Baubles, Bangles, and the Mile High Club
January 2018: I
think we can all agree that it has been a difficult month for the Holy Father,
and for the Faithful. And while – as usual – much of the hostility and
opprobrium is unfair, some of the responsibility definitely stops with him.
Ploughing her
own furrow
|
Lilliane Ploumen, Dutch MP
---photo source: Dutch Parliament--- |
The
first was the ‘Plouwen affair’. A Dutch politician, renowned for her promotion
of abortion – to the extent that she spearheaded a drive to raise around $400
million for funding of agencies that actively promote ‘reproductive healthcare’
(international NGO-speak for abortion) – was apparently awarded the honour of
Knight of the Order of St Gregory. She appeared on Dutch television shortly
before Christmas 2017, presenting the medal to the camera and boasting about
it, claiming that she was presented with it in recognition of her ‘pro-choice’
services.
For
those who have been invested into the Order of St Gregory after a lifetime of
service, often in defence of the unborn, this must have come as a very bitter
and hard to swallow pill.
The
truth is rather more prosaic, although probably not much less hurtful to
legitimate recipients.
Entertainment,
politics and connections in high places
There
have been other (shall we say) ‘uncomfortable’ recipients of the Order in the
past: Jimmy Savile, for one. Shortly after he died, he was revealed to have
been a serial and wholesale sexual abuser all his working life. He was
nominated for and invested in the Order by Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of
Westminster. You don’t get any higher or more reputable in the Catholic Church
in England and Wales than that.
It has been claimed that people ‘didn’t know’ about Savile’s abuse. Well, the people
who were abused certainly did. Those who tried to complain were ignored and/or
told to be quiet about it. Staff at the two hospitals with which Savile was
most associated – “Jimmy’s” (St James, Leeds) and Stoke Mandeville – also seemed
to know about it but complaints never got anywhere. One of the few occasions
when I encountered him in person was when he was visiting a home for
learning-disabled children in Swansea, S Wales. There was something odd about that
visit for someone so publicity-obsessed: it was never widely reported. In my own
experience, there were whispers in corners and the subject was changed when
that visit was mentioned or his name was brought up.
Personally, I thought he was a creep. There was something deeply unpleasant
about him.
Even within the BBC, people in authority knew – or, at least, were deeply
suspicious. Sir Roger Jones – a former chairman of Children In Need - said he
had been uncomfortable about allowing Savile to have any association with the
charity and beefed up its child protection measures to protect itself.
Savile was implicated in goings-on in Haute la Garenne children’s home in
Jersey and in the notorious Bryn Estyn children’s home in North Wales, which
was exposed as a honeypot for paedophiles and pederasts long before Savile
received his Order of St Gregory knighthood – or even his UK knighthood.
There was a failure in due diligence, in the Vatican and in the UK Home Office.
A desire to see no evil. He courted the Establishment – including PM Margaret
Thatcher and the Royal Family – and they seemed to accept him, like some kind
of licensed outsider, a court jester, maybe. When the Establishment is on your
side, the opinions of the ‘little people’ no longer matter.
The same the
whole world over…
How are those who missed the signs, turned a blind eye or actively covered up
treated when the truth emerges? It would appear that, usually, they are
promoted. Helen Bowden, who was Head of News and took part in the decision in December
2011 to drop an exposé about Savile that was to be shown on Panorama, was made
head of Head of Radio. Peter Rippon, the editor of the programme when the exposé
was dropped, was made head of the BBC Online Archive.
The
two reporters who compiled the report fared less well. Meirion Jones, a former
Panorama producer, is now a freelance. Not the worst job in the world but not a
senior BBC job, either. Liz MacKean, who worked on the Savile story with Jones,
left the BBC in April 2014 after 23 years. She has said she felt she no longer
had a future there.
So
it goes.
Cardinal Hume is dead, God rest his soul. Everyone who knew him personally
remarked on what a ‘good man’ he seemed to be. Sometimes, people are too good
to recognise evil in others.
The ‘Sun’
king
|
Rupert Murdoch, Publisher
(Source: Daily Telegraph) |
The
other recipient of this award who sticks out like a sore thumb for lack of what
one would immediately think of as ‘suitability’ – when one looks at the list of
hard working Catenians, Knights of St Columba, third-level Order members and so
on, anyway – is Rupert Murdoch. It’s hard to think of anyone else who has done
more to undermine principled journalism, cheapen women and make sexual
exploitation in the name of ‘entertainment’ more mainstream than the Dirty
Digger.
He was announced as a Knight of the Order of St Gregory in 1997 and invested in
a ceremony presided over by Cardinal Mahony in January 1998 at a ceremony in
Los Angeles.
Cardinal
Hume made a serious error of judgement with Savile, and so did those in the
Holy See who are tasked the checking suitability of candidates for such honours
– if there is anyone who is thus charged. But money. Money…
Savile raised a lot of money for Stoke Mandeville Hospital and or other charities
– most of which gave him access to potential prey. Murdoch donated large sums
of money - $millions, allegedly – to the Los Angeles Archdiocesan Education
Fund.
The
Order of St Gregory is supposed to be given to people of "unblemished
character," including non-Catholics, who have "promoted the
interests of society, the Catholic Church, and the Holy See”.
Publishing
for commercial gain pictures of nude and semi-nude young women, while whipping
up self-righteous fury at opposing politicians who also exploit young women, is
one thing. Sexual abuse of minors – of anyone vulnerable and impressionable –
is another but, to be fair, Murdoch and Savile did not receive their awards for
this, and no-one – least of all the men themselves – suggests they did. And I
have yet to hear anyone leap to the defence of either and claim they were of ‘unblemished
character’.
Rigid definition
But Ms Plouwen goes beyond suggestion, to claim that she received the award for
her work promoting abortion, claiming that the Vatican under Pope Francis is ‘less
rigid’ about these things.
She
wasn’t given it in the same way as Savile and Murdoch: openly and in public
ceremony. Hers was part of an ‘exchange of gifts’ to mark the occasion of a
diplomatic visit to the Vatican. Such things are far from unknown but, like
exchanges of pennants at the start of important international football matches,
they are usually mere trinkets, baubles of no worth to anyone but the
recipients.
Giving Ms Plouwen a medal denoting membership of an established and (generally)
reputable organisation, as part of a goody bag, was a mistake, one that I
sincerely hope can be made good. At the very least, it should be made public, from
the Papal press office, that the gift conferred no honour or implication of it.
Even better would be to publicly ask for it to be returned, as a regrettable
mistake has been made.
I fear we may wait a while for that; self-important bureaucracies are not very
good at admitting mistakes.
Bishop Barros
While
the Plouwen affair cannot be laid at the Pope’s door with total conviction (my belief
is that it was a bureaucratic cock-up), the appointment of Bishop Barros is a different
matter.
Pope
Francis made the appointment himself and knows the bishop personally. The
accusations of coverup of sexual abuse involving one Father Fernando Karadima
are not new and were widely known when Bp Barros was originally appointed, in
2015. The Pope was, reportedly, advised against the appointment at the time
because of accusations of coverup against Barros. He (and a colleague, Bp
Valanzuela) have vigorously denied accusations that they witnessed abuse and
colluded in cover up. In the bishop’s defence, no evidence has been presented
and the testimony against him does not seem to stand up to rigorous
examination. [Edit, April 13 2018: Evidence has now been presented and the Pope has issued a lengthy and detailed apology, to the victims and to those he accused of 'calumny'] It also seems to be the case that, despite the fact that the
seminary where the abuse occurred being a busy place, with lots of comings and
goings, and which produced 40 priests and 5 bishops, it is only those who
became bishops who have been accused of coverup; apparently, everyone else was unaware.
There
is furious and deep-seated factionalism in the Church in Chile and
disagreements like this can be the visible manifestation of political battles being
fought out behind the scenes – sometimes quite viciously.
Be that as it may.
The Pope believed Bp Barros and, despite the firestorm and the media’s delight
in anything with a whiff of clerical misconduct, he went ahead and appointed
him Bishop of Orsono, in 2015. As he had previously been bishop of the Armed
Forces this was technically a transfer, not a new appointment.
At
the time, it was reported that the allegations relating to Karadima made the appointment
“potentially disastrous” and likely to cause trouble in the future.
How right they were.
All that was one thing. The real misstep during the Pope’s recent tour of S
America was his public use of the word ‘calumny’ when describing the
accusations. He is technically correct; in the absence of evidence against
Bishop Barros, then the accusations do represent a grave calumny. However, the
nuances of what he actually said will never take precedence over a juicy
headline. “Pope accuses victims”; “Pope clashes with abuse survivors”; “Pope
Francis sparks outrage”; Pope Francis angers Chile” – really, not a very good
picture at all. [edit, April 13 2018: The Pope has apologised for use of the description of the accusations as 'calumny']
It’s hard to know what to recommend. The only thing that will satisfy those who
object to Barros is his resignation – but we know that will be seized upon as
evidence of guilt. Besides, this beleaguered Pope is very loyal to those he
considers friends and will not do anything that could be perceived as betrayal of
them. He believes Barros and will stick with him unless and until evidence
emerges to contradict his claims of innocence.
It would be better, with hindsight, if the Pope had not moved Barros to Orsono –
but then; his enemies and opponents would have found some other stick to beat
him with.
Sticks and
stones…and words can hurt as well
The real misstep was in seeming to attack the survivors of abuse. We know that
he personally feels for and is totally on the side of victims, but he has not
been very sure-footed in dealing with the issue, and with perpetrators. His
actions have not matched his excellent words.
Does
this make him the ‘worst Pope ever’ as some have claimed? Heck, no. In this
particular respect, he’s not even the worst this century. Pope St John Paul II
was a wonderful Supreme Pontiff but he had a blind spot when it came to
accusations of sexual abuse; he appears to have believed that they were
baseless calumnies. His experience of the use of such accusations against the
clergy by the Nazi and Communist regimes of his youth and before his
Pontificate seem to have led him to this belief.
|
Pope St John Paul II with Mother Theresa
(source: cna) |
He
would not allow bishops accused of coverups to be moved and, apparently, would
not listen to the accusations. It took the election of Pope Benedict – who, as
head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had seen the evidence – for decisive
action to be taken.
|
Pope John Paul I
at one of very few audiences he was able to conduct
before his untimely death.
|
[An aside: Pope St John Paul II’s reign did not start all that well, when it came to senior appointments. He confirmed Paul Marcinkus as head of the Vatican Bank and even promoted him to Archbishop. He was already being accused of, at the very least, keeping unsavoury company at the time St JPII was elected – and his predecessor, Pope John Paul I. Marcinkus was subsequently deeply tarnished by the P2 Masonic Lodge scandal and the murder of Roberto Calvi, former head of the Banco Amrosiano.
|
Roberto Calvi,
former head of Banco Ambrosiano,
pictured before his body was found hanging
from Blackfriars Bridge, London |
|
Archbishop Paul Marcinkus
former head of the Vatican Bank |
St JPII also
confirmed Cardinal Cody in his position in the Chicago diocese, when he was already
the subject of Federal investigation involving misuse of funds, and his
relationship with his long-time secretary was an ‘open secret’ and the cause of
scandal. She had property holdings that were impossible to have afforded on the
basis of her salary and declared financial assets. She also had a son, whose
parentage was a matter of debate.
|
Cardinal John Cody,
former Archbishop of Chicago |
During Cody’s tenure of Chicago, at least $1 million went missing. While he was
Treasurer of the US National Council of Catholic Bishops, more than $4 million
was unaccounted for in a single year. It was revealed in 1981 that Cody was the
subject of a Grand Jury investigation and several indictments. He and his office
refused to hand over subpoenaed documents and to respond to investigators’
questions. (See this retrospective from 2003, written at the time Cardinal Law's tenure as Archbishop of Boston was very much in the news.)
Needless to say, there is also evidence of coverup of child abuse. It would
have been more remarkable if there had not been.
There were
also scandals and rumours around Cardinal Tomas O’Fiaich in Ireland and it was
claimed that Pope John Paul I was not going to appoint him Bishop of Armagh. Then
there was the Bishop of Galway, who – Ireland found out in 1992 – had fathered
a child in 1974.
Etc, etc.
Can you imagine the firestorm if that had been happening today? Notwithstanding
Pope St JPII’s charisma and positive characteristics, and they are many?
It’s
paradoxical that the one who actually went in to clean up the culture of
cover-up and toleration of abuse – Pope Benedict XVI – is the one who seems to
have got most stick for it.
Pope Francis is not actually an exception when it comes to missteps; that was
Pope Benedict. Pope Francis does seem to attract more in the way of open,
venomous and hostile attacks, however.]
Mile High
Club
And
then there was the in-flight wedding of two airline stewards who had been
looking after the Pope’s party during his tour of Chile and Peru. The outrage
expressed in some quarters could lead you to think he had done something
completely outside Church teaching. There have been claims that the flurry of
discussion between Canon lawyers amounts to ‘causing scandal’.
Did
he do wrong? Was he rewriting Church law?
No, and no. The suggestion has been made that the Pope did not have the
canonical wherewithal to convalidate the marriage of the two flight attendants.
He is the Supreme Pontiff, so that argument is seriously bizarre.
Anyone who has actually read Amoris Laetitia should not have been deeply
surprised. Civil marriage, ‘living in sin’ and less formal domestic
arrangements, and skipping Church wedding ceremonies, are identified as a major
problem in the ‘emerging economies’, in South America and Africa especially,
but cohabiting is widely practised in the ‘developed world’ as well.
Not sure about that? It’s very clearly laid out, in paragraphs 292-296, with
attention being drawn particularly to paragraph 294:
“The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple
cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a
sacramental union, but by or contingent situations.” [Relatio Finalis 2015, 71] in such cases, respect also can be shown
for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love. We know that
there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived
together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church…In
some countries, de facto unions are
very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning family and
matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too
expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives
people into these de facto unions.” [Relatio Synodi 2014, 42]. Whatever the
case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to
transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage
and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and
guided patiently and discreetly.” [Relatio
Synodi 2014, 43]. That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (John
4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the
darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel.
It
looks pretty clear that it was on that basis that the Pope blessed and
convalidated the existing civil marriage of the two flight attendants. Nor was
it done on a whim, on either side. The couple were originally scheduled to be
married in Church on February 27, 2010. Early in the morning of that day, Chile
was struck by an earthquake that measured 8.8 on the Richter scale – that was
truly massive. Over 500 people lost their lives; buildings and commerce were
damaged as far away as Japan; two leading insurance companies (Swiss Re and
Munich Re) estimated that the quake would cost the insurance market between $4
and $7 bn; the cost to the Chilean economy was estimated at and the anything between $15 and $30 bn by the
UN Environment Program.
In the middle of this catastrophe was the (comparatively small) disaster of the
church in which the two flight attendants were to be married being completely
destroyed. All their preparations lay, quite literally, in ruins.
They
were able to get civilly married some time later and they now have two
children. This was not a casual relationship endowed with a Las Vegas-style ‘Elvis’
wedding. The possibility that the Pope could bless their wedding was first
mentioned by the wife in an interview in El Mercurio, a Chilean newspaper, that
was published on December 19 – a month before the actual event. The Pope
himself revealed that the husband spoke to him about the possibility of having
their marriage blessed on a flight on January 17, the day before the event, a
flight on which the wife was not working. The Pope reports that he undertook a
degree of examination – as they had previously scheduled a Church wedding, it
appears they had already gone through preparation.
“I questioned them a bit and their answers were clear, it was for
life, and they told me they had done the pre-marriage course,” the Pope told
reporters. “They were aware that they were in an irregular situation…they were
prepared, and if the priest says they are prepared and I decided that they were
prepared … the sacraments are for the people. All the conditions were there,
that is clear,” he said. So, “why not do it today,” otherwise they could have
put it off for another 10 years. [acknowledgement
to Catholic Herald]
The
‘Mile High Marriage’ has been described as a ‘stunt’. Well, it was probably
designed to attract publicity and as an illustration in practice of what has
already been said in Amoris Laetitia. Maybe an unusual demonstration of Church
teaching in action but a demonstration of it nonetheless.
Destruction or
salvation?
Pope
Francis has attracted a lot of opprobrium from a number of quarters, including
members of the Church hierarchy and from those who appear to believe that they
know at least as much as the Church hierarchy – probably, better. The more he reaches
out in mercy, the more he seems to enrage them. While he is far from the first
Pope to be attacked, even from within, he is probably the first to have
encountered quite such an outbreak of bile, venom and apparent hatred from
Social Media.
The Gospels are not short of occasions when Jesus went against the practice and
mores of the time. I have mentioned the passage from John about the Woman at
the Well; His own disciples appear to have muttered about that. The ‘woman
caught in adultery’ (John 8:1-11) is another famous example, which includes the
statement ‘neither do I condemn you’ but also the exhortation: ‘go, and sin no
more’. The tale begins with the Pharisees clearly trying to catch him out in
breaking the Law: he has cured cripples and lepers in the name of God, and even
done so on a Sunday!
Jesus’ compassionate and merciful actions shocked the prominent and righteous people
of the time, even including his own followers. It appears that the belief that salvation
and places in Heaven were only for the pre-qualified and essentially perfect
already was widespread back then; it seems to be the case now as well. Jesus
made clear, repeatedly, that he was after the one lost sheep that had strayed,
much as he cared for the 99 that were safe. Luke 9:54-55 is worth remembering: "Lord, do You want us to call fire down from Heaven to destroy them [even as Elijah did]?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them. And He said:
"You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."