![Image (cropped) from the Mass on May 1st, 2014, at the Catholic Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King, to celebrate the "installation" of His Grace The Most Rev. Malcolm McMahon as the ninth Archbishop of Liverpool. Taken from the Flickr album created and publicly shared by © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk under the stated free-to-use and adapt attribution of the Creative Commons Non-commercial Share Alike Generic 2.0 policy [CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqnNITssKA1hUWkoQm8TUa3KTcmqkiFDUHqqZLJUhiNLgVyMG7YWrtPDY7pbm47g7TBXZWi2Opq-gkTu634HG7BMI7RPWw2G4ED2dw2EkFIqel4QdG-h91VXoXsbnA6ZEcDw3yMU1B5eY/s1600/ArchbishopBrochure+%25281%2529.jpg "Image (cropped) from the Mass on May 1st, 2014, at the Catholic Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King, to celebrate the \"installation\" of His Grace The Most Rev. Malcolm McMahon as the ninth Archbishop of Liverpool. Taken from the Flickr album created and publicly shared by © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk under the stated free-to-use and adapt attribution of the Creative Commons Non-commercial Share Alike Generic 2.0 policy [CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0]")
Advice: this post takes roughly 30 minutes to read (i.e. on a flat basis, which we initially recommend, without following the accompanying and specifically titled "Key Links", of which there are 23, all of which are clearly marked and numbered, presented in as coherent an order as possible, can be returned to later but most certainly should be perused). The whole piece has been structured as something of an information portal, and presented as courteously as we could manage for the reader in order to enable him to return to it easily and at leisure.
–
1. BACKGROUND
–
1. BACKGROUND
The 134th Roscoe Lecture (series founded by Baron Alton of Liverpool KCSG, KCMCO; hosted under the auspices of Liverpool John Moores University) was delivered by His Grace The Most Rev. Malcolm McMahon OP, ninth Archbishop of Liverpool, at the Brittania Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, on October 28th, 2015.
Our ears noted two potentially disturbing, at the very least ambiguous, snippets uttered by the Archbishop during the Question and Answer session that followed his, otherwise well-recommended, if more than a bit "Seventies Lefty", and certainly endearingly gentle talk: The Common Good (and Catholic Social Thought).
We immediately provide for your consideration the verbatim and salient extracts from each instance (but fuller, more contextualised versions will appear later):
EXCERPT 1:
(A female audience member, commenting to His Grace on the shortage of Catholic priests):
"...what about your, I know this is very difficult, what about the idea of broadening your recruitment to women?”
[laughter, general hearty audience applause]
(His Grace):
“Uh, what about it? Yup."
[even more - and this time clearly knowing - laughter]
EXCERPT 2:
(His Grace, responding earlier to another female audience member who touched-on issues of tolerance, compassion and Catholic dogma):
"...dogma's tricky because it's there on a page. It doesn't mean much while it just stays as words on a page. Doctrine is always something that you have to live out as a person..."
2. SOME INITIAL CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT
There are those who say that there is nothing to unravel about His Grace. That he is a man of clarity. Good for those who claim to possess a grasp of his mind on certain key Church issues. However, we admit to a deficiency here. Hence our Series.
Although we have explored many subjects in our ongoing Series, we've purposefully withheld, thus far, any discussion on the issue of so-called "women priests" (logically, theologically, there can be no such thing). More pointedly, as to what our local Shepherd's true views are on it. Disheartening that we would ever feel the need to consider that question.
We think we now do.
We thought it prudent to leave the matter aside until we ever, if ever, felt it necessary to put it into concentrated focus. For even though developments surrounding His Grace's views on this subject, over the last decade-and-a-half, have been, shall we say, eventful, we concluded in early 2015, at this blog's inception, that it might charitably be better to let the subject lie.
We made that decision on the bases of two of his most recent and directly attributable public pronouncements (we emphasise greatly that last point about direct attribution) – certainly as far as we were aware of matters. They were made respectively in 2008 and 2009 (both of which we will link to later) which seemingly revealed an entirely orthodox mind from the then Bishop of Nottingham: i.e. so-called "women priests" (our emphases) being out-of-the-question and that there has always been, and always will be, a clear theological basis to support this dogma.
We made that decision on the bases of two of his most recent and directly attributable public pronouncements (we emphasise greatly that last point about direct attribution) – certainly as far as we were aware of matters. They were made respectively in 2008 and 2009 (both of which we will link to later) which seemingly revealed an entirely orthodox mind from the then Bishop of Nottingham: i.e. so-called "women priests" (our emphases) being out-of-the-question and that there has always been, and always will be, a clear theological basis to support this dogma.
Of course, we knew that those solid pronouncements, given during the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, clashed with the allegedly (and we emphasise greatly that point, also) clear dissent that His Grace was assumed to have publicly aired in 2001 (which we will also link to later), which occurred in the ailing later years of the pontificate of Pope St John Paul II.
That previous paragraph has been carefully phrased. With good reason. For it would seem that what appeared to be clear, in 2001, was in fact not so. We will consider that important aspect later, also.
Regardless of our careful wording, what we can freely say is that it had always been a background concern, to us anyway, that, whilst still in his earliest episcopal years in Nottingham, His Grace had once seemingly (further necessary emphasis) declared himself in support of women's ordination.
Nevertheless, it should be firmly stressed, and we here readily do so, that, even though His Grace's alleged views in 2001 were contemporaneously published in two journals, the official explanation, given many years later, was that these were in fact both inaccurate. Further, even though one of the titles that carried an apparently erroneous account of His Grace's views on the subject was the Nottingham diocesan newspaper, The Catholic News, it was also later stressed (and not for the last time that decade) that the publication in question had never enjoyed episcopal editorial endorsement, certainly during the years that Bishop McMahon shepherded that diocese (we have no understanding of its current status).
Here's the convoluted history of that episode for those who don't know it. It eventually publicly emerged, but only many years later, that those wrongly attributed views of 2001 had in fact subsequently been privately clarified, just 12 months afterwards, during a direct communication between the then Bishop McMahon and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. According to a report in the Sunday Telegraph some seven years later, in 2008 (which we will link to later, also), His Grace had met with the future Pope Benedict XVI in 2002. Apparently it was during this exchange that the whole matter was satisfactorily clarified. For it would seem that the doubly-disseminated and wrongly alleged views of 2001, as attributed to His Grace, had initially stemmed from an inaccurate published account of an interview he had given to a youth magazine which, according to the Sunday Telegraph in 2008, had "misquoted" him. To compound this apparent error, it would also seem that, also back in 2001, the Nottingham Catholic newspaper then immediately repeated the mistake and republished the same misquoted interview. Reassuringly, in 2008, during the communications that accompanied the public clarification of those misleading 2001 reports, His Grace issued the first of two unequivocal assertions ruling out the possibility of females being ordained.
That previous paragraph has been carefully phrased. With good reason. For it would seem that what appeared to be clear, in 2001, was in fact not so. We will consider that important aspect later, also.
Regardless of our careful wording, what we can freely say is that it had always been a background concern, to us anyway, that, whilst still in his earliest episcopal years in Nottingham, His Grace had once seemingly (further necessary emphasis) declared himself in support of women's ordination.
Nevertheless, it should be firmly stressed, and we here readily do so, that, even though His Grace's alleged views in 2001 were contemporaneously published in two journals, the official explanation, given many years later, was that these were in fact both inaccurate. Further, even though one of the titles that carried an apparently erroneous account of His Grace's views on the subject was the Nottingham diocesan newspaper, The Catholic News, it was also later stressed (and not for the last time that decade) that the publication in question had never enjoyed episcopal editorial endorsement, certainly during the years that Bishop McMahon shepherded that diocese (we have no understanding of its current status).
Here's the convoluted history of that episode for those who don't know it. It eventually publicly emerged, but only many years later, that those wrongly attributed views of 2001 had in fact subsequently been privately clarified, just 12 months afterwards, during a direct communication between the then Bishop McMahon and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. According to a report in the Sunday Telegraph some seven years later, in 2008 (which we will link to later, also), His Grace had met with the future Pope Benedict XVI in 2002. Apparently it was during this exchange that the whole matter was satisfactorily clarified. For it would seem that the doubly-disseminated and wrongly alleged views of 2001, as attributed to His Grace, had initially stemmed from an inaccurate published account of an interview he had given to a youth magazine which, according to the Sunday Telegraph in 2008, had "misquoted" him. To compound this apparent error, it would also seem that, also back in 2001, the Nottingham Catholic newspaper then immediately repeated the mistake and republished the same misquoted interview. Reassuringly, in 2008, during the communications that accompanied the public clarification of those misleading 2001 reports, His Grace issued the first of two unequivocal assertions ruling out the possibility of females being ordained.
Nevertheless, although that 2008 pronouncement was very welcome, it was only natural that, for some, there still remained a hanging question along the lines of "would the real Bishop Malcolm McMahon please stand up?". Certainly these doubts especially lingered given that in 2003 there was a further equally worrying, and now often forgotten, episode (which we will also link to later) during Bishop McMahon's continuing years in Nottingham. This was the infamous "God is She" controversy that dogged the Nottingham Diocesan Synod of 2003 and also the so-called "pastoral plan" (there will be a PDF link to this at the foot of this post) as produced a year later which included, for example, "policies" such as that which respond "...pastorally to marginalised people e.g. divorced, remarried, gay/lesbian, with regard to the reception of the sacraments..."; or find "...ways of explaining/exploring the meaning of ‘sacrament’, not being confined to the seven sacraments". And on and on it painfully went. It is important to stress, though, that apart from his boilerplate forewords attached to the various strands of communications that stemmed from that inglorious episode in Nottingham, there were no examples of direct attribution back to His Grace concerning the most contentious matters. He was Shepherd of the diocese, of course.
N.B. We are particularly wary of the example and tenor of that controversial 2003 Nottingham Diocesan Synod/Pastoral Plan especially in the current sensitive period ahead of Pope Francis' imminent post-Synodal communication and particularly the noises that have circulated at the highest levels of the Church of late for a "synodal", more localised Church to be witnessed in dioceses around the world. We are especially concerned here in Liverpool on two counts if an effective "green light" is given to Ordinaries to all but do what they synodally like: i) the long-lasting effects in this very territory, perhaps more than any other in England & Wales, of the 1980 National Pastoral Congress as held in Liverpool (the "Easter People" and all that); and ii) His Grace's obvious penchant, 13 years ago, for Nottinghamesque diocesan synods to shape the future mission of the local Church where he is shepherd. To say that we're frankly terrified of what a three-pronged perfect storm could effect in this archdiocese is an understatement, i.e.: a flaky and ambiguous papal document (probable), combined with His Grace's previous form (knowable), duly mixed with the endlessly agitating progressive din that already dominates this territory (insatiable). Yes, our eyes are wide open to what 2016/17 might bring!
Anyway ...
... regardless of those confusions in 2001 and 2003, many minds were further placated in 2009 following a second directly attributable reinforcement of orthodoxy on the matter of female ordination from Bishop McMahon, via a superb pastoral letter (which we will also link to later), to mark The Year of the Priest. Naturally this was welcomed by His Holiness Pope Benedict whom, just a year later, His Grace, whilst still Bishop of Nottingham, publicly welcomed (image below) to St Mary's, Twickenham, London, for the so-called celebration of Catholic education during the papal visit of 2010.
So, with the officially endorsed, orthodox and directly attributable stances of 2008 and 2009 both firmly on the record, it finally seemed, to any doubting onlookers, that Bishop McMahon's mind on female ordination was unquestioningly clear.
Happily, that 2009 pastoral letter ushered in a period of clarity that reigned until mid-2013; so roughly the final four years of the Benedictine papacy. However, matters then became confusing again in the later parts of 2013; so roughly as the Franciscan pontificate first began to take shape. For the final weeks of Bishop McMahon's tenure in Nottingham (his appointment to Liverpool was confirmed in March 2014) were dogged by another apparent (necessary emphasis again) diocesan communications misunderstanding, this time concerning not only the issue of female ordination but also several other disturbing matters of dissent (yet again).
As alluded to earlier, that particular episode in 2013/14 was the second in a little over a decade that again centred around the misunderstood official status of the Nottingham diocesan newspaper. This time it specifically concerned its front page publication of materials (later removed from online versions) which were clearly in support of the openly dissenting ex-Catholic priest John Wijngaards. Specifically this referred to his calls to explore, through his so-called "institute for Catholic research" (Key Link #1), some concentrated local discussion on a range of agitating issues ahead of the preliminary (October 2014) stage of the now infamous Vatican "Synod on the Family" (about which His Grace later, and directly attributably, said he expected "great things" and for it to be an occasion when he hoped to see doctrine "developed" [Key Link #2]). However, unlike the previous episode of confusion (i.e. between 2001 and 2008), there was no need on this later occasion of Nottingham diocesan miscommunications to wait seven years for any wrongful assumptions to be corrected, for the matter was apparently clarified very quickly (which we will link to later) in the very final weeks prior to His Grace being announced as Archbishop-elect of Liverpool.
N.B. We are particularly wary of the example and tenor of that controversial 2003 Nottingham Diocesan Synod/Pastoral Plan especially in the current sensitive period ahead of Pope Francis' imminent post-Synodal communication and particularly the noises that have circulated at the highest levels of the Church of late for a "synodal", more localised Church to be witnessed in dioceses around the world. We are especially concerned here in Liverpool on two counts if an effective "green light" is given to Ordinaries to all but do what they synodally like: i) the long-lasting effects in this very territory, perhaps more than any other in England & Wales, of the 1980 National Pastoral Congress as held in Liverpool (the "Easter People" and all that); and ii) His Grace's obvious penchant, 13 years ago, for Nottinghamesque diocesan synods to shape the future mission of the local Church where he is shepherd. To say that we're frankly terrified of what a three-pronged perfect storm could effect in this archdiocese is an understatement, i.e.: a flaky and ambiguous papal document (probable), combined with His Grace's previous form (knowable), duly mixed with the endlessly agitating progressive din that already dominates this territory (insatiable). Yes, our eyes are wide open to what 2016/17 might bring!
Anyway ...
... regardless of those confusions in 2001 and 2003, many minds were further placated in 2009 following a second directly attributable reinforcement of orthodoxy on the matter of female ordination from Bishop McMahon, via a superb pastoral letter (which we will also link to later), to mark The Year of the Priest. Naturally this was welcomed by His Holiness Pope Benedict whom, just a year later, His Grace, whilst still Bishop of Nottingham, publicly welcomed (image below) to St Mary's, Twickenham, London, for the so-called celebration of Catholic education during the papal visit of 2010.
 |
| The then Bishop of Nottingham, the Rt Rev. Malcolm McMahon OP, welcomes His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to St Mary's, Twickenham, London, during the papal visit of 2010 (image copyright: The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England & Wales; shared freely using the Google+ open facility) |
So, with the officially endorsed, orthodox and directly attributable stances of 2008 and 2009 both firmly on the record, it finally seemed, to any doubting onlookers, that Bishop McMahon's mind on female ordination was unquestioningly clear.
Happily, that 2009 pastoral letter ushered in a period of clarity that reigned until mid-2013; so roughly the final four years of the Benedictine papacy. However, matters then became confusing again in the later parts of 2013; so roughly as the Franciscan pontificate first began to take shape. For the final weeks of Bishop McMahon's tenure in Nottingham (his appointment to Liverpool was confirmed in March 2014) were dogged by another apparent (necessary emphasis again) diocesan communications misunderstanding, this time concerning not only the issue of female ordination but also several other disturbing matters of dissent (yet again).
As alluded to earlier, that particular episode in 2013/14 was the second in a little over a decade that again centred around the misunderstood official status of the Nottingham diocesan newspaper. This time it specifically concerned its front page publication of materials (later removed from online versions) which were clearly in support of the openly dissenting ex-Catholic priest John Wijngaards. Specifically this referred to his calls to explore, through his so-called "institute for Catholic research" (Key Link #1), some concentrated local discussion on a range of agitating issues ahead of the preliminary (October 2014) stage of the now infamous Vatican "Synod on the Family" (about which His Grace later, and directly attributably, said he expected "great things" and for it to be an occasion when he hoped to see doctrine "developed" [Key Link #2]). However, unlike the previous episode of confusion (i.e. between 2001 and 2008), there was no need on this later occasion of Nottingham diocesan miscommunications to wait seven years for any wrongful assumptions to be corrected, for the matter was apparently clarified very quickly (which we will link to later) in the very final weeks prior to His Grace being announced as Archbishop-elect of Liverpool.
Accordingly, then, given the swift dismissal and clarification of another potentially worrying period, coming as it did so early in the Bergoglian-era (2013/14), we decided, when we started this blog in early 2015 (although plans were in the pipeline in the latter half of 2014), that His Grace's views of 2009 and earlier in 2008 on the matter of female ordination should be the ones that we could trust and rely on through all the years of his archbishopric in Liverpool. Incidentally, His Grace's appointment to Liverpool was announced in March 2014 just a year and a week after the start of the papacy of Pope Francis – with whom His Grace had long since been well acquainted (Key Link #3), since at least 2001 in fact; indeed just one month after His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, was appointed a Prince of the Church (Key Link #4).
It was right to take that view, even if only on the basis of chronological justice. For if the alleged scandal of 2001 (and the disturbing "God is She" events of 2003, which we haven't yet touched upon) were allowed to cast a long shadow, then it was only right that the later clarifications of 2008 and 2009 (which were also strengthened by the quality of direct attribution) should equally be seen as having shone an enduring light. Also, in this vein, that the benefit-of-the-doubt should be applied to those questionable events just before His Grace came to Liverpool, in late 2013 /early 2014, regarding John Wijngaards – which again, we must stress, carried no direct attribution.
Basically, we just hoped to trust that a Catholic Archbishop, our new Local Ordinary, could be relied upon to be opposed to the ordination of so-called "women priests" (our emphasis).
Something along the lines of:
Let's forget the inaccuracies of 2001, the highly questionable events of 2003, and the deeply dubious period as 2013 became 2014 – all of which were either "misquoted", generally erroneous or non-atrributable – and simply continue to trust the directly attributable stances conveyed by His Grace in 2008 and 2009, especially the latter being a magnificent pastoral letter.
It was a policy that served us well enough.
Until late last summer.
We appreciate that all of this is somewhat perplexing. If you're finding it hard to follow, then be sure that it barely mirrors the bewildering task we faced as we sought to un-knot all these, seemingly isolated, and gradual episodes into a coherent, chronological structure of sorts. That said, we can't complain for it was our decision to undertake all this on the strength/weakness (you decide) of some throwaway lines given by His Grace at the Roscoe Lecture last October. We could have let it lie.
It was right to take that view, even if only on the basis of chronological justice. For if the alleged scandal of 2001 (and the disturbing "God is She" events of 2003, which we haven't yet touched upon) were allowed to cast a long shadow, then it was only right that the later clarifications of 2008 and 2009 (which were also strengthened by the quality of direct attribution) should equally be seen as having shone an enduring light. Also, in this vein, that the benefit-of-the-doubt should be applied to those questionable events just before His Grace came to Liverpool, in late 2013 /early 2014, regarding John Wijngaards – which again, we must stress, carried no direct attribution.
Basically, we just hoped to trust that a Catholic Archbishop, our new Local Ordinary, could be relied upon to be opposed to the ordination of so-called "women priests" (our emphasis).
Something along the lines of:
Let's forget the inaccuracies of 2001, the highly questionable events of 2003, and the deeply dubious period as 2013 became 2014 – all of which were either "misquoted", generally erroneous or non-atrributable – and simply continue to trust the directly attributable stances conveyed by His Grace in 2008 and 2009, especially the latter being a magnificent pastoral letter.
It was a policy that served us well enough.
Until late last summer.
3. OUR CONCLUSION AND INTENDED COURSE OF ACTION
We appreciate that all of this is somewhat perplexing. If you're finding it hard to follow, then be sure that it barely mirrors the bewildering task we faced as we sought to un-knot all these, seemingly isolated, and gradual episodes into a coherent, chronological structure of sorts. That said, we can't complain for it was our decision to undertake all this on the strength/weakness (you decide) of some throwaway lines given by His Grace at the Roscoe Lecture last October. We could have let it lie.
Well, we say all that, and indeed it is true that His Grace's off-the-cuff remarks 10 weeks ago finally triggered our re-evaluation of his entire communications record (as we know it to be) regarding the matter of female ordination. However, the reality is that our doubts about our own "benefit-of-the-doubt" policy started to emerge during 2014 as His Grace's first year with us unfolded. Regardless, we still remained steady-ish during most of our first blogging year - until last October.
For in the wake of His Grace's remarks at the Roscoe Lecture last autumn, we have concluded, on the basis of considering everything that there is to reckon upon, in the period between 2001 and 2015, that significant grounds for concern do exist regarding his views on the matter of female ordination. Or that the benefit-of-the-doubt no longer applies, for us.
That's our view: simply that we are again concerned and confused.
We won't put it any more strongly.
We are now sure about being unsure.
That's all.
We are not saying that His Grace is a supporter of women's ordination.
We are saying that there is now, based on aggregated and organised evidence, across 15 years and counting, serious room for doubt. We can't see how anything else could be the case. We therefore feel the need to examine those materials more closely.
We are aware of our responsibilities here. We are mindful of the need to consider Unity. We know the gravity, not only of the study we are undertaking, but also of the very fact that we have decided to take such an analysis upon ourselves.
We press on.
4. SOME FURTHER BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGICAL CONTEXT
 |
| Screen-grab of the October 23rd, 2014 entry made on the official website of "ACTA" (A Call to Action) showing that His Grace afforded this dissenting group a full welcome to the Archdiocese of Liverpool for its "national conference" |
 |
| Screen-grab of the September 9th, 2015 entry made on the official Facebook page of the so-called (and ultimately cancelled due to lack of interest) "Liverpool Vatican II Conference" showing that the dissenting Dominican, Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP, was to be one of His Grace's invited keynote speakers |
If His Grace was intending to throw out not-so-subtle signals to be received...then received they indeed were.
Further, as regular readers will have noted, our post immediately prior to this (Key Link #5), which reflected the events of Maundy Thursday 2015 also fits into the broader picture of doubt that has emerged gradually (a noted word of emphasis there) and episodically over the last 18 or so months concerning His Grace's views on what should be the specific and immeasurable value of the rightly-ordered role of women in the Church.
So, in a nutshelled chronological recap:
we have always known of His Grace's worrying, early Nottingham-era stances, in the ailing years of Pope John Paul II ... :
i) in 2001 allegedly in clear and twice-published support of women priests – but which were both later dismissed as "misquoted" episodes;
ii) in 2003 concerning the "God is She" Nottingham diocesan synod document and "pastoral plan";
... but we were also mindful of his very welcome later-Nottingham-era declarations, at the height of Pope Benedict's reign ... :
iii) in 2008 in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph;
iv) in 2009 in issuing a solidly orthodox pastoral letter;
... however we again became concerned, this time by the "Wijngaards" events of His Grace's very final weeks in Nottingham, now under the very early period of Pope Francis' papacy ... :
v) in late 2013 / early 2014, concerning the suggestion and ensuing controversy, via the "non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper" (our term and emphasis), that an implied policy of episcopal support initially seemed to exist for a project that appeared to be in the planning locally, i.e. to explore views on a range of dissenting issues, including that of female ordination – only for this to be swiftly clarified later both as yet another misunderstanding and also not a matter of official diocesan approval;
... nevertheless, we began to become locally concerned as we noted three other things that unfolded in His Grace's first Liverpool year, as Pope Francis' pontificate really gathered momentum ... :
vi) in October 2014, through his clear support for a group that is agitating for female ordination, i.e. in endorsing ACTA;
vii) in April 2015, through his complete break with the correct and long-standing cathedral Tradition at the mandatum during his first Maundy Thursday Mass with us, i.e. by not only immediately introducing females to the optional rite but also putting them in an instant 7:5 majority;
viii) in September 2015, through his clear support for another known approver of female ordination, i.e. Fr Timothy Radcliffe OP, whom he had invited to the archdiocese in a keynote speaker capacity;
... ultimately, though, it was His Grace's casual utterances very recently that finally prompted our alarm bells to sound loudly (fearing that a pattern may - you judge - now be clearly discernible, certainly if one has a care to look):
ix) in October 2015, at his Roscoe Lecture, through his questionable and very loose interpretation of dogma as "tricky" and evident public reluctance to support Church teaching on the all-male priesthood.
5. OUR INTENDED METHOD
So, NINE key episodes – in less than 15 years – to address there. And it will clearly aid cohesion if we now continue to consider and unpack each of those elements in chronological order. Further, it will enable readers to judge whether, given all that had gone before (i.e. between 2001 and September 2015) His Grace's utterances at the recent Roscoe Lecture really should have been a final straw moment for us. Put it this way, though, we don't see how, given points i) to viii) above, we couldn't have already have been on at least an amber alert of serious doubt heading into last autumn (not when ACTA and Fr Timothy Radcliffe had already been given purple carpet treatment in His Grace's first 15 months with us). It was against that background, at the very least, that His Grace's words at the Roscoe Lecture (in the very last of the links below) served to tip us over towards this red alert.
Anyway, to further nutshell all of the above, but this time to provide essential links for the reader in a cohesive order, we outline, just below, how we plan to consider, over the next few posts, His Grace's public pronouncements and implied stances on the whole issue of female ordination over the last 15 or so years (i.e. the headline episodes as far as we know them to be).
As you will clearly see, those occasions, which have surfaced under three papacies, can be categorised as being either positive, negative [allegedly, unattributably, implied or otherwise] or just generally dubious.
During the course of our next few posts we will consider each episode in the following order. In the meantime, via our links (and there may be other materials available - we don't pretend that our listed links are exhaustive) readers should be adequately equipped to conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions:
By undertaking this (we believe necessary) study, it will also afford us the implicit opportunity to clarify, along the way, a few misconceptions about Liverpolitanus and our raison d'etre.
Although we believe we have made it quite clear, from our very first post, and throughout many other posts (particularly in this focused Series) as to what our motivations have been, we are aware that readers, especially newer arrivals, can't have the same holistic awareness as us about our, admittedly self-appointed, brief. Such are the dynamics of blog-reading, although we do try to re-link, as much as possible, to the previous ground we have covered, hopefully in both Truth and Charity.
We are aware that some people have been disconcerted by our actions. We also know that others have welcomed the fact that we have marshalled together many apparently unconnected elements in order to try and gain a better understanding of His Grace. It's often been simply a case of finally gathering it all together in one place. This post itself is a perfect example, i.e. with the links which we encourage you to follow, of the "one-stop-portal" style and approach we have often adopted. We, of course, offer our own opinion, but the information contained within our links hopefully enables each reader to reach his own informed, not hearsaid, verdict, whether in agreement with us or not.
Further, it is an undeniable fact that many quarters of commentary, both within and without this archdiocese, have broadcast their belief that we (and by that we mean Traditionalists) in this territory have been especially blessed by the arrival of His Grace. The received wisdom is that, firstly, the current Archbishop is not only a great friend and supporter of Tradition but that he is also quite orthodox and conservative (certainly liturgically) in his outlook and that the general tenor of things in the archdiocese is of an altogether more appealing note for those of us who are attached to the Church's Traditions (both liturgical and non-). Secondly, what seems to be mixed into this very generalised perception is that His Grace represents a welcome difference, again for us Traditionalists, in terms of how we are received and included in the archdiocesan sheepfold, especially when contrasted with His Grace's two immediate predecessors: His Grace The Most Rev. Derek Worlock (1976-96; requiescat in pace); and His Grace The Most Rev. Patrick Kelly (1996-2013) – Archbishop Emeritus of Liverpool. Well, not only do we have significant reservations about the first view, but we also believe that the supplementary point does something of a disservice to Archbishops Worlock and Kelly (notwithstanding the fact that we of course know they were far from Traditional in their outlook! indeed as one of our stock phrases has it on here: "we're not daft!").
We will endeavour, then, to flavour the posts which are to follow in this Series concerning His Grace and the subject of women's ordination (which, ideally, we'd like to wrap-up prior to Lent, but suspect that may not be possible – so be it – for it will indeed take several episodes we are sure to cover the ground on this important issue) with those extra considerations we have outlined above.
A further question that has been asked of us, which we can address directly here, is why we don't seem to concentrate on the grand-scale scandals that His Holiness Pope Francis seems to perpetrate almost weekly. We know that the Universal Church is undergoing quite possibly the biggest trial of Her 2,000-year history and that so much of this current papacy is deeply worrying; of course we do. But those matters are well-covered elsewhere in the Traditional Catholic blogosphere. However, the equally concerning developments here in Liverpool are barely, if at all, covered or recognised. For apart from ourselves and the team at Torch of the Faith (who do a sterling job of keeping tabs on local, national and global matters), we are not aware of any other channels that have addressed the quite serious scandals that seem to be unfolding below the radar here in Liverpool. Further, unless we are mistaken, we believe we can count on the fingers of one hand, possibly with digits to spare, the number of blogs that hail from this territory. Hence one of the twin reasons for our blog to be: to monitor, from a Traditional standpoint (we have no care for how things are perceived from a progressive viewpoint) the unfolding headline, or otherwise significant, developments in this archdiocese.
The other strand of focus that this blog wishes to concentrate on – channelling some of the great sources of Catholic history, much of it local, that we have easy access to – has taken a severe and unexpected knock this last half year, and it is our dearest wish that we will soon be able to devote more time to that very rewarding activity.
Finally, we suspect that the sub-set of posts that are to follow will also bring us to the crystallisation point in our "Searching for the Archbishop..." Series. For after we have explored the matter of His Grace's stance on women priests, there will really only be the subject of what his true views are on Liturgical Tradition that we would not yet have touched upon; and whilst many readers will of course know of the great and positive developments at Warrington, many will be unaware of an earlier and very negative counter-weight episode, in the city region of this archdiocese, which came as an absolute hammer-blow to many of our fellow local Traditionalists, on which we have purposefully not yet reported. We would hope that one small hallmark of Liverpolitanus has already become discernible: that we take our considered time to cover certain subjects and await "the appropriate moment". We will therefore indeed, in the near future, consider that aforementioned and much ignored episode (and the broader matter of His Grace and the Traditional Mass). However, we will do so in a manner and perspective that may not seem so obvious to those who have some knowledge (either greater or lesser than us) of the distressing subject to which we have referred. We will put it in clear context. And if, in the meantime, it should happen that there is a further significant development in this archdiocese concerning the Traditional Mass (whether positive or negative) then, again, so be it. We're not in a race against time.
Once we have covered all of the ground we have mentioned above, then we believe that we will finally be at a point in our Series where we will be able, based on a great deal of evidence, to grasp the truer outlook and intentions of His Grace and accordingly set our expectations – and fears, if necessary.
We trust that we will also be in a position to summarily set aside the views of both sets of onlookers. That is:
• those who blithely tell us that all is well in Liverpool and that His Grace is a great friend of Tradition basing that view on the fact that he has invited the FSSP to Warrington and that he has celebrated Traditional Mass indeed as recently as 2013, in the final weeks of Pope Benedict's papacy;
• and those (admittedly few) who warned us prior to His Grace's arrival that dark days lay ahead for this archdiocese under a very progressive programme.
Rather, we trust that we will be able, with charitable balance, to point to the stacked-up evidence that we have gathered, either for good and bad, and make a considered judgment on the matter for ourselves and, as already mentioned, also enable our readers to reach their own informed conclusions, whether they agree with us or not.
And should it transpire that some disagree with us vehemently, then our advice is this: you can start a blog for free if you haven't already got one!
–
Our next post will look at the curious events of 2001, at least.
(*) Clarification footnote added on February 3rd, 2015.
As correctly drawn to our attention: the content contained in the source that we link to above (The Telegraph, as per Key Link #12, repeated) is in fact quite dubious, at least, from a Traditional viewpoint, particularly given His Grace's expressed views about married clergy (a subject that was not under our specific consideration in this post). We referenced the link as a "positive" one only inasmuch as His Grace, when still Bishop of Nottingham, expressed an attributable and unequivocal stance against the ordination of women – and that was most welcome coming seven years after the controversies of 2001. Our only defence is that were locked into a singular mindset when listing and describing our links (for it has been like walking up Glue Hill at times!) and perhaps with a little too much focus we exclusively considered only the aspect of women's ordination, as discussed by His Grace at the foot of the newspaper article, to the risk sending the wrong message concerning wider matters he was primarily discussing. We should have been more circumspect. It was right to call us on that. We accept the correction. Accordingly, we would of course wish to clarify that in no way do we view His Grace's 2008 views – certainly as presented in the linked Telegraph article – concerning the subject of married priests as "positive". In any colour of type!
Anyway, to further nutshell all of the above, but this time to provide essential links for the reader in a cohesive order, we outline, just below, how we plan to consider, over the next few posts, His Grace's public pronouncements and implied stances on the whole issue of female ordination over the last 15 or so years (i.e. the headline episodes as far as we know them to be).
As you will clearly see, those occasions, which have surfaced under three papacies, can be categorised as being either positive, negative [allegedly, unattributably, implied or otherwise] or just generally dubious.
During the course of our next few posts we will consider each episode in the following order. In the meantime, via our links (and there may be other materials available - we don't pretend that our listed links are exhaustive) readers should be adequately equipped to conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions:
UNDER THE AILING POPE ST JOHN PAUL II
• 2001 – allegedly negative
[Key Link #6], [Key Link #7]
• 2002/03 – unattributably negative
[Key Link #8], [Key Link #9], [Key Link #10], [Key Link #11]
UNDER POPE BENEDICT XVI
• 2008 – positive (* see foot of post: updated on February 3rd, 2015)
[Key Link #12]
• 2009 – positive
[Key Link #13]
UNDER POPE FRANCIS
• late 2013/early 2014 – dubious
[Key Link #14], [Key Link #15], [Key Link #16]
• October 2014 – negative
[Key Link #17], [Key Link #18]
• April 2015 – dubious
[Key Link #19], [Key Link #20]
• August-to-autumn 2015 – negative
[Key Link #21], [Key Link #22]
• October 2015 – dubious
[Key Link #23 – audio file – refs: 57mins-29secs; and 1hr-08mins-32secs]
• 2001 – allegedly negative
[Key Link #6], [Key Link #7]
• 2002/03 – unattributably negative
[Key Link #8], [Key Link #9], [Key Link #10], [Key Link #11]
UNDER POPE BENEDICT XVI
• 2008 – positive (* see foot of post: updated on February 3rd, 2015)
[Key Link #12]
• 2009 – positive
[Key Link #13]
UNDER POPE FRANCIS
• late 2013/early 2014 – dubious
[Key Link #14], [Key Link #15], [Key Link #16]
• October 2014 – negative
[Key Link #17], [Key Link #18]
• April 2015 – dubious
[Key Link #19], [Key Link #20]
• August-to-autumn 2015 – negative
[Key Link #21], [Key Link #22]
• October 2015 – dubious
[Key Link #23 – audio file – refs: 57mins-29secs; and 1hr-08mins-32secs]
6. WHY WE ARE DOING THIS: SOME ADDITIONAL ASPECTS
By undertaking this (we believe necessary) study, it will also afford us the implicit opportunity to clarify, along the way, a few misconceptions about Liverpolitanus and our raison d'etre.
Although we believe we have made it quite clear, from our very first post, and throughout many other posts (particularly in this focused Series) as to what our motivations have been, we are aware that readers, especially newer arrivals, can't have the same holistic awareness as us about our, admittedly self-appointed, brief. Such are the dynamics of blog-reading, although we do try to re-link, as much as possible, to the previous ground we have covered, hopefully in both Truth and Charity.
We are aware that some people have been disconcerted by our actions. We also know that others have welcomed the fact that we have marshalled together many apparently unconnected elements in order to try and gain a better understanding of His Grace. It's often been simply a case of finally gathering it all together in one place. This post itself is a perfect example, i.e. with the links which we encourage you to follow, of the "one-stop-portal" style and approach we have often adopted. We, of course, offer our own opinion, but the information contained within our links hopefully enables each reader to reach his own informed, not hearsaid, verdict, whether in agreement with us or not.
Further, it is an undeniable fact that many quarters of commentary, both within and without this archdiocese, have broadcast their belief that we (and by that we mean Traditionalists) in this territory have been especially blessed by the arrival of His Grace. The received wisdom is that, firstly, the current Archbishop is not only a great friend and supporter of Tradition but that he is also quite orthodox and conservative (certainly liturgically) in his outlook and that the general tenor of things in the archdiocese is of an altogether more appealing note for those of us who are attached to the Church's Traditions (both liturgical and non-). Secondly, what seems to be mixed into this very generalised perception is that His Grace represents a welcome difference, again for us Traditionalists, in terms of how we are received and included in the archdiocesan sheepfold, especially when contrasted with His Grace's two immediate predecessors: His Grace The Most Rev. Derek Worlock (1976-96; requiescat in pace); and His Grace The Most Rev. Patrick Kelly (1996-2013) – Archbishop Emeritus of Liverpool. Well, not only do we have significant reservations about the first view, but we also believe that the supplementary point does something of a disservice to Archbishops Worlock and Kelly (notwithstanding the fact that we of course know they were far from Traditional in their outlook! indeed as one of our stock phrases has it on here: "we're not daft!").
We will endeavour, then, to flavour the posts which are to follow in this Series concerning His Grace and the subject of women's ordination (which, ideally, we'd like to wrap-up prior to Lent, but suspect that may not be possible – so be it – for it will indeed take several episodes we are sure to cover the ground on this important issue) with those extra considerations we have outlined above.
A further question that has been asked of us, which we can address directly here, is why we don't seem to concentrate on the grand-scale scandals that His Holiness Pope Francis seems to perpetrate almost weekly. We know that the Universal Church is undergoing quite possibly the biggest trial of Her 2,000-year history and that so much of this current papacy is deeply worrying; of course we do. But those matters are well-covered elsewhere in the Traditional Catholic blogosphere. However, the equally concerning developments here in Liverpool are barely, if at all, covered or recognised. For apart from ourselves and the team at Torch of the Faith (who do a sterling job of keeping tabs on local, national and global matters), we are not aware of any other channels that have addressed the quite serious scandals that seem to be unfolding below the radar here in Liverpool. Further, unless we are mistaken, we believe we can count on the fingers of one hand, possibly with digits to spare, the number of blogs that hail from this territory. Hence one of the twin reasons for our blog to be: to monitor, from a Traditional standpoint (we have no care for how things are perceived from a progressive viewpoint) the unfolding headline, or otherwise significant, developments in this archdiocese.
The other strand of focus that this blog wishes to concentrate on – channelling some of the great sources of Catholic history, much of it local, that we have easy access to – has taken a severe and unexpected knock this last half year, and it is our dearest wish that we will soon be able to devote more time to that very rewarding activity.
Finally, we suspect that the sub-set of posts that are to follow will also bring us to the crystallisation point in our "Searching for the Archbishop..." Series. For after we have explored the matter of His Grace's stance on women priests, there will really only be the subject of what his true views are on Liturgical Tradition that we would not yet have touched upon; and whilst many readers will of course know of the great and positive developments at Warrington, many will be unaware of an earlier and very negative counter-weight episode, in the city region of this archdiocese, which came as an absolute hammer-blow to many of our fellow local Traditionalists, on which we have purposefully not yet reported. We would hope that one small hallmark of Liverpolitanus has already become discernible: that we take our considered time to cover certain subjects and await "the appropriate moment". We will therefore indeed, in the near future, consider that aforementioned and much ignored episode (and the broader matter of His Grace and the Traditional Mass). However, we will do so in a manner and perspective that may not seem so obvious to those who have some knowledge (either greater or lesser than us) of the distressing subject to which we have referred. We will put it in clear context. And if, in the meantime, it should happen that there is a further significant development in this archdiocese concerning the Traditional Mass (whether positive or negative) then, again, so be it. We're not in a race against time.
Once we have covered all of the ground we have mentioned above, then we believe that we will finally be at a point in our Series where we will be able, based on a great deal of evidence, to grasp the truer outlook and intentions of His Grace and accordingly set our expectations – and fears, if necessary.
We trust that we will also be in a position to summarily set aside the views of both sets of onlookers. That is:
• those who blithely tell us that all is well in Liverpool and that His Grace is a great friend of Tradition basing that view on the fact that he has invited the FSSP to Warrington and that he has celebrated Traditional Mass indeed as recently as 2013, in the final weeks of Pope Benedict's papacy;
• and those (admittedly few) who warned us prior to His Grace's arrival that dark days lay ahead for this archdiocese under a very progressive programme.
Rather, we trust that we will be able, with charitable balance, to point to the stacked-up evidence that we have gathered, either for good and bad, and make a considered judgment on the matter for ourselves and, as already mentioned, also enable our readers to reach their own informed conclusions, whether they agree with us or not.
And should it transpire that some disagree with us vehemently, then our advice is this: you can start a blog for free if you haven't already got one!
–
Our next post will look at the curious events of 2001, at least.
(*) Clarification footnote added on February 3rd, 2015.
As correctly drawn to our attention: the content contained in the source that we link to above (The Telegraph, as per Key Link #12, repeated) is in fact quite dubious, at least, from a Traditional viewpoint, particularly given His Grace's expressed views about married clergy (a subject that was not under our specific consideration in this post). We referenced the link as a "positive" one only inasmuch as His Grace, when still Bishop of Nottingham, expressed an attributable and unequivocal stance against the ordination of women – and that was most welcome coming seven years after the controversies of 2001. Our only defence is that were locked into a singular mindset when listing and describing our links (for it has been like walking up Glue Hill at times!) and perhaps with a little too much focus we exclusively considered only the aspect of women's ordination, as discussed by His Grace at the foot of the newspaper article, to the risk sending the wrong message concerning wider matters he was primarily discussing. We should have been more circumspect. It was right to call us on that. We accept the correction. Accordingly, we would of course wish to clarify that in no way do we view His Grace's 2008 views – certainly as presented in the linked Telegraph article – concerning the subject of married priests as "positive". In any colour of type!
