Friday 26 January 2018

Baubles, Bangles and the Mile High Club - Pope Francis stumbles (but still isn't as bad as some claim)

[edited 13 April 2018]

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."
-->