Translated by Google: [ Italiano - Français - Español ]
The Holy Father’s September visit to the United Kingdom
was widely regarded as a great success, both as a tonic to British lay
Catholics and as a wake-up call to the country’s secular society. But
the visit also highlighted the tension that exists between his
pontificate and what dismayed English Catholics call the liberal “Magic
Circle” of bishops who make up the Bishops’ Conference of England and
Wales (BCEW).
Several of its number are known
to be deeply opposed both to this papacy and to that of John Paul II.
The first reason for this opposition is that the members of the BCEW
have been largely self-selecting from a small pool of like-minded
“insiders” who come through lines of patronage that can be traced back
to one man, the late Archbishop Derek Worlock of Liverpool. At the
Second Vatican Council, Worlock had been one of the first of the English
bishops to promote a new liberal vision for the Church.
The vision appropriated the
structures, cultural loyalties, and financial contributions of the old,
inward-looking, triumphalist “ghetto” Church to build a new,
outward-facing Catholicism that focused on social climbing and liberal
politics. Ultimately, Worlock’s vision aimed for the broader acceptance
of Catholicism by the secular elite.
This post-conciliar vision of a
more visible Catholic presence is, however, at odds with Pope Benedict’s
conceptions of what visibility and presence require. The BCEW’s vision
ever since the days of Archbishop Worlock has aimed at “liberating”
Catholics from their past and helping them to embrace the values of
secular society. But Pope Benedict’s vision aims at fostering orthodox
Catholics who can act as a “creative minority” in the wider culture. The
differences between these two visions are ultimately irreconcilable and
go to the heart of the debate over the meaning of Vatican II.
The second reason for the tensions with the Pope is the structure of the BCEW, which appears to undercut the individual bishop’s teaching role in favor of presenting a common front on every issue. The BCEW has mimicked the power structures of the traditional British trade unions that look anachronistic today. The BCEW is a rigid bureaucratic structure centered on the idea of the central committee and employs a plethora of professional lay and clerical sub-committees, all paid for by the ordinary Catholics it claims to represent. The irony is that the pursuit of this agenda has been to the detriment of halting the decline of the very working-class, “grass-roots” Catholicism that once gave the bishops a legitimate voice on issues of real social concern.
This “grass-roots” Catholicism
has been decimated by a collapse in religious practice among the
indigenous Catholic population, which, if it were not being buoyed up by
massive levels of immigration from Eastern Europe and the developing
world, would have already signaled the end for many parishes and even
dioceses.
The
BCEW may have succeeded in opening up the doors of the Church to the
world, but instead of the world walking in, Catholics have walked out,
especially those who have grown up in the post-conciliar era never
knowing the safety of the “ghetto” Church and who prefer to take their
worldliness from the world itself rather than from a self-consciously
worldly Catholicism. For many Catholics the Church now exists only to
“hatch, match, and dispatch” and retains the nominal membership that it
does largely because it runs the best free schools in the country.
Where
an English bishop has dared to step out of line and question the BCEW’s
liberalism, the result has been criticism and ostracism by colleagues.
In 2008, the outgoing bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O’Donoghue, presented
reports (titled “Fit for Mission, Church?”, “Fit for Mission,
Schools?”, and “Fit for Mission, Marriage?”) which lambasted the BCEW
policies that had accelerated the decline of the faith in England. The
reports also proposed a series of radical recommendations for recovery.
Those documents were warmly welcomed in Rome. O’Donoghue was received in
personal audience by the Pope and received commendations from three
curial congregations and two pontifical councils. But the reaction to
these reports in England was the complete opposite. Instead of forming
the blueprint for diocesan policies throughout England and Wales, they
were ignored, and some bishops even actively spoke against them.
SOHO MASSES
One of the most controversial
issues affecting the BCEW is its continued support for the so-called
“Soho Masses” in the Westminster Archdiocese, Masses that minister to
“homosexual Catholics.” The current archbishop of Westminster, Vincent
Nichols, has made several public interventions in interviews recently
where he speculated as to whether the Church might in time approve gay
marriage. He also confirmed that when the Labour Government introduced
civil partnerships legislation, the BCEW made a deliberate and conscious
decision not to oppose it. He continues to support the “Soho Masses”
and told a radio program that those who do oppose them should be silent.
He also declined to disagree with a fellow panelist’s assertion in a
television debate after the papal visit that the policy of the BCEW on
homosexual rights follows a markedly different line from that of the
Vatican’s policy.
Those lay Catholics in England
who have spoken up against these “nuanced” positions have found
themselves attacked in return. Before the papal visit, highly respected
pro-life campaigner John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, publicly stated that the BCEW, rather
than supporting the pro-life cause or attacking euthanasia, had been
vague on those issues. As soon as Pope Benedict departed, Smeaton was
attacked by voices close to the BCEW who accused him of belonging to a
“Catholic Taliban” that sets up its own private Magisterium and permits
of no dissent.
Another prominent pro-family,
pro-life activist, Archbishop Nichols’ own director of pastoral affairs
Edmund Adamus, gave an interview on the eve of the visit in which he
said that England (and in particular London) is the geo-political
epicenter of the culture of death. The archbishop moved swiftly to
rebuke Mr. Adamus, saying that this was not his own view.
The “Catholic Taliban” tag is a
slur on many devout and courageous lay Catholics who have stood up for
the vulnerable for many years in preference to seeking perks and
patronage from liberal bishops. Curiously, what the slur also seems to
ignore is that if men such as Smeaton and Adamus constitute a “Catholic
Taliban” there is no doubt that its “Mullah” is Pope Benedict XVI.
Another threat to the hegemony
of the BCEW is liturgical and cultural diversity. With Soviet-like
brutishness, the BCEW has sought over many years to curb the activities
of those Catholic groups that exist outside of its direct control. In
one English diocese, a bishop sought to limit the celebrations of the
Syro-Malabar Rite and ordered Indian Catholics to attend the Roman Rite
on Sundays. The BCEW sought under Cardinal Murphy O’Connor to liberalize
Polish Catholic immigrants by insisting that Polish Catholic mission
parishes show greater uniformity and fusion with parishes under BCEW
control.
The BCEW also organized
three-week-long “training” classes for Polish priests and other foreign
priests who intended to work in England. These classes were delivered by
the then-president of Ushaw Seminary (which is shortly to close), Msgr.
Terry Drainey, who has said, “Some foreign priests working in Britain
tend to be too dogmatic about the Church’s moral rightness on just about
everything.” He added, “That’s not how we do things here. This course
shows how we deal with a whole range of issues affecting Catholics,
including the role of women, divorce, the lay ministry, and
homosexuality.” Shortly after delivering the courses, Msgr. Drainey was
selected to be the bishop of Middlesbrough.
This desire for liturgical
uniformity comprising the Roman Missal of 1970 in its old ICEL English
translation (nothing has yet been done to prepare for the new
translation next year) has been threatened recently by several factors
that have whittled away at the BCEW’s power. First are the large numbers
of recent immigrants who attend non-English language Masses celebrated
by their own priests. There have also been the spiritual “free market”
policies of the “New Movements” (Focolare, Opus Dei, Youth 2000, etc.)
promoted by Pope John Paul II, which have encouraged many Catholics to
develop their spiritual lives outside of diocesan structures. And most
recently there has been the “liturgical free market” of Pope Benedict
XVI, with both the rehabilitation of the older form of the Roman Rite
(Summorum Pontificum) and the invitation to Anglo-Catholics to form
liturgical communities within the Catholic Church (Anglicanorum
Coetibus).
All these factors are
underpinned by the increasingly vociferous Catholic blogosphere, largely
orthodox in character, which the BCEW simultaneously fears and despises
in a way reminiscent of the Soviet regime’s attitude to the Eastern
European underground free press. All these forces are at odds with the
“Cultural Revolution” mentality of the BCEW.
The BCEW finds that it can
neither advance in line with secular “progressive” thought nor face
retreat, so it simply stagnates. Meanwhile, authentically Catholic
radicalism and counter-culturalism is led by traditionalists. The
specter of large numbers of Anglo-Catholic clergy becoming a
semi-autonomous part of the Catholic Church in England has horrified the
BCEW, which has greeted every development in the progress toward the
first English ordinariate with sighs and fear.
In situations traditionally
calling for the very warmest of language in dealing with “Separated
Brethren,” spokesmen for the BCEW have been at pains to stress that the
ordinariate is not going to be allowed to be a “church within a church.”
This is because the BCEW fears further loss of its own power and
resents everything about the conservative intellectual tradition that
forms the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism. It is no wonder that the
negotiations which led to the motu proprio were between Anglican bishops
and the CDF in Rome and not the BCEW.
THE BCEW AND SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
Nowhere has this
near-pathological determination to oppose any hopeful new developments
while presiding over inexorable decline been more exposed than in the
maneuverings of the BCEW to ignore, block, and ultimately frustrate
Summorum Pontificum. The BCEW has spent a great deal of effort behind
the scenes gathering data to support the idea that there is no demand in
England and Wales for the extraordinary form of the Mass, while at the
same time willfully refusing to foster or promote it in parishes.
Its only significant
contribution has been to insist that the transferred holy days of
obligation that it imposed on England and Wales also be applied to the
extraordinary form. Within days Rome pointed out that the feasts could
legitimately continue to be kept on their original dates in the
extraordinary form since it was only the obligation to attend Mass on
the feast day that was affected by the BCEW decree.
Indeed, so distrustful is Rome
of the BCEW’s stance that it is relying on data supplied to it by lay
Catholics in England and Wales in order to obtain an accurate picture.
No observer of Catholic affairs in England is in any doubt that the BCEW
in its current form has pursued policies that distance itself from the
pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and criticize and
marginalize those lay Catholics who openly support papal teaching.
The reasons for this are clear
differences of view on the direction and character of post-conciliar
Catholicism. How long this can continue to be sustained without some
public fracture in relations depends in large measure on the desire
within the Vatican to intervene in the English Church more directly.
Pope John Paul II for the most part left the English Church to manage
itself and Pope Benedict has preferred to teach rather than to impose,
as his recent ad limina remarks to the BCEW on dissent showed.
Rome may also feel that time is
not on the BCEW’s side, as its search for up-and-coming priests who
share its vision to join its ranks becomes ever more frustrated. The
English clergy is increasingly populated with foreign priests, young
traditionalists and middle-aged ex-Anglicans, none of whom are exactly
yearning to embrace the BCEW vision. Archbishop Nichols of Westminster
was overlooked at the November consistory because, say observers, it
will be another two years before his predecessor loses his conclave
vote. If he wants to be sure of the red hat next time around, there are
some difficult issues for him to confront in the meantime.
Dominic Scarborough contributes to The Catholic Herald in Great Britain. This article appears in the December 2010 issue of CWR. Fonte: The Catholic World Reporter
LINKS
Cantuale Antonianum - Un'analisi mozzafiato e puntuale sulla situazione della Conferenza Episcopale Inglese e la sua linea divergente dal magistero Papale.
Damian Thompson - Leading US Catholic magazine: the Magic Circle is wrecking the Church in England and Wales
The Hermeneutic of Continuity – Outside the Magic Circle
.
Powered by 
Translate
Translate
