lumen Gentium (n.50) on the communion of saints is instructive in this regard (my emphasis added):

When we look at the lives of those who have faithfully followed Christ, we are inspired with a new reason for seeking the City that is to come and at the same time we are shown a most safe path by which among the vicissitudes of this world, in keeping with the state in life and condition proper to each of us, we will be able to arrive at perfect union with Christ, that is, perfect holiness. In the lives of those who, sharing in our humanity, are however more perfectly transformed into the image of Christ, God vividly manifests His presence and His face to men. He speaks to us in them, and gives us a sign of His Kingdom, to which we are strongly drawn, having so great a cloud of witnesses over us  and such a witness to the truth of the Gospel.

The next section of this paragraph, however, goes on to suggest that our regard for the saints is at the service of the communion of the Church (my emphasis added):

 Nor is it by the title of example only that we cherish the memory of those in heaven, but still more in order that the union of the whole Church may be strengthened in the Spirit by the practice of fraternal charity. For just as Christian communion among wayfarers brings us closer to Christ, so our companionship with the saints joins us to Christ, from Whom as from its Fountain and Head issues every grace and the very life of the people of God. It is supremely fitting, therefore, that we love those friends and coheirs of Jesus Christ, who are also our brothers and extraordinary benefactors, that we render due thanks to God for them and "suppliantly invoke them and have recourse to their prayers, their power and help in obtaining benefits from God through His Son, Jesus Christ, who is our Redeemer and Saviour." For every genuine testimony of love shown by us to those in heaven, by its very nature tends toward and terminates in Christ who is the "crown of all saints," and through Him, in God Who is wonderful in his saints and is magnified in them.

I reflect on this because of the reaction on Catholic blogs to the recent canonisations of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II (and what is probably about to ensue with regard to the beatification of Pope Paul VI). Whilst it is a truism that canonisation does not canonise each and every action of the saint, it does nevertheless "canonise" the charity and charism of the saint indicating that this charity and charism are of permanent and universal value for the life of the Church. It recognises the second and third points made above.

I have found it somewhat disingenuous - and decidedly not at the service of communion - to see blog comment that criticises the canonisations because this or that policy of the one Pope or the other does not meet with approval. That is to avoid the real question that exists for a canonisation, namely, the recognition of the charity and charism of the person canonised, and of their universal significance for the Church. If we are completely honest, can we not recognise in much of that criticism an underlying antagonism towards the Second Vatican Council?

If blogging has the same purpose for a Catholic as has regard for the saints - namely, growth in communion - what has been the point of Catholic blogging in this regard? And should not that blogging examine its conscience a little more critically than it appears inclined so to do?

The Ark, Edith Stein and martyrdom as unity: a reflection for the canonisation of John Paul II

The canonisations of Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII tomorrow have somewhat caught up with me before I have really had time to reflect on their significance. Perhaps that's a good sign - I do have a "real life" to live.

I do not really feel that I "know" Pope John XXIII in the same way that I "know" John Paul II. I do have Meriol Trevor's life of John XXIII on my bookshelves, so I have some wherewithal to correct that.

As I have asked myself this morning what particular thoughts I feel that I take away from the ministry of Pope John Paul II, three things have come to mind. They are intensely personal, and do not represent any systematic appreciation of Pope John Paul.

 

The first thought has been my memory of a visit to the Church of the "Ark of the Lord" in Nowa Huta, Krakow, many years ago. As Archbishop of Krakow, Karol Woyjtla consecrated this Church. It was built by hand by the people, against the opposition of the Communist authorities, who had built the Nowa Huta suburb of Krakow as an "atheist" town focussed around it's giant steel works and intended to be without religious presence of any kind. The Church is designed to look like the Ark - hence the boat shape of its roof and the general shape of the building. Perhaps more fundamentally than its influence on the opposition of the Polish people to Communist rule, the Church stands as a sign of the presence of God, made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, in the midst of a God-less world. It's significance therefore abides, long after its original historical context has disappeared. Again, one can see a political dimension to much of Pope John Paul's ministry, particularly with regard to his pastoral visits to then-Communist countries. But fundamentally, should we not see that ministry - and the pastoral visits that were so much a part of it - as being a witness to the presence of God in our world, a presence here, where each individual nation and people lives?

 

The second thought that comes to me is being in St Peter's Square on 11th October 1998 for the canonisation of Edith Stein. I travelled to Rome for the canonisation after an aside remark made to me. It still comes to my mind as one of the highlights of my ecclesial experience. Something of my experience of Edith Stein is reflected in this post, just encountered as a result of a Google search. I have my own copy of the booklet for the ceremony in front of me as I post. The philosophical affinity between the two is one thing; the experience of living under persecution is another. Edith is by far and away my favourite saint. A good friend has a quite distinct way of smiling whenever I refer to her ..... Whilst the Christian message is never tied to one particular philosophical outlook, it can nevertheless find a particular expression within different philosophical frameworks. In a post-modern world, where pre-conceived frameworks are rejected as starting points, realist phenomenology appears to me to offer a potentially powerful way to open up access to reality. Would the contemporary advocacy of "gender theory", for example, really stand up to the eidetic enquiry of a realist phenomenology? Pope John Paul II's encyclicals and apostolic constitutions are resplendent with a phenomenological style.

The third thought is a short passage tucked away in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, n.84. It occurs to me quite regularly. It goes neatly with the emphasis on the reality of the imperfect communion that exists as a result of baptism that I recall noticing in Pope Benedict's address to leaders of other Christian communities during his visit to Cologne in 2005. It indicates that, in martyrdom, there exists already in reality that unity among Christians of different denominations that is the aim of ecumenical endeavour. My emphasis added in bold:

In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself. The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).

While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.

It is interesting that, though we are now into the second papal ministry since the death of Pope John Paul II, all three of these themes have retained their resonance through changing political and social circumstances.

Pope Francis appeal: "Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace!"

Reuters would appear to be carrying the story: Pope asks other faiths to join day of prayer for peace in Syria. So far as I can tell, the main stream news outlets in the UK are still running with the build up to American led attacks on Syria. [UPDATE: The Times is reporting the Pope's appeal on an inside page.] The BBC news front page, for example, is here (but if you are reading this retrospectively it will obviously have changed).

The full English text of Pope Francis address at the Angelus yesterday, Sunday 1st September 2013, is at the Vatican website. Reading the Italian text alongside the English is worthwhile, since there is a certain force expressed in the Italian grammar that does not quite come through in the English - though that is powerful enough in itself. Do read it in its entirety, and also watch the CTV video report that is linked from the page with the text.

This Angelus address strikes me as being one of those moments that will be seen as a key moment of Pope Francis' pontificate. It is an impassioned plea for peace and an unqualified condemnation of the evil of war, and in particular of the use of chemical weapons.

Pope Francis words ...

War never again! Never again war! Peace is a precious gift, which must be promoted and protected.

... have a profound echo of Pope Paul VI speaking to the United Nations in October 1965:

..jamais plus la guerre, jamais plus la guerre! C'est la paix, la paix, qui doit guider le destin des peuples et de toute l'humanité!  [War never again! War never again! It is peace, peace, that must direct the future of peoples and of all humanity!]

It is tempting to think that an appeal such as this from the Pope is unrealistic and will not have any influence on events that are instead being determined by major political powers. However, history has, many years after the event, revealed the influence that a similar appeal made on the radio by Pope John XXIII had on the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita  Kruschev, at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis: John XXIII and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The other major content of Pope Francis Angelus address was his call for a day of prayer and fasting on Saturday, for peace in Syria, the Middle East and throughout the world:

I have decided to proclaim for the whole Church on 7 September next, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace, a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, the Middle East, and throughout the world, and I also invite each person, including our fellow Christians, followers of other religions and all men of good will, to participate, in whatever way they can, in this initiative.

On 7 September, in Saint Peter’s Square, here, from 19:00 until 24:00, we will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace! I ask all the local churches, in addition to fasting, that they gather to pray for this intention.

At another level, Pope Francis Angelus address can be studied as an exercise of the Papal Office, both ad intra, towards the Church and ad extra, towards the whole world. Ad intra, he has called the universal Church to a time or prayer, fasting and penitence in repentance for the evil of war that is committed and threatened at a particular moment in time. In this context, the use of an inclusive "we" in the wording of the address, a use which does not remove the fact that moral responsibility for the use of chemical weapons rests with those immediately involved, indicates at the same time a certain duty of penance for others. As Pope Francis indicates, citing John XXIII's encyclical Pacem in Terris, it brings to the fore that the building of peace is a responsibility at the level of the individual human person in relation to his or her neighbour, and so involves all of us, not just those immediately involved in the events of warfare.

Ad extra, the Angelus address is an activity of diplomacy on the part of the Holy See, and it is quite fascinating to analyse it in this context. No doubt it is also being followed up by activity on the part of the Papal representatives in different parts of the world. The use of the language of an inclusive "we" has a completely different significance seen in this context. It has allowed Pope Francis to condemn evil actions with all due force whilst at the same time not naming names. The moral condemnation of those responsible for the use of chemical weapons is unmistakeable; and the urgency of the appeal against foreign interventions is equally clear.

Pope Francis is a "good thing"

Twice in the last couple of weeks or so I have found myself in the position of being asked by others what I thought of Pope Francis. It's a tricky question, because in giving an answer one can wonder whether or not one's interlocutor is unconsciously evaluating one's own ecclesial stance rather than one's view of Pope Francis.

However, I have ended up with three components to my answer to this question.

1. If the experience of our recent Popes is anything to go by, I do believe that at each moment we have been gifted with the Pope who we needed at that particular moment; and I trust that this extends, too, to Pope Francis. My own sensitivity particularly includes in this consideration Pope Paul VI, who I would really like to know much more closely than I feel I do. Equally to be included are Pius XII and John XXIII. For me, this consideration represents a fundamental basis for suggesting a "hermeneutic of continuity" between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, rather than a "hermeneutic of rupture".

2. Much has been made of Pope Francis' simplicity, represented by his living arrangements, and of his more informal style represented by his preaching "off the cuff" (though this should perhaps not be identified with preaching un-prepared) at his morning celebrations of Mass and his on occasion setting aside a prepared text to engage in a question and answer session. It is quite right to note this, and the way in which it attracts people to the person of the Pope is perhaps part of what enables me to see Pope Francis as the Pope that we need for our present moment. But what I do not think works is the representation of this simplicity and element of informality as a contrast with or a break from that of Pope Francis' predecessors, and Pope Benedict in particular. I have taken to talking about two different styles of simplicity - because one cannot see Pope Benedict's move from being one of the most significant Popes of all time to being an almost completely hidden figure in a life of prayer in the Vatican as being anything else but a manifestation of simplicity.

3. The third component of my answer has a somewhat philosophical root. I think we should approach the question with a phenemenological methodology. Instead of trying to read Pope Francis within the framework of a particular hermeneutic - be that the hermeneutic of the liberal Catholic or be that the hermeneutic of the traditionalist Catholic, or be that any hermeneutic in between - we should seek to determine the essence to be found in the reality itself. This can be exemplified very well by reflecting on Pope Francis choice to live at the Casa Santa Martha rather than in the apartments of the Apostolic Palace. For some, this a great sign of simplicity and poverty. For others, it is a sign of a turning away from a dignity of the Papal office. But what does Pope Francis himself say?

From the dialogue with the pupils and alumni of Jesuit schools, with my emphasis added:

A woman: I am Caterina De Marchis of the Istituto Leone XIII, and I was wondering: why you [Lei]— that is, you [using the familiar tu] — have renounced the riches of a Pope, like a luxurious apartment and an large car. Instead you have opted for a small apartment close by, and you even took the bus for bishops. Why ever did you give up riches?

Pope Francis: Well, I believe it is not only a matter of wealth. For me it is a question of personality: that is what it is. I need to live with people, and were I to live alone, perhaps a little isolated, it wouldn’t be good for me. I was asked this question by a teacher: “But why don’t you go and live there?”. I replied: “please listen, professor, it is for psychological reasons”. It is my personality. Also, the apartments [in the Papal Palace] are not so luxurious, they are peaceful…. however, I cannot live alone, do you understand? And then I believe, yes: the times speak to us of such great poverty throughout the world, and this is a scandal. The poverty of the world is a scandal. In a world where there is such great wealth, so many resources for giving food to everyone, it is impossible to understand how there could be so many hungry children, so many children without education, so many poor people! Poverty today is a cry. We must all think about whether we can become a little poorer. This is something we must all do. How I can become a little poorer to be more like Jesus, who was the poor Teacher. This is the thing. But it is not a problem of my personal virtue, it is only that I cannot live alone, and the matter of the car, as you said: to not have too many things and to become a little poorer. It is this.

And it is worth noting that, though much was made at the time of Pope Francis setting aside his prepared text in favour of having more time for the question and answer session, it was clearly his intention to make the full text available to the participants in the meeting through Jesuit channels and through the press spokesman of the Holy See. I expect that a more phenomenological approach to Pope Francis will reveal for us the particular charism the he will have for us as Successor of St Peter.

A couple of Pope Francis' recent activities have caught my attention. The first was a short greeting addressed to members of the Senate and National Assembly of France  - a legislature that has recently passed legislation to legalise marriage between people of the same sex. The parallel between Pope Francis' remarks and those of Pope Benedict XVI speaking at Westminster Hall are striking, and all the more so given the very different religious/political contexts of France and Britain:

Le principe de laïcité qui gouverne les relations entre l’État français et les différentes confessions religieuses ne doit pas signifier en soi une hostilité à la réalité religieuse, ou une exclusion des religions du champ social et des débats qui l’animent. On peut se féliciter que la société française redécouvre des propositions faites par l’Église, entre autres, qui offrent une certaine vision de la personne et de sa dignité en vue du bien commun. L’Église désire ainsi apporter sa contribution spécifique sur des questions profondes qui engagent une vision plus complète de la personne et de son destin, de la société et de son destin. Cette contribution ne se situe pas uniquement dans le domaine anthropologique ou sociétal, mais aussi dans les domaines politique, économique et culturel.

The second is the letter sent by Pope Francis to Prime Minister David Cameron on the occasion of the G8 summit taking place at Lough Erne. It is very striking in its placing of the human person at the heart of economic activity - and one can see in that a continuity with the teaching of Gaudium et Spes, with the particular contribution with regard to the dignity and nature of the human person represented by Pope John Paul II (both as Pope and as philosopher) and similar contributions from Pope Benedict XVI.

I am pleased to reply to your kind letter of 5 June 2013, with which you were good enough to inform me of your Government's agenda for the British G8 Presidency during the year 2013 and of the forthcoming Summit, due to take place at Lough Erne on 17 and 18 June 2013, entitled A G8 meeting that goes back to first principles.

If this topic is to attain its broadest and deepest resonance, it is necessary to ensure that all political and economic activity, whether national or international, makes reference to man.....

The priorities that the British Presidency has set out for the Lough Erne Summit are concerned above all with the free international market, taxation, and transparency on the part of governments and economic actors. Yet the fundamental reference to man is by no means lacking, specifically in the proposal for concerted action by the Group to eliminate definitively the scourge of hunger and to ensure food security. Similarly, a further sign of attention to the human person is the inclusion as one of the central themes on the agenda of the protection of women and children from sexual violence in conflict situations, even though it must be remembered that the indispensable context for the development of all the afore-mentioned political actions is that of international peace....

The long-term measures that are designed to ensure an adequate legal framework for all economic actions, as well as the associated urgent measures to resolve the global economic crisis, must be guided by the ethics of truth. This includes, first and foremost, respect for the truth of man, who is not simply an additional economic factor, or a disposable good, but is equipped with a nature and a dignity that cannot be reduced to simple economic calculus. Therefore concern for the fundamental material and spiritual welfare of every human person is the starting-point for every political and economic solution and the ultimate measure of its effectiveness and its ethical validity.

Moreover, the goal of economics and politics is to serve humanity, beginning with the poorest and most vulnerable wherever they may be, even in their mothers' wombs. Every economic and political theory or action must set about providing each inhabitant of the planet with the minimum wherewithal to live in dignity and freedom, with the possibility of supporting a family, educating children, praising God and developing one's own human potential. This is the main thing; in the absence of such a vision, all economic activity is meaningless.

In this sense, the various grave economic and political challenges facing today's world require a courageous change of attitude that will restore to the end (the human person) and to the means (economics and politics) their proper place. Money and other political and economic means must serve, not rule, bearing in mind that, in a seemingly paradoxical way, free and disinterested solidarity is the key to the smooth functioning of the global economy.

UPDATE: Posting almost simultaneously: Reading the Pope - towards a papal hermeneutic.  My own post has arisen from reflection on Fr Hugh's earlier posts: The Pope of our Punishment strikes and Papal integrity – matters arising from the previous post

John XXIII and the Cuban Missile Crisis

As the anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council approached, I dipped into Meriol Trevor's biography of Pope John XXIII and into Alden Hatch's biography of Pope Paul VI. I read the chapters relating to the part played by the two pontiffs with regard to the Council.

According to chapter 19 of the former, it was Norman Cousins, a political activist and editor of a publication called the Saturday Review, who telephoned the Vatican on 24th October 1962 and suggested that the Pope should make an appeal for peace. Pope John was initially concerned that what he said might offend the Soviet side, but Cousins assured him that the terms of the appeal could be checked with each side before publication. Pope John is reported to have stayed up until midnight preparing a radio message that he delivered the next day, 25th October 1962. Given the genuine fear that nuclear war was a possible outcome of the crisis, Pope John's words are very powerful.  Appealing to the consciences of those who held power, he said:

May they hear the anguished cry which rises to heaven from every corner of the earth, from innocent children to old men, from persons and communities: peace, peace!

Vatican Radio's coverage marking Pope John's radio broadcast is here, and gives an account suggesting that the initial approach suggesting the Pope issue an appeal for peace came from President Kennedy.

According to Meriol Trevor, Russian premier Kruschev acknowledged to Norman Cousins that he had been moved by the Pope's appeal, which contributed to the easing of tension. The Vatican Radio coverage suggests that the broadcast, while not a crucial factor in bringing the crisis to a conclusion, was nevertheless a factor among others that led to its conclusion.

This article at Crisis Magazine gives an impression of a stronger influence of Pope John's appeal. It also refers indirectly to the part played by John XXIII in helping achieve the nuclear test ban treaty between the Soviets and the United States in 1963.

Cherie Blair at the Angelicum

I have at last got round to reading the text of the lecture that Cherie Blair gave at a day conference at the Pontifical University of St Thomas (the Angelicum) in Rome in December 2008. I have two texts to hand, one which I downloaded and printed in December, soon after the lecture itself, and a second text on the official Cherie Blair website. This latter text appears to be a fuller version of the earlier text, but, since I cannot now find my source for the first text, I cannot say this for certain. A transcript of a recording of the lecture is posted at Lifesite News; this transcript is very close to my earlier text, but in at least one point, it completely reverses the sense.

Perhaps the main difference between the two texts - and this appears to represent a difference between the lecture as delivered and the lecture as written up for posting on the website - lies in the concluding paragraphs. The website text is quite forthright in its attack on the Church's teaching on contraception, whereas the delivered text is more indirect. Cherie Blair cites Pope Benedict XVI's insistence that there is no contradiction between faith and reason, referring to his address at Regensburg, and then says:

Yet in relation to contraception the Church has preferred to avoid revisiting old doctrines in the light of present day knowledge.

The reality is that many Catholic couples, exercising their own consciences, in fact limit their families as the declining birth rates in Europe and the US testify. But in the face of the plague of HIV/AIDs where the Church has played such a role of compassionate ministry; that work is undermined by our refusal to allow the use of condoms which are literally making the difference between life and death across the world. And beyond HIV/Aids in a world where two thirds of world’s poor are women, to prevent the devout but poor in the third world, the choice that the devout but rich in the first world have to regulate their own fertility and thus release the potential of women to participate fully in economic and political life just reinforces the stubborn gap between the haves and have nots which the Church campaigns against so passionately across the world....

..unless [the Church] is prepared to be informed and changed by that Enlightenment rationality praised by Pope Benedict at Regensburg, unless it is prepared to look again with clear eyes at what is fundamental truth and what is just a reflection of the culture of the past that voice will be diminished and even distorted to the detriment of the mission of the Church to bring spirituality, wisdom and compassion to the modern world.

It is, of course, quite disingenous to cite Pope Benedict as if his thought provides a basis for supporting a point of view that he would in fact oppose quite strongly. Particularly when Cherie has cited earlier in her lecture Pope Benedict's warning against the "subjective 'conscience' becoming the sole arbiter of what is ethical".

There is, however, a very positive section in Cherie Blair's lecture. This comes in a section headed "The Church and Human Rights", the second section of the lecture. The website text appears to replace a section of the delivered lecture outlining the origin of the discourse on human rights in general with a fuller account of the thought of Pope John XXIII expressed in Pacem in Terris and of Pope John Paul II. I do not reproduce it here but refer the reader to the link above to read it directly. There is also an interesting recognition that the Church contributes a religious underpinning to the principle of universal human rights that genuinely adds something when compared to an exclusively secular understanding. And an interesting citation about the universality of human rights, that they apply to all people. This is a section of the lecture that is well worth reading.

In trying to understand exactly where Cherie Blair is coming from, I recognise two "hermeneutic principles" at play in her lecture. The first is to treat the role of women in terms of "leadership" or "rank". In the text as it appears to have been delivered, Mary Ann Glendon, as head of the Pontifical Academy for the Social Sciences is described as "the highest ranking woman in the Church"; and the roles of Edith Stein, Mother Teresa and others are described as "leadership roles". In the website text this language of leadership is extended, perhaps softened, to include the language of "breaking down barriers to female participation". The language of "participation" is quite nuanced, and to participate is not the same thing as to lead; but I think one should recognise that for Cherie Blair it is a language that refers to leadership and positions of rank in the Church.

However, if we are really to understand the part played by women like Edith Stein and Mother Teresa in the Church, a hermeneutic of "leadership" and "rank" does not work. Instead, one needs a hermeneutic of the "evangelical counsels" which define the religious life that they embraced, and the spirit that is reflected in a genuinely Christian lay lifestyle of those who are active in the Church. I think one can legitimately suggest, as Cherie Blair did, that more women could have roles in the Curia. But that should conform to an authentically ecclesial hermeneutic, which is not one that can be fully expressed in the terminology of leadership and rank. Indeed, a hermeneutic of "leadership" and "rank" misunderstands the part that men should play, too.

The second key "hermeneutic principle" for Cherie Blair is that of freedom for women with regard to child care, and by implication, to an extent at least, from child birth (their "ability to control their own fertility"). For her, the promotion of women's rights only comes about where being a mother does not come in the way of women taking leadership roles. So, for example, in the text of the lecture as it appears to have been delivered, Cherie says of Edith Stein and Mother Teresa that "in return for leadership roles they had to turn away from having children. As a result the Church, like the rest of our society, did not accept the equality of every woman in practice". Fundamental to this, of course, is access to contraception, and this is the basis of Cherie Blair's forthright attack on the Church's teaching on this topic.

It is quite fascinating to see what is present in the text of the lecture as it appears to have been delivered - but has been taken out in favour of the much stronger attack on the Church's teaching on contraception in the website text:

And, while I am on record, as having had difficulties with the current teaching on responsible parenthood, I do recognize that much of what Paul VI predicted could happen in Humanae Vitae as a result of what could happen as a result of wide and indiscriminate use of abortion has been born out in particular in relation to baby girls as the birth ratios of boys to girls in some countries testify. What those lost girls demonstrate is that, across the world, we lack the widely held sense of the contribution of women which is important to society in its own right. The situation of too many women in the developing world shows that we are still far away from women being regarded as of equal worth to men. Here the over-whelming problems: economic, education and health related.

The British Independent newspaper commenting on the 1994 UN Population conference in Cairo singled out the Catholic Church for praise – not something it always does – it persuasively argued that, by being one of the leading providers of education across the developing world, the Church is making a powerful contribution to improving the lives of women, lifting them out of poverty and enabling them to reduce levels of child-birth, which can be, and is actually often dangerous to their health. History teaches us that improving the general economic situation and particularly improving women’s educational levels, gives women more power in society and helps them exercise more responsible fertility.

The appropriate hermeneutic to respond to this second hermeneutic of Cherie Blair's is that provided by the "theology of the body". In other words, a hermeneutic based on an integration of the sexual aspects of women's (and man's) existence into a whole of life. Such a hermeneutic has its application to both married and religious life.

Whilst it is very easy to attack Cherie Blair's lecture for its dissent from Catholic teaching, it is also useful to clearly identify the two "hermeneutics" which underpin it. These can then be evaluated in their relation to wider Catholic thinking and to the thinking of the non-Catholic world.