Musing on Trust

In my last blog entry, I suggested that the bishops in England and Wales needed to earn our trust again.

I have blogged about trust and the bishops before, here, prompted by my mistrust of CAFOD and my recognition that the problems went higher up the chain.

It seems to me that at the heart of the bishops' role is to lead, teach and support us in the two key areas of faith and morals: that is, what we are to believe and how we are to behave.

The more I reflect on it, the more uneasy I am; for I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that there are members of the hierarchy who are not to be trusted in these key areas.

With regard to morals, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a number of our bishops do not believe in the teaching of Humanae Vitae, nor with the teaching on the objective sinfulness of homosexual and extra-marital sexual relations; even the Church's prophetic witness against abortion seems too much for some. (I should, as ever, make it quite clear that there are honourable exceptions to this).  With regard to faith, it is hard to be clear what they believe, and in particular that there is any understanding of the Church as the One True Faith, of Original Sin and Personal Sin, and the importance of the Sacramental life for the salvation of souls.

Consider, for example:

• The failure to preach about Humanae Vitae, anywhere, ever, by almost anyone;

• The continued promotion of The Tablet, as though it were a Catholic journal, despite its dissent from Humanae Vitae;

• The Filochowski/Pendergast scandal, when +Crowley was prepared to celebrate a Mass in honour of the 25 year anniversary of a homosexual relationship - a Mass eventually celebrated by the then-Rector of Ushaw Seminary, and attended by the bishop;

• The failure of the Conference to back up +Egan’s important statement that politicians who voted against Catholic teaching should repent before presenting themselves for Holy Communion; 

• The way in which  ++Nichols supports the 'Queering The Church'-led LGBT Masses; and the fact that his only clear statement on the subject was to tell those who questioned this policy to 'hold their tongues;'

• ++Nichols' saying that talking about sin was a misguided attempt to motivate people;

• The failure of  CES to hold anything approaching a Catholic line, and the appointment to it of a man who as an MP had voted consistently in ways that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on, for example, abortion, contraception, 'gay' relationships etc.;

• The Conference’s stance in favour of Civil Partnerships, which, it seems to me, paved the way for the disaster of Same Sex ‘Marriage;’

• Catholic Marriage Care offering relationship support to homosexual couples;

• The failure to correct the public statements of people like Professor Beattie, when she opines that Catholics may, in good conscience, ignore the teaching of the Church on matters of sexual morality;

• The episcopal silence as Cafod has drifted away from Catholic principles (eg redefining abstinence in ways that are far from Catholic, and promoting condoms);

• Personal conversations I have had with various bishops; for example one bishop (now retired, when I lived in another diocese) who told me that the Catholic Schools couldn’t teach the Faith, because many parents didn’t follow it, and their children might think they were doing something wrong.

• The hostility shown toward +O'Donoghue for his 'Fit for Mission' project: praised by the Vatican, he was disappointed by the response of his brother bishops;

• The welcome extended to the dissenting group ACTA and the contrasting hostility displayed to those who seek to defend the traditional Faith;

• The promotion of educational programmes that are at best deficient and at worst heretical for use in our schools;

• The silence around the whole +Conry affair;

• The silence when +Conry was denigrating Confession (and his many other misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith);

• The fact that +Conry's deliberate failure to teach on sexual morality was not noticed - because he was not the only bishop to be refraining from such teaching;

• The '+Conry shrug' (exemplified in the link in my last post, but also practiced by ++Nichols when asked whether the Church would eventually bless homosexual unions);

• The equivocation we hear from so many bishops whenever we might expect a clear explanation of any difficult aspect of the Faith.

Of course, I may be joining the dots in the wrong way when tempted to doubt some of our bishops with regard to their adherence to the Church's teaching; as I noted in my previous post, another explanation could be that some are actually under the power of someone else, who has the dirt on them. 

In either case, I would be dishonest if I did not say that my trust in many of  them is seriously undermined, and I do not believe I am alone in that.

As I suggested in my earlier post on trust, I think that in order for someone to trust someone else, they must believe in his good intentions, his competence to deliver them, and his integrity. When it comes to many of our bishops, somewhere in that mix something is missing.

When seeking to re-build trust, open and honest communication are essential. So I would suggest that the hierarchy needs to be open and honest at this time.

For myself, I would particularly welcome a few assurances:

• That each member of the hierarchy accepts without reservation the teaching of the Church, especially and explicitly including the teachings on human sexuality and on original and personal sin, the unique role of the Catholic Church as the one true Church, the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and the need for sacramental confession;

• That each member of the hierarchy swears that he teaches and acts free from any duress or blackmail;

• That each member of the hierarchy states what he has learned from the +Conry affair, and what he personally will undertake to do to avoid the risk of any recurrence.

That is what I would welcome: however I have no reason to expect it will come to pass.

Which raises the question: what are the faithful to do when they no longer trust many of their bishops?

More on Ignorance, and other, darker, matters

I have been brooding more on ignorance, and particularly what one might call 'tactical ignorance.' (I do like finding ever-more evocative adjectives to place in front of 'ignorance').

Remember this?

Bishop Conry is asked whether the Church might quietly change its mind in a hundred years' time (on the impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood). He replies: 'Well, according to Pope John Paul the Second this was a definitive statement, wasn't it. But, um, I couldn't possibly comment.' (chuckle). It is the knowing chuckle that gets me every time. He is joined in it by the interviewer and the other interviewee, one Professor Beattie...

It reminded me of another profession of ignorance: 

Stephen Sackur: Some of their (ie CofE) vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?

+Nichols: I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?

It seems to me that in both cases, a profession of ignorance was used tactically, to avoid giving a straight answer. 

And again I was reminded of the incident in St Luke, Chapter 20, to which I referred yesterday.

Could it really be that our bishops (one ex- and one now a cardinal) both used this tactic to avoid saying (or even teaching) the truth? And if so, was that for fear of what the people might say if they told the truth?  Or, for fear of revealing that they really don't believe aspects of the Faith it is their vocation and duty to uphold?

These are worrying questions.

Unfortunately they are not the full extent of my current worries.

I have also been reflecting on the start of my brother's illustrious career in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Many years ago, when he was undertaking his initial officer training, he was asked if there were anything in his background which might be an embarrassment (or worse) to him, should it come to light later.

The MOD made it clear than anything confessed now, unless a serious criminal issue, would not stand in his way; but that it was essential that he did confess anything of that nature. As he explained it to me, it was to ensure that he could never be the subject of moral duress or blackmail. So he owned up to having been a regular at a pub where plenty of dope was smoked, and to having smoked some himself.

He was reminded that he should not do so any more, and that was that. And, as I say, he subsequently had an illustrious career, and, I am sure, was never compromised in his duty to his Queen or Country by any shadow from the past.

And so we return to the subject of the hierarchy in this country. We know from his own admission, that +Conry allowed his illicit affairs to affect his  behaviour in office: he refrained from preaching on sexual morality. We also know that ++O'Brien was only 'outed' when he offended his former lovers by preaching in a way they didn't like.

We also know that many other odd things are said, done, glossed over or permitted by other members of the hierarchy. We know that reports of +Conry's misbehaviour were submitted to the highest levels: and yet we hear of the 'shock' of the news of his resignation and the reasons for it.  

All of which raises the question, how are we to trust our bishops?

How can we be confident that when ++Nichols (to take an example at random, you understand) refuses to teach clearly that the Church can never sanction gay unions, or permits the scandalous dissident LGBT Masses, that he is doing so in good conscience? Is it not at least conceivable that he is under duress? That someone, somewhere has something on him?

When our letters are unanswered, is it because the poor bishop has so many letters from so many nutters, that he simply can't get through them all? Or is it because we have asked questions to which he really does not wish to give an answer?

We really should not have to think like that about our hierarchy: but that seems to me (and not only to me) to be, as the unlovely phrase has it, the situation in which we find ourselves.

Of course, there are those amongst the hierarchy who do not excite such suspicions: I do not want to tar all of them with this very sticky brush. There are some who teach and preach the Faith without equivocation, and whom nobody has any reason to suspect knew anything of these murky affairs. And then there are the others. 

We must pray for all our bishops, of course. Naturally enough, the Devil will always seek to attack the Holy Father and the bishops as a priority: I am quite sure that they are subject to spiritual assault far beyond anything I can imagine. Nonetheless, in this instance prayer is not enough. We need to make clear to CBCEW what we expect: and that includes apologies, explanations, and reform. We need to know that they have learned from these terrible debacles, and they need to earn our trust again.

Toxic Ignorance

I was reading St Luke Chapter 20 yesterday, in which Our Lord is challenged by the Pharisees about his authority to do 'these things' - these things including, presumably, to teach, heal, cast out moneylenders...

He responded by asking them by what authority St John the Baptist baptised.  They were stumped: if they said from Heaven, they were condemned out of their own mouths for their lack of belief; but if they said from men, the crowds would be ready to stone them. So they pleaded ignorance.

Which set me thinking about recent events.

I have so far refrained from blogging about the +Conry affair, for several reasons. One is, I think it generally bad form to kick a man when he is down, and I will strive to refrain from doing so, despite my anger, outrage and upset. I have already made my views on various aspects of +Conry's behaviour clear on many occasions, both on this blog (see the tag Conry) and on others (eg here).

So I will refrain from any comment on him, except in so far as it is relevant to my larger concerns. One of which is the whole issue of ignorance.

Various commentators are asking the question 'Who knew?' which has prompted +Conry to announce that no other bishop knew.

Even if we take that statement at face value (and why should we? Is he a reliable witness? Can he actually know what others know?) it seems to me to miss the point.

There are many adjectives that can be placed in front of the word ignorance. They include 'innocent' 'wilful' 'culpable' and 'feigned.'  And given the passage from St Luke which I read last night, which set me thinking on these lines, I would add 'political' to that list. And of course, one thinks of the link between ignore and ignorance.

As noted above, many people are asking whether (and if so when) ++Murphy O'Conner or ++Vincent Nichols knew about +Conry's problems. While those are important questions, I suggest that even a negative answer does not let our senior bishops off the hook here. If they were ignorant, which adjectives apply to such ignorance? I don't think 'innocent' quite fits...

It seems to me that they have a responsibility to the faithful in this country to recommend the appointment of good bishops, and to ensure that they remain good bishops (and see the excellent post here by Ttony on the relevant Canon Law). In this case, they have failed to discharge that responsibility, and ignorance is no excuse. "Don't ask, don't tell" is simply not acceptable: indeed it takes us straight back to the culture that allowed the terrible problems of clerical abuse to proliferate.

They also have a responsibility to all the good priests who do behave well, often with heroic effort. Occasionally a rumour reaches me about a priest, and my response is that I do not listen to gossip, but rely on their spiritual superiors to ensure propriety. So when people told me that Fr X had been on holiday with his boyfriend, and pictures had been sent to his bishop, I thought: "Fine: if true, his bishop will deal with it. If untrue, then I should certainly ignore the slander." 

But if, in fact, I cannot trust his bishop to deal with it, because he doesn't 'know' and further, definitely doesn't want to know, do I have a duty to investigate myself and speak out to warn others, if I conclude the rumour is true? What if he is being recommended for a bishopric? We learn that the redoubtable Daphne McLeod, amongst others, took the trouble to write to the (previous) Nuncio about +Conry  before he was consecrated, but got no reply.

 If we cannot trust the bishops to do their job, then the rumours will abound, unchecked, and many good men will have their good name taken from them. What a terrible situation such wilful episcopal ignorance would lead to...

So I think apologies and explanations are due, not just from +Conry, but also for those who were responsible for his promotion and protection. For even if they were not aware of his failings, they had a responsibility for oversight that they failed to discharge. And they also have a responsibility to explain what they have learned, and how they will seek to ensure such a situation will not arise again.

They owe it to the Faithful, they owe it to the priests and bishops of the Church in this country, and above all they owe it to Christ, whose mystical Body they have seen profaned.

Where ignorance is this, 'tis holy to be wise.

It's a Question of Trust

Reflecting on the McBride/CAFOD affair, it seems to me that much of the commentary misses the point.

People are talking about what McBride did then, and whether CAFOD should or should not accept 'tainted' money.

Heavens above: if only the completely virtuous could donate to CAFOD they would be poor indeed! That's really not the issue, as I see it.

It is not what McBride did then, when employed in the ugly world of party politics; and which he may well, for all I know, have confessed and been shriven for. 

It's the fact that now, as a senior member of CAFOD, and indeed the one in charge of PR, he is publishing what he is publishing, and in the way that he is publishing it (serialisation in a mass-circulation paper at Party Conference time...) that I think is the current issue.

The analogy isn't Mother Teresa taking money from dodgy dictators: it is Mother Teresa permitting one of her senior nuns to raise money in dodgy ways.

All of which contributes to my feeling that CAFOD still does not merit my trust.

So I have been ruminating on trust.

It seems to me that there are three components of trust, in this context. One is the good intentions of the party who seeks to be trusted; a second is his or her competence; and the relative importance of each of these elements varies with the context. I would sooner trust with a scalpel over my abdomen the competent surgeon with dodgy views on the Trinity, than the completely orthodox one with a shaky hand and poor nerves... The third is integrity: that fundamental congruence between what somebody says and what he or she is and does.

In the case of CAFOD, I fear all three are in question.  I won't rehearse all the issues again, as I have bored my indulgent readers with them so many times (a click on the tag CAFOD will reveal all...).

I should reiterate that I am talking here specifically about the leadership and central organisation. I know of many good people who are completely trustworthy - and virtuous, generous and more - who support CAFOD in the parishes. 

But I fear the central question is important. Because they have forfeited trust, both by concealing and obfuscating, on the one hand, and by poor judgement and decision making on the other, I have no confidence in the claims they make about the work they now do. It is not just a fear that they may be promoting condoms, or even working supportively with agencies that campaign for and provide abortions. 

It is also that they are engaged in campaigning and educational work: and I do not think that they are doing so from a sound Catholic, but rather a secularised, perspective.  Frankly, I am not prepared to risk money I donate to a body that claims to be Catholic being spent in ways that go against the Church's teaching, and may even be actively undermining it: their reinterpretation of Abstinence being a case in point.

My beef with CAFOD is actually very personal and very longstanding.  It starts many years ago, when I co-ordinated a project that raised significant funds for them.

I remember meeting the regional co-ordinator for a discussion towards the end of the project, at a time when the see in which we were working was vacant. During the meeting, a priest wandered in to the office. He was a big CAFOD supporter and very J&P. He was chatting idly with the CAFOD chap about why it was taking so long for the see to be filled, and said scathingly that it was because Rome was searching around for someone - anyone - who believed in Humanae Vitae. They both thought this was ludicrous.

At that moment, I realised that I had been a dupe.  Here I was, working to support a Catholic Charity, only to see that, at least in its local incarnation, it was not.  The regional co-ordinator, a lovely chap, had always seemed perfectly sound in our conversations heretofore. But the mask slipped, possibly because by now he felt comfortable with me, and also in the company of his priest friend. But what was behind the mask was an attitude of dissent - and habitual, casual dissent, at that, as though everyone really shared such views.

That impression was only strengthened the more I learned and attended to CAFOD's various activities and publications in the intervening years.

And this problem points higher up the chain. CAFOD's supporters often point to the fact that they are under the oversight of the bishops, so they must be all right. One would hope that such an assurance would be all one needs. But I fear that the bishops of England and Wales, collectively, and many of them individually (with some notable and honourable exceptions) have also forfeited our trust.

I do not know whether it is incompetence or a different belief-system (or both) that lead to the various behaviours and statements that undermine my trust in them; and it is probably better not to speculate.  But when one considers:

•  ++Nichol's support for Queering The Church - led LGBT Masses; 
• +Conry's extraordinary misrepresentation of Vatican ll documents, injudicious (to put it mildly) comments on confession, and support for ACTA; 
• +Arnold's failure to hold CAFOD to a Catholic line, 
• ++Kelly saying lay-led funeral services were as good as funeral Masses, and offering his Cathedral to Methodists for their 'ordination' services,  
• + McMahon's failure to hold the CES to a Catholic line, and welcoming the appointment to it of a man who, as an MP had voted consistently in ways that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching on, for example, abortion, contraception, 'gay' relationships etc.
• the collective stance in favour of Civil Partnerships, which paved the way for the SSM fiasco,
• and...

...but alas the list could go on and on... but considering these, it is fair to say that my trust is undermined.

Prayer and fasting are clearly the first priority. But beyond that, we do have a duty to speak out: both to ensure that others are not misled, and in the hope that the Nuncio will be able to keep the Holy Father properly informed, so that he does not place his trust where it may not be honoured.

At such times, as I have remarked before, the only other thing to do is throw myself back on the promises of Our Lord, in particular those in the Tu es Petrus:

Et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam.

And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her (The Church).

Sacrosanctum Concilium - as seen through strange (bishop's) eyes

In the diocese of Arundel and Brighton, they are celebrating their diocesan golden jubilee.

As part of that process,  they have started local study groups in the parishes, looking at the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

I think that a great idea: the documents are the real teaching of the Council, and are sadly neglected (and often misrepresented).

On the web, you can see the resources they have produced for Study Group Leaders and for Participants .

However, I was slightly less impressed once I started to read some of the material.

Below, for example, is part of Bishop Conry’s introductory talk on the Sacred Liturgy.

I started to embolden and intalicise phrases that seem to me to speak more of Bishop Conry’s personal views (I had almost said prejudices) than of anything that the Council actually said.  However, that was clearly going to result in the whole extract being in bold and italic, so I desisted. I have, however, added a comment or two of my own in red.

Seriously, as an introduction to the changes to the liturgy suggested by Sacrosanctum Concilium this is a very poor piece of work.

--

“What the reforms of the Council, especially in the first document on the liturgy, have tried to do, is restore what many refer to as ‘the noble simplicity of the Roman Rite.’  

This was necessary because, over the centuries, and especially after the Protestant Reformation, many of the elements of the Mass had become obscured. Much of this was a consequence of the continued use of Latin, which served to alienate and distance people from the action of the Mass. 

(This is riddled with oddities: it is not clear how Latin resulted in elements being obscured, very few changes were made after the Protestant Reformation - Trent codified existing practice. The opinion about alienation has nothing to do with anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium.  One would scarcely gather, from this or anything the good bishop said, that Sacrosanctum Concilium ordered that Latin be retained as the principal language of the liturgy in the Roman Rite.)

While the Protestant reformers wanted the scriptures and liturgy to be made accessible to the people in their own language, the Catholic Church rejected this as more or less Protestant heresy, and so the separation of priest and people grew even more marked. 

("and so"?  Again, this is the bishop’s view, nothing to do with anything to be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium.)

The priest had his back to the people and many of the prayers of the Mass were said in silence or in a whisper. The people had to be told that the moment of consecration was approaching to (sic) that they could at least see the consecrated host being elevated, and so a bell was rung. One of our great liturgical scholars, Dom Gregory Dix, refers to the change in the Mass by the Middle Ages as “declining into a mere focus for the subjective devotion of each separate worshipper in the isolation of his own mind.” Gone was any sense of a corporate, community act of worship.

(More somewhat stale opinions that have nothing to do with anything to be found in Sacrosanctum Concilium.)

[snip]

When people talk of ‘traditional’ celebration of Mass, they often refer to the rites introduced in the 16th century, after the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent. 

(What rites are these? As I understand it, Trent codified what preceded it; it did not introduce new rites: it would have considered such an approach gravely problematic.  Only  in the wake of the Second Vatican Council was such an extraordinary thing attempted - and again it is hard to see anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium which justifies the wholesale re-writing of the Sacred Liturgy.)

What the Vatican Council has asked us to do is go back and re-discover more authentically where our liturgical traditions begin. It asks us to find again the simple beauty of gifts of bread and wine being brought to the altar from the people; of the people being asked to join in the great prayer of thanksgiving over those gifts, said by the priest, and giving their consent with the great ‘Amen’ – one of the responses that really should be sung – and it asks us to see that the bread is broken before it is shared, as Christ took the bread and broke it.

(I can’t find any of that in my copy of Sacrosanctum Concilium.  If that is a summary of the bishop’s sacramental theology of the Mass, then we are in dire straits indeed.)

--

It is a great shame that this worthy initiative is undermined by such poor implementation.

Pray for our bishops and for the Universal Church.

The Listing Barque

Poor old bishop Kieran Conry has just made a bit of a twit of himself (see almost every Catholic blog - eg Holy Smoke, Hermeneutic of Continuity).

He has fallen victim to what I call the listing barque syndrome.

Some years ago (1950s) it seemed that the barque of Peter (aka The Catholic Church) was leaning a little too far to the right. The Second Vatican Council suggested a few minor and moderate changes to stabilise the ship, but the main message was steady as you are. However, a few of the watch leaders over-reacted and rushed to the left, calling everybody to follow them. The crew, being largely obedient types, followed suit, with the inevitable result that the boat lurched to the left.

Some observant souls noticed this, and rushed to the right to counter the list; unfortunately, some went too far and fell off altogether (eg into sedevacantism). Seeing this, the watch leaders leaned further to the left, not noticing the thousands of souls behind them falling off to the left.

And every time anyone suggests that there is a problem, they say 'Look, we can't go back to the right, look what happens!' pointing at the unfortunate few who fall off the barque that side.

And thousands continue to fall off behind them on the left.

And bishop Conry is still telling us that regular confession is a bad thing because (conceivably) in the 1950s some people went out of habit... And of course adherence to the traditional Mass is very dangerous; whereas altar girls, innumerable extraordinary minsters, liturgical dance and so on are necessary correctives to the dangerous tilt to the right (which may have been almost discernible more than 50 years ago!).

I used to think that we needed to await the next generation of bishops for this silliness to pass- and by and large I think that's true. But the bishop of Lancaster has proved me wrong, at least in one case: most recently by his brave and necessary decision to sever links with (soi-disant) Catholic Caring Services, as despite all his efforts they are determined to follow an anti-Catholic path.