SEARCHING FOR THE ARCHBISHOP (12.2); Re: His Grace and the subject of "women priests"; our analysis finally triggered by matters arising from the Roscoe Lecture, October 2015; this time considering the confusion of 2001; second in a short sub-series; Notes #14

Advice: this post is the second of a sub-set within a broader Series. It can be read either as a standalone commentary or in the light of the previous "intro" piece here. 

–

Heard the one about a future Pope, a future archbishop, a botched youth magazine interview, and an inexplicably incompetent diocesan newspaper?

No, we didn't "get it" either.

Anyway, we'll have another stab.

To try to understand, that is, just how it transpired, in 2001, that His Grace The Most Rev. Malcolm McMahon OP, now the ninth Archbishop of Liverpool, since 2014 – but back then having not long since been appointed the Bishop of Nottingham – was twice reported to have been firmly in favour of female ordination...only for the truth, apparently, to have been emphatically the opposite (as indeed it should have been and should always be).

Thankfully, as we later learned, the future Pope Benedict XVI had the matter clarified to his satisfaction just 12 months later in 2002.

However, as far as we can ascertain (caveat), the rest of the Catholic world didn't discover for perhaps as long as another (almost) eight years that His Grace had been dangerously "misquoted" (his word) and that his actually stated views in 2001 were, apparently, diametrically opposed to what they were erroneously alleged to be.

So, as far as we can tell, this mind-bending story which has bounced around the Catholic media and blogosphere for many years – but often very short on detail and seemingly never really examined under-the-bonnet – is a five-fold-farrago comprising the following elements:

i) what His Grace's true quotes were in 2001;
ii) an apparently completely distorted youth magazine interview;
iii) a "diocesan" (our emphasis) journal that later compounded that error by republishing it;
iv) the relatively swift but (seemingly) unpublicised assurances given to Rome in 2002; and
v) a very belated but necessary public clarification possibly as late as 2008...denouncing the "misquotes"

You couldn't make it up, as they say.

Except that, apparently, a gang of kids did exactly that!

Originally, we thought that in order to unravel this mess (and what a shambles!) it would be easier to start at the beginning: i.e. in March 2001 three months after His Grace's episcopal consecration which saw him become the ninth Bishop of Nottingham.

On reflection, however, we think that it may actually be easier to start at the end, almost eight years later: i.e. in November 2008, when the still Bishop of Nottingham certainly corrected – and as far as we can tell, for the first time – the public (emphasis) record via an interview with Jonathan Wynne-Jones, the well-worn Religious Affairs correspondent of The Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph.

As stated, this was some six or so years after Bishop McMahon had, as we were also told in that same Wynne-Jones Telegraph interview, privately placated (in 2002) the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, namely His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Of course, by late 2008, the former Prefect had been known to the world as His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for three-and-a-half years.

According to Wynne-Jones' 2008 report (Link), here is what Bishop McMahon said he stated to the youth group interviewer(s) back in 2001, which they somehow completely and outrageously ignored (we would ask you to note our underlined emphases):

"I look forward to the day when women play a greater role in ministry and take up more of a place in the Church, but not in sacred orders."

However, instead of printing the bishop's somewhat roundabout, but nevertheless indisputable, stance against female ordination, here's what, also according to Wynne-Jones' 2008 Telegraph report, he was then wrongly alleged – by both the Nottingham youth group journal and later the "diocesan" newspaper – to have said:

"We believe the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church and I agree with that, so I look forward to the day when we will have women priests." (*)

For good measure, we also provide another, relatively more contemporaneous and fully-expanded account (as published in February 2003 by the orthodox Catholic journal Christian Order [CO] Link) of what Bishop McMahon was apparently wrongly alleged to have said in 2001 (although CO could not have known, nor could anyone at that time, about the apparent misquotation) as originally printed in both the youth group publication and the "diocesan" title:

"Ah, you’ll get me into trouble over this one! I think in other Churches (sic), in other denominations, women have made very good priests and ministers. There is no doubt about that! In the Catholic Church we would want to be sure that this is the will of the Holy Spirit before we ordained women as priests. You see, vocation is a two-way thing. It’s not just the person saying I want to do it, but it is also the Church saying we want you to do it as well. We believe the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church and I agree with that, so I look forward to the day when we will have women priests. But it will not be our decision, we will realise God wants us to have women priests. At the moment we don’t see it like that at all."

• N.B. At this point we must at least try to make one extra element clear, as much as we can, and explain why we keep putting the word "diocesan" in italicised quotes whenever referencing the Nottingham Catholic newspaper. For the said title (The Catholic News) is, we since have learned (in the wake of another total screw-up under the final days of the +McMahon Nottingham bishopric in late 2013 - link 1, link 2, link 3), not actually the "diocesan" journal per se. It's only "diocesan" insofar as it's "in" the diocese (according to official diocesan explanations, that is). In short, it's "in" the diocese, not "of" it. So a non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper, if you will.

Well, with that sorted, we continue.

Risking here a poor-man's impression of Terry Mattingly (although we do possess some limited professional experience in media forensics) it can be clearly seen by our underlined emphases that the only consistency in all three excerpts above (again, though, the last extraction, from CO, is but an expansion of the second citation) is the common seven word sequence "...I look forward to the day when...".

There are many things about the whole episode of His Grace's wrongly alleged quotes of 2001 and the public clarification of 2008 which have left us deeply curious. We'll address just a few in this post, otherwise we could be here until Lent...next year.

Accordingly, we begin by considering the consistent presence of those seven words in each of the accounts of what His Grace is alleged to have said in 2001: "I look forward to the day when...".

It would seem, then, by common consent [i.e. by the five parties who have been involved with or prominently reported on this bizarre mix-up, namely: i) the Nottingham youth group; ii) the non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper; iii) the CO editorial team; iv) the Telegraph's Wynne-Jones; and v) His Grace himself, of course] that the seven word phrase "I look forward to the day when..." was indeed one accurate element of the broader quote.

Anyone with even the remotest degree of media-savviness, or indeed just an ounce of common sense (the two aren't necessarily interchangeable, of course), would know that Wynne-Jones, in interviewing His Grace for the Telegraph in November 2008, couldn't possibly have just happened upon that precise seven-word sequence, as an uncannily accurate elemental transcript of what was uttered, verbatim, almost eight years earlier.

So either His Grace had retained the entirety of his correct, but never properly recorded, and verbatim quote in his head between March 2001 and November 2008, perhaps with a burning sense of injustice, and then read out that part of it faithfully to Wynne-Jones...or the latter faithfully read back to His Grace the quotes that were, apparently, so unfaithfully reported by the Nottingham whippersnappers and thus it was via that latter method that it was agreed that, at the very least, those seven key words "...I look forward to the day when..." were a reliable relic from the original botch-job.

His Grace, therefore, we can surely take it as read, did indeed utter those words to the Nottingham freshers in 2001. If so, then it must also follow that the youngsters' failure was actually far more spectacular than a first glance suggests. For not only did they apparently seriously misquote His Grace on a clear matter of doctrine but somehow they also achieved an incredible journalistic trick: presenting a 144-word quote (as per the expanded extract given above by CO in 2003) wherein only seven of them were faithfully recorded: "I look forward to the day when...". 

We trust that none of them have since pursued a proper career in the media! Then again...

So, an obvious corollary is that the whole preamble to that elemental quote "...I look forward to the day when...", and then all that followed thereafter, that the Nottingham nippers so damagingly placed in His Grace's mouth, must have been erroneous. All of it. Because the seven word element "...I look forward to the day when..." acts as a hinge quote for all that His Grace was alleged to have said. Therefore, the other 137 words are utter bunkum. Starting from "Ah! You'll get me into trouble over this one...".

Further, it stands to reason, of course, that His Grace could hardly have got "...into trouble..." with anyone (except, we suppose, with the secular media and ultra-progressives such as We Are Church, the National Board of Catholic Women, ACTA et al) for issuing a quote which, we were later informed, should actually have been recorded as a clear assertion of Church teaching against the ordination of females.

We simply can't imagine that he would have feared landing himself in "trouble" with progressives of that ilk.

So at least one thing is clear: that the Nottingham yoof-group (more like goof-group) paid some small attention, for they did actually manage to faithfully record seven words "...I look forward to the day when...". Bravo kids! But as for the other 137 peddled words, well, it's pretty obvious (isn't it?) that he/she/they just made them up, frankly. AKA lying – through the teeth of their keyboard! That's the only logical conclusion. Actually, thinking about it, the numbers game is significant: just how many young-timers interviewed His Grace back in 2001? If it was just one, then he/she not only seriously misrepresented the local Ordinary but also took it upon him/herself to deceive the rest of the team. However, if it was two or more, then we're talking a collective conspiracy to tell blatant lies about a bishop.

It's head-shakingly appalling. But you decide for yourself.

Our view is that, however you dress it up, that episode of 2001 really shouldn't have been dismissed quite as matter-of-factly as seems to have been the case these last eight years since the extent of this scandal (for that's what it was) came to light (at the very latest via Wynne-Jones' Telegraph 2008 interview). It's all-too-easy to cast the confusion as arising from a simple "misquote" if indeed you think such things exist on that super scale. But when you dig beneath the surface for a bit, which no-one seems to have bothered doing before, then you have to conclude that it would be a 137-word "misquote".

Really?!!

No, let's be straight, that's not a "misquote". That's skullduggery of the very lowest order. And that's being charitable. The only possible explanation for how His Grace was so hideously misrepresented was that he was deliberately and grossly betrayed by those representing the "youth" of his diocese, just three months after becoming their bishop.

Grave and graver still.

Make no mistake, either one or a group of young Catholics took it upon themselves to libel their bishop on a grand scale. This wasn't just a case of a missing word here or there, or a subtle nuance presented out-of-context. Sure, they could be classed as "misquotes".

No, those young hacks (certainly the correct term in this instance) had to have fabricated some 140 or so words in order to mission-mould their Modernist message around the only generally agreed element of text that His Grace did say i.e. "I look forward to the day when...".

The additional conclusion that the whole tawdry episode exposed – when the frustrated kids must have unfortunately, for them, realised that His Grace was just a fuddy-duddy-dogma-dealing bishop, so they determined to show otherwise – is that it shows the depths that even proto-proggies in their mid-to-late teens will descend to in order to further their agenda of distortion.

You know, it beggars belief that a bishop generously sat down with them and clearly told them that he didn't support women priests and yet his words were then completely reversed to say the opposite! How does that happen if not mendaciously and through black method?

Beyond scandalous.

To be honest, it's a mystery as to why this hasn't been generally known as one of the most appalling episodes perpetrated by the progressive agenda, regardless of the fact that they were kids, in these formerly Catholic isles these last few decades. Possibly, though, it was a mercy-based decision, presumably on the part of His Grace, to let the matter lie, which he seemed to for a good long spell, possibly until as late as 2008. Then again, really speaking, it's true to say that the young-uns' initial questioning shouldn't have even been indulged in the first place. For they should have been informed, straight-off-the-episcopal-bat that it's a matter that the then reigning pontiff, His Holiness John Paul II, some seven years earlier, had declared not only to be definitively closed – like, forevah-evah kids! – but also beyond any future debate. Off-limits. Finito. In fairness, though, it must be conceded that the then 16-18-year-olds, in 2001, were probably only around 9-12 years-of-age at the time of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to which they should have been swiftly referred.

Maybe that's one reason why it would appear, to outsiders, that the matter wasn't made too much a fuss of? Hmm.

For it did seem that almost complete radio silence emanated from the time of that ugly episode in 2001 until Wynne-Jones, certainly, exposed the matter in the Telegraph in 2008; n.b. although we are not aware of any earlier clarifications of the matter, we know of the blogosphere rumours that Bishop McMahon was blocked by Pope Benedict XVI from becoming Archbishop of Southwark circa 2009/10 because of the misquote scandal. That would have been quite an irony considering the eventual chosen appointee for that south-east archdiocese (a matter which is beyond the scope of this post and this blog generally).

We said that it was almost completely quiet in the years following "2001 - A Misquote Fantasy", but of course titles like CO weren't about to let the subject slide so easily and therefore it was surely quite a danger to leave its editorial team to labour under the wrong impression for several years in thinking that Bishop McMahon was pro-women priests.

Presumably, though, there were serious repercussions behind-the-scenes, locally for the youth group once their open rebellion came to printed light. Especially considering that the matter was serious enough (and then some!) for His Grace to be either asked to, or voluntarily moved to, explain the grave misunderstanding to the CDF Prefect, namely Cardinal Ratzinger, in 2002.

"It was pesky kids, Joe!"

"Ach nein, Malkolm!"

We can't, of course, know how the Notts-area lads-n-lasses were dealt with, though it was obviously handled sensitively (we're a bit behind on what passes for Dominican justice these days but it probably reflects better on His Grace and the diocesan pastoral set-up at that time that the matter was kept so obviously private, for we'd have had the scapegraces sat outside the cathedral in all weathers bashing out the Summa on manual bell-ring typewriters – "one mistake and you start again!" – just for starters! Note to selves to be more "merciful!").

Certainly, there doesn't seem to be any public record of a serious episcopal ticking-off, so the only conclusion is that the matter was in fact prudently dealt with indoors. Having said that, to put things into chronological context, the absence of public evidence of a bishoply-rollicking, that's rollicking, towards the kids might merely be a reflection of those cyber-times. That things weren't as necessarily, shall we say, accessible, back then. We like to consider all angles here. For although we were already living in a 2001 world that shuddered to a (still biggest ever) globally-grinding Internet-halt the moment that the second plane hit the south tower later that year, the digital world was still quite an infant. Domestic broadband, laptops, tablets, smart phones and other devices – and most digitised online reports and historical records were still several years away, not to mention the dawn of big beasts like YouTube, or indeed the Catholic blogosphere as we now know it (e.g. Rorate Caeli has only just marked its 10th anniversary). Actually, maybe that's another aspect of "The Misquote Files" to consider, for perhaps His Grace was hoping – obviously for the sake of the Kidder-Kidders – that the matter would just melt away in those relatively Beta-web early millennium days. So, in that respect, then, it was actually to the great credit/or quite awkward (you decide) of the CO team that they not only chronicled (first in hard copy form as was its original wont) the initial transcript of His Grace's interview but then also ensured that a digital version of it emerged in the title's considerable on-the-record web-archives. And let's face it, they can hardly be blamed for taking such a dim view of His Grace's words – as any right thinking Catholics would – certainly in the manner that they were so abominably presented initially by the Nottingham weans and then, inexplicably, in the non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper. And definitely in the absence of any speedy "the kids said I said what?" type clarifications from His Grace. For thanks to the wanton distortions of that young stitich-up crew, it did dangerously seem, publicly that is, that for many years (possibly almost eight) a rising star of the English and Welsh hierarchy was not only brazenly in opposition to Church doctrine but had also signalled implicit and utter contempt for Pope John Paul II in doing so.

Of course it's only our assumption (always perilous) that His Grace left it so long to clarify the matter in order to save the kidz-repz but what other reason could there have been for letting the matter drift so long in silence (well, apart from the inconvenient chronicles at CO)? Okay, maybe we weren't quite so serious about suggesting that the junior leaguers should have been made to sit outside the cathedral in all weathers and do public penance typing out the Summa (we'd have let them inside when it rained!) but if indeed it was merely to save face for them that His Grace appeared (emphasis) not to have drawn public attention to the matter in the immediate wake of the youth publication then we would humbly submit that it may not have been the best policy. That's if our theory is correct, of course. For what was the good-standing of those callow pens-for-hire (who let's face it needed a short, sharp one to remind them not to concoct any future tissues-of-lies, especially about senior Churchmen) versus the utter confusion of who knows how many scandalised members of the local faithful? Just our amateur pastoral thoughts.

But think, also, of an extra implication of what those young swords were, probably unwittingly, suggesting given that they interviewed His Grace in March 2001 (for all the difference it would have apparently made, they may as well have dispensed with the formality of it all and instead just addressed a photograph of the bishop and sought to quiz him through the method of thought-transference). For this was just 12 or so weeks after he had arrived in Nottingham for his first episcopal appointment. So another direct corollary of their fabricated account is that, unless they were implying that Bishop McMahon had experienced a soul-destroying descent-into-dissent in the immediate three months after becoming the Shepherd of Nottingham, between December and March, that he had actually been pro-women priests at the time of his episcopal consecration on December 8th. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception! Dreadful to think that the disgusting machinations of the youth group could imply that such a diabolical thing could have happened!

Sickening.

Anyway, considering the limitations of that early online era, it should now be recognised that were it not for the diligent team at CO we would likely not have any accessible account of that mucky episode and just how low the enemies of the Church – even the youngest – would stoop to press home their agitation as they evidently did concerning Bishop McMahon.

Diabolical.

Thinking about it (dangerous, we know!), CO or no CO, it is still something of a wonder, really, that the then Cardinal Ratzinger actually heard about the infamous Nottingham youth group interview and, presumably, also the later non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper's account of the same. For it has to be noted that, even as late as 2009 – by which stage the Internet really was up and mega-byting – the Vatican was still not as well-connected as you'd have hoped. A prime example being that when the then Pope Benedict XVI was preparing to lift, in his words, "the excommunication 'laetae sententiae' of the Bishops of the Society of St Pius X", he was still said to be completely unaware of the controversies surrounding Bishop Richard Williamson...until, of course, they were exposed very publicly and very globally and very coincidentally at that precise time, as per the determination in certain quarters to dog that development. Uncanny. So, relatively-speaking, it was something of a surprise that seven years earlier Cardinal Ratzinger had obviously been made aware of the alleged priestess scandal surrounding Bishop McMahon of Nottingham, England. You know, it's almost enough to make you wonder whether committed groups of orthodox Catholics from these Isles absolutely made sure that His Eminence was appraised of the matter and that, in turn, such an information feed then led to Bishop McMahon being invited to Rome to explain away his apparent, but thankfully unfounded, dissent. Then again, as we have already said, we actually don't know whether His Grace took it upon himself to volunteer information about this matter directly – just to stave off any confusion. But that latter scenario does seem unlikely, however, given that he only met with Cardinal Ratzinger in 2002 – we don't know when, of course, but we'd hope that it was pretty early on, say January 1st! Therefore, that would still have left the last nine months, at least, of 2001 i.e. since the first publication of the youth group interview, that the authorities in Rome would also have been left dangling with the rest of us still labouring under the false impression that Nottingham's bishop was overtly pro-female ordination (still small beer compared to the six-plus years until the Telegraph generously clarified things for us in 2008).

Anyway, we'll park those side issues. Instead, let's return to the stern admonishment that was surely meted out to the youth group in the wake of the original 2001 interview and consider one last aspect there.

As said, we can only assume that the miscreants were initially blessed with enough humility to accept whatever episcopal admonishment came their way as soon as their vindictive presses had rolled (but they can hardly be held accountable for the subsequent stupidity of the non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper in repeating their baseless error - unless of course there was some kind of connection there! We couldn't possibly comment!). For there is no record (again from the early cyber-era of course!) of them kicking-up any counter stink, or offering any lame excuse as to how and why they put words into His Grace's mouth. Really, though, what room for manoeuvre did they have? Basically a bishop had told them squarely, we are told, that he was clearly against women priests and they stated exactly the opposite. Case closed. As the movies have it they were "bang to rights". They had quite simply spun a web of lies. About a Catholic bishop.

Perversely, though, it's somehow unfortunate that they actually didn't either speak out to defend their lies or publicly acknowledge their error and ask for forgiveness. For had they done so, then the non-diocesan-diocesan editorial team at the Catholic News would have got wind of the error and known not to republish it! As it was, the immediate effect of the silence of those lambs and the hushing-up of their punishment had several more unfortunate by-products. For if the actions of the diocesan youth group were frankly evil, then the lumpen reaction of the non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper was positively imbecilic – we opted to use another charitable term there. If only they'd heard about it, they could have spiked the story!

Doh! as the big yeller feller would say.

We don't know what the exact time gap was between the youth group's rag going to press with its wholly, apart from seven words, fabricated interview, and the Catholic News carrying the same fictional account being printed. But we do know that it wasn't on the same day, or even in the same week. We think, in fact, that the gap could have been as long as seven weeks, if not more. Now we applaud the obvious gossip-free culture that clearly permeated Nottingham diocesan circles completely sans-jungle drums – truly a rarity in the Catholic world! Still, it seems incredible that no one on the editorial or publishing team at the Catholic News had got wind of either the truly-off-the-scale doctrine-denying-dirties that the local youth group had descended to, or indeed the episcopal ear-bashing that they must surely have been subjected to as soon as their monkey business had come to the dark light of night. Just amazing, really (no, really!) that no one from either the bishop's office, the curial office, the diocesan press team or Calumny Central HQ where the kaper-kids hung out had the good sense to tip-off the editor of the Catholic News that, er, "the interview with the Bish that you plan to print, you know the one that the students printed, well, it's all er, lies - well seven words of it are true but that's not really gonna fill your pages."

Jernow, some things just really leave you wondering!

What's even more amazing is that, leaving aside the incredibility that the Catholic News team completely failed to get wind via an advance tip-off hinting at one of the biggest scandals in the diocese (and they called themselves journalists!) still nobody on the editorial team read the quotes that Bishop McMahon had been alleged to have given and then set the alarms bells ringing, right at the death before the title went to press. Something like: "Hey, it says here that Bishop McMahon is pro-women priests, that he's looking forward to the day when we have them. That can't be right!"

Instead it would seem that the news team bizarrely concluded the opposite. Something like: "Hey, it says here that Bishop McMahon is pro-women priests, that he's looking forward to the day when we have them. Yep, that sounds like +Our Malc, even though he's still quite new around here. That fits. Run the press! Now the pub!"

It's inexplicable, we know, but it's hard to reach any other conclusion. Furthermore, what seems even harder to believe, but believe it we must, is that in doubly-compounding the already compounded original mistake, the crew at the Catholic News, who surely must have seen the error of their ways when the paper was published (because presumably His Grace spotted it as soon as the paper landed on his desk) still failed to pulp or recall the edition. You can imagine His Grace's reaction: "Ohhh nooo, not again!" Why on earth hadn't they forewarned the bishop - just out of courtesy - that they were going to re-run that interview?

"Yes, THAT one, m'Lord. Is that ok?"

Sigh. That doubled-down disaster could all have been so easily avoided! Then again, that's what must happen when you have a non-diocesan-diocesan newspaper, we guess. So, unfortunately, in the same way that the original youth newspaper carrying its wholly concocted interview with the Bishop was still allowed to be distributed, the Catholic News with its repeated libel was also set free for distribution around the parishes.

As a much politer, Catholicised version of a famous incompetency-encapsulating phrase would have it: "They couldn't organise a Rosary in Lourdes!"

Anyway, as we said, we could go on and on until next Lent about the great mess of 2001 but we've probably already more than made our point. Nod. Wink. We'd always been aware of this yarn but had noted how easily people just seem to accept the explanation of a "misquote". So we just thought we'd get our torch out. It's been a bit of drain having to lay out all this but in the absence of an easier explanation as to why the youth group said-what-they-said-the-bishop-said, then we felt that we had no choice but to go into deconstruction mode.

But hey, maybe there is a simpler version of the truth out there...

Before we wrap up, though, there is one final aspect that needs to be considered.

To be sure here, we are not dredging old ground from 15 years ago for the sake of it. We would quite contentedly have left the confusion of 2001 where, frankly, it deserves to be and have happily stayed under the impression that the clarifications of 2008 represented His Grace's true views on so-called women priests. That he's agin 'em. End of.

But for the reasons laid out in our introduction post to this Series sub-set, we have felt the need to reconsider not only the chaos of 2001 but also the very many other conflicting signals that seem to have continually and maddeningly surrounded His Grace in the intervening 15 years on this matter and other dissenting noises. Given the apparent distortions of 2001, His Grace surely must have learned a very bitter lesson as to how easily confusion can spread, especially where ill-will is a factor, which, as we've laid out above, must surely have been the motivation for the actions of the youth group. For, as said, there were many years when many people were left with the, apparently, wrong impression concerning his views on a very serious matter of doctrine. Indeed these views were so serious that, by His Grace's own admission, Rome needed swift (well sort of) clarification about the whole issue, whether by summons or voluntarily. So, accordingly, His Grace must surely have taken one overriding lesson from the mayhem of 2001: to never to let confusion about his views ever reign large again. Basically to be on guard lest anyone ever receive the wrong signals again – especially in the wake of his public stances in 2008 and 2009 in asserting his belief in the doctrine of an all-male priesthood, which really should never have been required of a Catholic bishop.

Leave nothing to chance. Belt and braces every time.

Therefore, we have to seriously wonder just why it is that – certainly in his short time in Liverpool, at the very least (though there were many other post-2001 occasions of dubious dissent that surfaced in Nottingham, as we have pointed out in our intro-post and will feature in the rest of this mini-series) – he has still seemed so blithe about protecting his reputation on serious matters of dogma and especially still emits worrying implicit signals about where he stands on the matter of women priests.

We have been repeatedly told by so many (if we had a pound for every occasion we've counted, then we know we'd have at least £19 by now!) that we have a solid and orthodox Shepherd, even a Tradition-leaning one.

"Just look to Warrington or the other occasions he has worn a maniple or fiddleback - Google them, they're all online".

Well, of course, that is the Archbishop that we, especially, want to believe that we are now blessed to have. Truly we do. Why would we ever want otherwise? Yet, for all that it is possible to point to the positives, it's equally easy to counter with very worrying negatives.

"Yes, we know all about Warrington and the other Trad Masses he has celebrated in his past and various other very orthodox signals...but how do you explain A,B,C and Z? Do we just ignore them from our Trad ghetto?"

So there, once again, is the conundrum that we have grappled with since we started this blog and especially in this Series. For we are indeed "Searching for the Archbishop..."

He leaves us no choice.

A riddle, inside a mystery, wrapped in Dominicana.

Only he holds the answer to our questions.

–

Our next post in this Series sub-set will consider the alarming events circa 2003 in Nottingham that we alluded to in our "intro" piece here. We opted to employ a little levity in the above post, for frankly it deserved it. Our next post can afford no such luxury. 

–

(*) "We believe the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church and I agree with that..." - phew, just as well eh?