SIR – Having just returned from Orkney, I was delighted to read the feature article on George Mackay Brown (April 15).
I was invited to return to Orkney to celebrate Mass in the Catholic church in Kirkwall on the 20th anniversary of George’s death; I presided as Bishop of Aberdeen at his funeral Mass in St Magnus Cathedral on St Magnus’s feast day on April 16, 1996 (considered the first Mass celebrated in the cathedral’s nave since the Scottish Reformation). I concur with Joseph Pearce, the writer of the feature article, that “it would behove us well to discover or rediscover this truly gifted writer”.
On the eve of this year’s feast day Alison Gray’s new book on George Mackay Brown was launched in the St Magnus Centre attached to the cathedral. It is entitled No Separation and is published by Gracewing. It will do much both for an academic and a wider readership to fulfil Joseph Pearce’s wish.
Yours faithfully,
+Mario Conti, Emeritus Archbishop of Glasgow
By email
SIR – In response to Kieran Tapsell’s letter of last week, he fails to distinguish two points regarding the pontifical secret and cases of child sexual abuse under canon law. The first is that my original point (Letter, April 8), that the secret applies to these cases because they are transmitted to the Holy See, is correct: such cases are reserved de jure to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The second is that penal cases in canon law, as in civil law, cannot be discussed by those involved while they are sub judice. Upon their resolution, the matter becomes what the law itself calls “public juridic fact” – to claim victims are permanently silenced by canon law is wrong.
His comments upon canon 1717 and the canonical preliminary investigation are equally misdirecting. The purpose, and the only purpose, of such a canonical investigation is to determine if an allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous”: if there is even the semblance of possible truth, then the matter must immediately be prosecuted according to the norm of law.
The discretion of this investigation is to prevent manifestly false and frivolous allegations being circulated, to the irreparable damage of innocent parties. The exception he cites, from 2010, accommodates so-called “mandatory reporting” laws in some civil jurisdictions, where even clearly malicious or fictitious allegations must be reported to the police. These provisions have resulted in the destruction of the reputations and ministries of more than a few innocent clergy.
In all events, the pontifical secret applies to “cases” in the juridic sense, that is the documentation of the sub judice process, not to instances or events of child sex abuse – which are matters of empirical fact and could be, and should always have been, reported to civil authorities at the earliest possible instance. Mr Tapsell cites my friend and colleague John Beal in his letter, whose own thoughts on the subject are published in a scholarly article available on the Vatican website, should he care to read it. He says, inter alia: “In particular, it does not prohibit victims from bringing their accusations to secular authorities.”
Sadly, I am not unfamiliar with Mr Tapsell’s argumentation, and my original letter conceded that it has been deployed, in just this way, to defend the indefensible. But its repetition does not make it legally sound. I am familiar with the work of Thomas Doyle and I am prepared to stand upon my own experience of such cases, but if he wishes to exchange lists of canonists in support of our views, I am most happy to oblige.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Edward Condon, JCD
By email
SIR – The aggressive tone of some correspondents opposed to the ordination of married men is regrettable. I know several ex-Anglican married clergy, now Catholic priests, fine men, holy, hard-working pastors, giving the lie to arguments that only celibate clergy can devote their entire lives to God, and that ordaining married men would not increase vocations. St Peter, the first pope and several Apostles were married, as also were many priests over the first millenium of Church history. Today there are married priests in the Orthodox Church and in the ordinariate. Married priests no doubt view a priestly married life as a double blessing, a view that their parishioners may well share.
Celibates follow a noble ideal recommended, but not commanded by Christ. Many secular clergy may wish to be celibate, but this should not be forced upon them. The Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis states: “Celibacy is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood.”
One of our bishops recently said: “Celibacy should be made optional. That leaves the way clear for the status of married clergy to be recognised in its own right as a true gift of the Spirit to the Church.” Five of our retired bishops recently petitioned the Vatican in this regard.
Pope Francis has said: “Celibacy is a discipline, and can easily be changed.” He also favoured consideration of allowing permanent deacons to celebrate Holy Mass. Let us hope that one day our bishops may successfully engage with him to the great benefit of Holy Church.
Yours truly,
Jack Robbins
By email
SIR – Pastor Iuventus (April 15) is absolutely correct to state that perhaps “a pastoral solution to difficulties in marriage might be to prepare priests for the confessional better”. This was explored in great detail and with much precision in the 1997 Vademecum “for confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of the conjugal life” from the Pontifical Council for the Family. With its 20th anniversary coming up next February, we should revisit this document, especially paragraphs 9 and 10, in the light of Amoris Laetitia: “9. The pastoral ‘law of gradualness’, not to be confused with the ‘gradualness of the law’ which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a progressive path towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands. “10. On the other hand, to presume to make one’s own weakness the criterion of moral truth is unacceptable.”
Striking the balance on the first so that an individual receiving guidance realises the full import of the second is more important than ever for the integrity of matrimony. Or as Benedict XVI so wisely put it in his address to the Congress for the Diocese of Rome in 2005: “The educational relationship is, by its very nature, something delicate: it implies the other’s freedom who, even with gentleness, is forced to make a decision.”
Amoris Laetitia ought not to be misinterpreted to dispense with this approach to pastoral care.
Yours faithfully,
Edmund Adamus
By email
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.