• This expedited post is another that is not part of our ongoing sub-series (Link 1, Link 2) concentrating on the issue of His Grace and the matter of women priests, the next part of
which (note for our monitors' attention) will appear this week.
It was just one letter (Link), with only eight paragraphs and barely over 1000 words.
Yet it served as a perfect microcosmic example of the concerns and the conundrum – perceived by a fair few in this territory – surrounding His Grace The Most Rev. Malcolm McMahon OP, ninth Archbishop of Liverpool, about where he truly stands in regards to the Church's tradition and teaching.
Basically, it managed to both please and disturb at the same time.
In anticipation of any accusation that, in stating the above, we have evidently missed the point of the letter – "Whoosh! It was all about mercy but that obviously sailed right over your heads" – well, we really haven't (but we'll make a very necessary point about the overladen emphasis on mercy – and mercy alone – later in this post, just to provide some perspective).
Anyway, first the positives.
Finally, after decades of being told that fasting has nothing to do with bodily mortification, actual denial of the food appetite, and genuinely forgoing that forkful (how did we all get that one so wrong for generations?) – instead we've been told to focus positively on "doing", not dwell negatively on "not doing" – we now have an Archbishop who relates a simple, perfectly obvious truth.
His Grace:
"I am often asked what is the value of fasting? Unless we are trying to lose weight it can seem rather pointless. A spiritual answer is that to make ourselves feel weak and hungry can help us realise that, even in this highly technological age, we are ultimately dependent on God. It creates a longing and yearning within us for Christ to come into our lives and satisfy our need for Him. But there is also a very practical answer to the question of fasting. Giving up something for Lent enables us to give the money saved to those who are in need. Fasting can also help us understand the plight of the less well-off members of our society by suffering with them. Sadly, it is not uncommon for people in our society to go hungry. That is a very damning indictment of the times in which we live, but it is also an opportunity to be merciful like the Father, the theme of this Jubilee Year of Mercy. So please help the food banks in your area."
So, connection clearly restored. Fasting = stomach stuff.
Yes, of course you can also deny yourself other things like your favourite TV programme, or attending the football (although in some local cases it may be considered more of a hardship to go to the match this Lent - and we're not talking ticket prices), or hot baths, or hot cocoa (tougher for some of us than you'd think!) and/or force yourself to perform other works of charity/mercy that you might not normally.
But at the very least, fasting is, and always has been, a gut-rumbling sacrifice. Even upper-primary school children can easily grasp this truth. If taught it, of course.
So it was good to read such episcopal solidity about fasting rather than the usual Modernist false diet-chotomy – about "positives not negatives" – so we'll bet that a certain generously served portion of His Grace's pastoral letter will have caused a touch of gastro-reflux amongst many nu-Churchers last weekend.
"Fasting? Like from food? Like in the early 60s?"
Sorry, Ché. Oh, and better dust yourself down further, for His Grace also gave a very welcome reference to "ashes". They're still part of the Lenten scene, too! And Confession!
His Grace: "...I strongly urge you to make a good start to Lent by making a pilgrimage to the Holy Door at the Cathedral or to one of our designated churches, and to receive the grace of the sacrament of penance."
So: food fasting, check; ashes, check; penance/confession, check. A good start to a Lenten pastoral. And yes, mercy, check (check and check again).
But now the but.
The clouds, but perhaps with silver-linings (and maybe, just maybe, that's the madness - as we perceive it to be, of course - behind His Grace's subtle method, hmm). You could even accuse us of being two-faced (typical Trads, hey!! you can't win with 'em!) on the basis of what we're about to say.
Regarding our headline up at the top, then.
His Grace again:
"Sometimes we do not receive the mercies that we were hoping for and we give up and turn from God. We all know people who have done this. Some Catholics in a second marriage for example will be disappointed that the recent Synod of bishops did not ask the Holy Father to allow such people to receive Holy Communion. But nevertheless a different but very real way of being in communion with Jesus is to become more merciful. This is a very hard test of faith for many couples."
They were his precise words.
Here's the cloud, as we see it.
Four things.
Firstly, will this un-blessed din of mission-creep (because that's what it is) regarding the Kasperite agenda ever stop?
Secondly, when His Grace refers to those who were disappointed regarding the hoped-for but undelivered "mercies" at the terrible twin Synods of 2014/15, then let us be as blunt as he surely didn't feel that he could be (for whatever reason). For he's referring as much to himself as to the many other dissenters who agitated for new pastoral norms (a new, more merciful discipline) to be implemented in defiance of Christ's teaching on marriage (old, tired and unjust doctrine).
Our post from last summer about His Grace's interview with BBC Radio 4 arch-liberal, Edward Stourton, essentially expanding upon an earlier blog post from The Sensible Bond blog (sadly now ceased, we think - but hopefully not forever) makes that pretty clear (even if the Archbishop danced around making an outright declaration on air). Here it is again for those who may think we're overstating things. Clearly, regarding the matter of Holy Communion for those who have been divorced and re-married without having obtained a Declaration of Nullity regarding their first marriage, His Grace wanted doctrine to be "developed". That is: changed. To develop something means to change it in some way. You can churn the metaphysics around in your head all you want but - if something is subject to a development then it has undergone some form of change.
Therefore, His Grace was among those who were disappointed.
Let's not pretend otherwise and let's just accept that, as far as last year's Synod was concerned, he was on the Kasperite side. We know this. Even the folks at ACTA know this. His Grace and the liberal clergy majority in this archdiocese definitely know it. The only people who don't seem to know it - or at least give that impression - are certain Traditionalists who for some odd reason wish to deny it.
Yes, His Grace might have a Traditional outlook regarding certain matters but as far as Synod 2015 was concerned he was definitely a progressive.
And that has to be a great worry.
But given that the matter has been aired-and-aired-and-aired, repeatedly, and been batted-back-and-back-and-back, repeatedly (a bit like the issue of so-called women priests, eh!), did the Kasperite agenda really need to be dragged-up yet again? Really? In a Lenten pastoral?
Disagree with us if you wish, call us over-analytical by all means, but to our eyes and ears the very mention of the whole mess of the Synod smacked of being deliberately and unnecessarily shoe-horned right into the middle of a Lenten pastoral.
Sure, we got the context - mercy, again! – so on that basis, then, yes, it fits. But forgive us for being wary about the motivations here. Can you really blame us?
Furthermore, in those parishes where His Grace's letter was read out from the pulpit last weekend, rather than just being left at the back for people to collect (and we really do wonder how many agitating parish priests – ACTA men to the core – just couldn't bring themselves to read aloud this particular letter containing its awkward truths and reality - more later), what will have been the main takeaway talking point after Mass?
The Holy Door(s), penance, fasting, confession, all that good spiritual stuff that His Grace started the letter with? Or that controversial line about "some Catholics in a second marriage" not being able to receive Holy Communion? And how much confusion might there have been on that matter given that it's still generally misunderstood that those who are divorced are automatically banned from receiving?
We could supply scores of links amplifying the point we make above about the tiresome return and re-return of this particular liberal agitation but this (Link) is one of the best encapsulations on the cyber-circuit. Very well recommended for your knowledge armoury.
Thirdly, we note that, once again, a bishop has been more than a little vague with the terms. Okay, His Grace does refer to "some Catholics in a second marriage" who will be "disappointed" with the outcome of the Synod(s). So, therefore, yes, he is correct and it is true to say that only some not all Catholics "in a second marriage" will be disappointed. For some of them have simply no need to be "disappointed", e.g. widows, widowers who have re-married; or those who have re-married after their first marriage was properly declared null i.e. never a marriage to begin with.
But for certain others, well "...some Catholics in a second marriage..." will indeed be "disappointed" (well, in theory anyway, more on that later, too) i.e. those whose first marriage was valid, and whose original spouses are still alive, but have since obtained a civil divorce and then civilly re-married another person – which therefore means they are now living in an objective adulterous union because, well, they're still married to someone else!
It really is that simple. So why not say so? With words. Something like "...those divorced and since civilly remarried Catholics whose first marriage has not been declared null..."
An extra 10 or so words is too much? Apparently so for many bishops. For His Grace has certainly not been the only one these last 24 or so months to habitually only provide half of the story about "...Catholics in a second marriage..."
Just why can't they bring themselves to publicly add the rest of the Church's teaching here?
No need to ring Baker Street.
Fourthly we could barely believe our eyes when we read the following (in bold): "Some Catholics in a second marriage for example will be disappointed that the recent Synod of Bishops did not ask the Holy Father to allow such people to receive Holy Communion."
Now, maybe these are semantics beyond our unpaid-grade and perhaps His Grace is hinting at a nuanced procedural truth here, that somewhere along the line it is technically the case (we really don't care) that the bishops did not formally, or materially, or specifically, or standing-on-one-leggedly ask His Holiness to
But. Come. Onnnnnnn!
If that's the type of near-meltdown that occurs when a question isn't formally asked, then as sure as Hades is hot and exists, we don't ever want to see what happens when someone does pipe up and "ask".
Heavens!
Really, someone should tell His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke et al that they've wasted their time, got the wrong end of the stick and were anxious for no reason! We must have imagined all that stuff about agitators like His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols wanting the "negative" language of indissolubility changed (Audio Link: go to 2mins30secs). Memo to Cardinal Burke: it was all just a bad dream.
We can't speak for the rest of the country, but this locality has a fairly well-honed cultural short tolerance when faced with certain types of word-bending. It's very economical language. But we'd best not use it.
So, okay, maybe it was the case that the Synod didn't ask for those re-married divorcees whose first marriage is still valid to be allowed to receive Holy Communion (if that's what His Grace is driving at).
Righto. Is our politest way of responding to that.
Anyway, there's an e-mail address on our home page side-bar. By all means, if someone wants to use it and tell us, being worn-out-bears-of-limited-brain, what we're missing here (another whoosh moment, probably) then we'd be grateful. We may even publish it (anonymity guaranteed).
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Here's the silver-lining (again as we see it; in which we become two-faced - we get our own criticisms in first on here, saves time and hassle!)
There was a consensus, if you remember, in the immediate wake of the Synod last October that nobody could really say for sure who had "won". The only certain position to take was that Church doctrine hadn't been changed, developed, circumvented, spat out or whatever other adjective might have been applicable had Old Nick scored in extra time. In reality it could never have been. But for all that, it was the case that the heretics did not get their way. Those who wanted to drive a wedge between doctrine and discipline, who wanted the Church's pastoral stance on those who could not receive Holy Communion to be modified, adapted, developed, abandoned or whatever other bendy word in order to get permission to ignore Church teaching.
But it was still an evil scandal, of course, that the bishops – well some of them – had to combine manfully to avert an even graver evil scandal befalling Holy Church after so much public injury was inflicted upon Her.
But Christ won. As He always will.
On that clear basis, then, we are very grateful that His Grace has laid out the Saviour's firm Truth (that can't be developed ever!) before the whole archdiocese (and that's why we wonder whether not a few parish priests opted not to read this pastoral letter aloud last weekend!). If it was necessary to mention the mess of the Synod, then we would aver that it may have been a more effective pastoral communication to clearly say who can and can't – amongst those "in second marriages" – receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Holy Communion. And why.
Nevertheless, it was still a timely reinforcement of the Truth: that bars to reception of the Blessed Sacrament in Holy Communion do still exist, for good reason, and that not everyone can just waltz up to receive the Lord having not seen the other side of a confessional door for several decades. And we just wonder, then, whether that was His Grace's nuanced method?
We really wouldn't rule it out.
For we've said it before on here and we will be mentioning it again in another post before too long, on a certain subject, that we have long since detected a sense of pragmatism in His Grace, something of a "we are where we are" type acceptance of certain realities. So, although he would have wished for doctrine to be developed on the matter of Holy Communion for those remarried people who have only achieved a civil divorce, perhaps (stress) he was striving, however reluctantly, to ensure that he got the message across that things haven't changed.
If so, then that's good shepherding (we know, he'll be thrilled to get a nod from us) leaving aside our belief that he could have phrased things better.
It was a timely communication just in case there are those under the influence of distorted secular media headlines, post-Synod, who may think that Church teaching - "the rools" – had indeed changed regarding the matter of Holy Communion, for "some Catholics in a second marriage". Also timely, especially given that it's Lent and a time for all of us to convert our lives to Christ, for those remarried-divorcees who are still in valid original unions and who've simply ignored this teaching (worst-worst case) for years, if not decades, or long since forgotten (best-worst case) that they need to be aware of the reality of their status. We'd wager that either of those scenarios apply locally to 80pc (easily) of those remarried civil-divorcees, whose first marriage ratum et consummatum was valid, but who still consider that they can receive Holy Communion. Certainly we'd bet that it's so in an archdiocese like this that is liberally awash with third and fourth generations of lapsed Irish-Catholic descent – especially if the communion queues at funerals and weddings are anything to go by.
Saying all that, we'd also estimate that at least 50pc of those who listened to His Grace's pastoral letter on Sunday (or more likely on Saturday night; n.b. abandon those "vigil Masses" in this archdiocese and, overnight, you would see the true parlous state of what passes for Liverpool Catholicism!) hadn't even heard of "the recent Synod of Bishops". It's probably true that an even greater percentage wouldn't have a clue what was meant by Vatican II ("was that the sequel one with De Niro in it?"). And as for the "Real Presence"...
Anyway, reining ourselves back in line – however much we have reservations about His Grace's wording, we're sure that his reminder about what the Church teaches regarding reception of Holy Communion by "some Catholics in second marriages" will have been about as welcome in progressive quarters over the weekend as another future Synod to discuss this matter – yet again – would be for Traditionalists. For the last two years it's felt like Lent has lasted from October until Easter - just with a Christmas break in between. Truly it will feel great not having "autumn Lent" again this year. Unless we speak too soon!
Other than the bits covered above, we noted that the final word result was Mercy 8 Justice 0. Yep, eight outings for "mercy/merciful"and none for the awkward J-word - and we don't mean the Holy Name. See what we meant about the over-emphasis on mercy alone? As for Lenten mentions of "sin"...the tally was another (very) round number.
Anyway, like we said, it was a pastoral letter to narrow eyes on both sides of the Trad-v-prog battle (because that's exactly what it is: a fight for the Truth versus a fight to abandon it).
And there was a degree of confusion (natch) on all sides.
Unity!
