There has been just one voice of reason in all this - Lord Patten, the man appointed by the government to oversee preparations for the visit. This voice has so far been drowned out by those with different agendas. Lord Patten has explained in simple terms why it is important to forge close relations with the Vatican in order to further our foreign policy objectives, and has been open that the preparations have been 'more complex' than imagined.
Mouse is no apologist for the Pope, and has been critical in the past, so now offers up his three reasons to welcome the Pope and three reasons to object. Naturally these are coming from Mouse's own perspective as an Anglican, but he offers them up to attempt to take the debate forward just a little.
We should welcome the Pope because:
1. The Catholic Church must be an important partner in crucial development work in Africa. Lord Patten points out that the Catholic Church and church groups, provide around 25% of school education and 25% of health-care in sub-Saharan Africa (Mouse cannot verify this - if anyone has a link please post in the comments, but there is plenty which verifies the overall thrust). It is also not widely known that the Catholic church also provides extensive support to AIDS sufferers in Africa as well. The same pattern can be found in many other key development regions, where the position of the Catholic Church puts them in a unique position which cannot be ignored if we are to live up to our international obligations and moral duties to support humanitarian work and development in the third world.
2. Britain should support grass-roots Catholic movements for democracy around the world, and must work with the Pope on these issues. This is particularly the case in South America, where the Catholic church is on the one hand deeply embedded across the region. But on the other hand some Catholic priests are at the forefront of a number of movements which are challenging the political elites and siding with the poor and marginalised. These movements, and the role of the Catholic Church are not straight-forward or without ambiguity, but it is clear that that Church has an important role to play, and any foreign policy objectives in the region would be advanced by closer ties with the Vatican.
3. Building a "Big Society" at home requires engagement with the Catholic Church. Relations between the government and the Catholic Church have been dented recently, particularly with the change to the law which effectively ruled out Catholic adoption agencies. If David Cameron is smart, and Mouse reckons he is, he will use his time with the Pope to ask for his support in building the Big Society, and possibly a bit of Catholic cash too. Catholics have always been socially active and many fantastic local services to the poor and needy of the parish, and the previous government failed to engage with these people through initiatives like the New Deal for Communities. Cameron knows that these people have more to offer, and should ask for the Pope's support to mobilise this volunteer army.
We should object because:
1. A number of senior Catholics should no longer be in their jobs following the abuse scandal. In Ireland, the Pope has refused to accept the resignations of auxiliary bishops Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field, which has purplexed many, as the bishops themselves recognised that their resignations would help rebuild the desparately damaged reputation of the Church there. It is a matter of consternation for many others that Cardinal Brady is still in his job in Ireland, after having apologised for his handling of some cases, but not offered his resignation. Mouse is less familiar with the situation in other countries, but suspects that the argument holds elsewhere too. To rebuild trust in the Church, there needs to be some accountability, which means some in senior roles should lose their jobs.
2. The approach taken to the establishment of the Ordinariate put many Anglican noses out of joint. The Ordinariate is the mechanism established by Pope Benedict to allow Anglican-friendly zones within the Catholic church, to encourage the conversion of Catholic minded Anglicans. Many Anglicans are very comfortable with the arrangement overall, but the lack of consultation with the Anglican hierarchy meant that it felt like an aggressive move on the Anglican Church, which Mouse does not believe it was.
3. The Pope should acknowledge that bringing Bishop Williamson back into the Catholic fold was a mistake. For those unfamiliar with this move, it came about when the Pope recognised the Society of St Pius X, and allowed them to take communion in Catholic Churches, after they split away from Rome many years ago. In itself this was not particularly controversial, until it emerged that one of the bishops of the society was a holocaust denier. All hell broke loose following this, and it turned out that the Vatican was unaware of his views prior to the move. The Vatican tacitly acknowledged a cock-up but offered no apology and did not reverse the decision.
Please get your facts right.
ReplyDeleteWilliamson has not been brought back into the Catholic fold, nor has the S.S.P.X. (yet) been recognised. Their bishops (including Williamson) are no longer excommunicated, but this falls far short of being in the "Catholic fold".
As they are not "Catholics in good standing", they cannot receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches.
Si Watkin
ReplyDeleteMouse is well aware of the facts. I used the vague term "Catholic fold" quite deliberately, as negotiations are ongoing as to the full inclusion of SSPX. I did not suggest they were fully reconciled communicant members of the church.
I'm a little confused. These two statements seem to say quite opposite things:
ReplyDelete- "the Pope [...] allowed them to take communion in Catholic Churches"
- "I did not suggest they were fully reconciled communicant members of the church."
Sir Watkin
ReplyDeleteOK, my understanding is that the lifting of the excommunication means they can receive communion if they were to pitch up to a Catholic church, but that their priests are not yet authorised to administer communion, until the negotiations have sorted out the terms of the reconciliation.
Right??
Er, no.
ReplyDeleteThe lifting of the excommunication applies only to the four bishops (for the simple reason that no-one else (still alive) in the S.S.P.X was excommunicated). The status of priests and laity remains unchanged (i.e. it's still irregular - no more and no less).
I can spell out what all this means in practical terms ("pitching up to a Catholic church" etc.) if that would be helpful, but the main point is that the only change has been in the status of the bishops, who have moved from "excommunicated" to "irregular". This makes no practical difference, but was the bishops' precondition for entering into serious negotiations with they Holy See about corporate reconciliation. It is misleading to state that the S.S.P.X. has been "recognised" (save in a trivial sense).
Don't think its misleading at all. The Vatican statement said, "It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity." If that is not recognition that the Pope is bringing SSPX into the fold, I really don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteNo, no recognition of the S.S.P.X. there.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about the future. The key phrases are "It is hoped" and "followed by".
The Pope hopes to be able to recognise the S.S.P.X., to bring them into "full communion" etc., but as you will know from following the subsequent negotiations this remains an aspiration. Not much progress has been made towards it, and the outcome is by no means certain.
For now the S.S.P.X. remains outside the Catholic fold.