European Synod
II
Archbishop reveals that curial
bishops blocked reforms
Archbishop Keith Michael Patrick OBrien
photo by -- Tom Fox
Three times during the course of the European synod, individual
bishops have appeared before journalists representing the different
language groups: Italian, French, Spanish, German and English. These
briefings are on-the-record affairs, but rarely do they generate much
news - at most, they offer some insight into the views and priorities
of the individual bishop who happens to be speaking.
On Oct. 20, however, when Archbishop Keith Michael Patrick OBrien
sat down with English-speaking journalists, something else happened -
something remarkable, given the tightly-orchestrated and secretive
nature of a synod of bishops. OBrien spoke his mind. He told
journalists about the fierce debates behind the scenes over issues
such as celibacy and the use of general absolution, and he confirmed
what many have long suspected - that curial bishops inside the synod
frequently block movement on any proposals that contradict existing
Vatican policy.
Of special interest to American readers, OBrien said that
in his small group, three Americans - Cardinals James Stafford, head
of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, and Adam Maida of Detroit,
along with Archbishop John Foley of the Pontifical Council for Social
Communications - consistently sided with the curial position against
the bishops from England, Scotland and Ireland.
Tape recorders were rolling and reporters were scribbling in
notebooks as OBrien spoke, so there is no question that what he
said was meant for public discussion. Yet it is revealing that
journalists reported the news with a tinge of regret, feeling certain
that OBrien would face repercussions for his candor in a church
where this sort of honesty is often interpreted as disloyalty.
Less than 24 hours later, sources confirmed that complaints were
circulating in the curia about OBrien.
The following is NCRs transcript of the interview. The
questions were posed by a number of different journalists from the
English-speaking world; they have frequently been condensed. OBriens
responses, however, are presented in full.
Are the bishops at this synod describing the European scenery to
the pope, or providing a map for the way to go?
The propositions are by and large describing the way the bishops
East and West see Europe at this present time without telling the pope
what to do about it.
Why do they have to be secret?
Well, I dont know. As you probably know, Cardinal Winning
[also of Scotland] and I and a number of other bishops issued our full
statements to our newspapers. We issued our interventions, and some
others did as well. We didnt see any reason to keep them secret.
With the documents we get, the propositions, it is indicated that we
should observe secrecy. If you ask me about it, I dont see any
reason why they should be secret at all. I can see why some should be
secret, but not all.
What will the message of the synod be?
Thats not finalized yet. When I listened to the first draft of
the message, I was very happy to see that it was a positive message
rather than bemoaning the evils of the world and all that sort of
thing. It was full of hope, which is after all the title of the synod.
Does that indicate the fathers of the synod do not really think
the church is in a crisis?
No, the message acknowledges difficulties early on in all sorts of
areas - particularly priestly vocations, religious life, and so on.
But with all of these difficulties weve tried to be positive
with regard to the way forward. I mentioned lay formation as one of
the positive ways forward in many of our western European dioceses.
Are there different angles coming out of the different language
groups?
We dont really know whats going on in all of the nine
language groups. Its just if you meet someone at lunch or
supper, that sort of thing, as happened for me with regard to an
Italian group, you pick up useful statements from them. But I think by
and large they would be following the same sort of lines.
Have you heard anyone recommending caution about European unity?
The Irish bishops have said some things about it. There is phrasing
in the statement on the European Union, about what sort of union will
be called for
The Irish are especially worried because of their
schools. Some say that Catholic schools should be a place where one
would learn more about ecumenism and so on. Of course there is a very
sensitive position in Northern Ireland with respect to the schools.
The bishop of Gilbraltar also spoke here about schools, just stating
that Catholic schools must be more open to other denominations. I made
an intervention stating that if there are going to be large numbers of
other denominations in Catholic schools, as happens in Scotland, then
our own young people must be well and truly grounded in the faith. You
have to know your own faith before you can share it with others. So
there are sensitive areas like that.
Are you talking just about education in schools, or continuing
formation as well?
One would hope that theres always on-going formation, and thats
in the propositions as well - that there be a strong post-baptismal
initiation, not just in the Catholic schools, but in our homes as
well. Also that there be selected leaders in Catholic communities as
needed in some cases to take the place of the priest. Ive got
priests now looking after not one, but two or three parishes. When I
was first ordained as a priest in 1965, I was in a place where each
parish had two or three priests
now theres only one
priest looking after those three parishes, and he is also chaplain to
the school. Thats just one example. Multiply that, not just for
the Edinburgh archdiocese but across England and Ireland.
With that in mind, what about this sense of crisis? You talk
about lay formation, but that doesnt address the problem of no
Eucharist celebrants in these parishes, which is getting worse rather
than better. Do we have to start thinking about the ordination of
married men?
That was certainly discussed, as it had been at the synod for
Oceania. It didnt get very far, as you know. I would say that at
group level practical things like that have been discussed by the
bishops and by our advisors. But there is also a lobby - maybe that is
too strong a word - but opposition to any discussion about that.
A lobby from what quarter?
From the curial bishops. In this area, the bishops from the East
have been a tremendous help. Theyre able to talk with great
wisdom and experience of a married Catholic priesthood. One of the
Hungarian bishops talked about the married priests being not just a
model of priestly service, but of Catholic married life. He spoke
very, very positively about that. We have been discussing these things
very openly among ourselves.
But no one put them into the form of a proposition?
In all honesty, there was disagreement amongst ourselves. On
celibacy, some would have almost made it a divine law, while others
were very much against that. So theres tension that way - not
between East and West, but between the Roman curia and the bishops who
are working in the parishes. In England, we have lots of Anglican
priests who converted to Catholicism and are now Catholic priests, and
nobody at the synod has mentioned any sort of tension about them
working next to celibate priests at all.
It seems that with all the numbers of bishops coming from all
over, the Roman curia would represent a minority. Why are they able to
keep a proposition such as that off the list?
There are four curial bishops out of ten voting members in our small
group. The representatives from the other churches dont vote on
the propositions, the auditors dont vote either. Some who do
vote might be persuaded by the arguments put forward by the curial
bishops.
Is there a sense among some of the bishops out in dioceses that
the curial bishops are a bit disengaged from the real world,
especially on the celibacy issue?
Yes, oh yeah. Another topic thats cropped up is penance, the
sacrament of penance, which is another concern for bishops who are
short of priests. I think there was a proposition about the continued
use of the third rite as a solution, namely general absolution. But
the curial cardinals were citing their experience. Theres one -
he was not a curial man but he was one of the popes nominees, an
American - talking about the value of individual confession. It was
Maida of Detroit. Then one of the curial cardinals, Stafford, spoke of
his experiences as a diocesan bishop of the value of one-to-one
confession. Another American, the head of the Redemptorist Fathers -
James Tobin - spoke very positively on the issue. He actually used the
phrase, he didnt see why some people were trying to make the
sinner jump through hoops to be reconciled. There are people for
whatever reason, maybe psychological, who find it almost impossible to
confess their sins individually to a priest, and this rite offers them
a solution. So that does cause tension. It hasnt quite come to
blows, but views are put across very, very strongly.
How does it happen that only propositions in line with existing
Vatican policy end up being approved?
They have to be voted on and get the support of their own group
before they are submitted to the full synod. Its at that level
theres a lot of confrontation.
You said only four voting members of your group were curial
bishops. Shouldnt you have had the votes to get what you wanted?
One of our last votes was five votes each. Typically one will get
someone else siding with the curial point of view
Let me give
another example. The bishops of Britain and Ireland are working
together ever more closely and produced One Bread, One Body,
that document on the Eucharist. We thought we should do something
about reconciliation as three conferences - Ireland north and south is
one conference, and Scotland and England and Wales. A working party
was set up including Archbishop Patrick Kelly from Liverpool, who is a
good theologian, and Bishop Donal Murray from Ireland, two from each
of the hierarchies. The proposal was that Lent next year, in the
Jubilee year, would begin with a pastoral letter from the bishops
about reconciliation, with regard to the Jubilee year and all that.
During Lent
on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, there would be
general absolution in all of our parishes. On the Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday of Holy Week, there would be opportunities for individual
confession, fulfilling canon law because after general absolution youre
supposed to go again for individual confession. The Congregation for
the Sacraments would not approve of that, despite the fact that it was
approved by the hierarchies of our countries.
Roughly when did that disapproval happen?
Before the summer holidays. What we have come up with now is a
modified plan that on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, there will be
service of reconciliation according to rite two, without general
absolution and with encouragement to go to individual confession
.[the
rejection came] when Cardinal Hume was still alive.
Did the modified plan require approval?
No, that doesnt. Thats what weve been calling for,
as background. We see this as a positive catechesis on reconciliation.
What we wanted was the use of the third rite.
Why would you need approval for the administration of rite
three, which is already an approved rite?
They have restricted the circumstances under which you can use it.
It was said that if there was a disaster, like an earthquake or
something, you can use rite three, but not in ordinary circumstances.
Why didnt the bishops just go ahead and do it?
Thats a valid question. We felt it better to obey, if you want
to put it that way.
Are bishops then just branch managers to take orders from the
home office?
We know the theology, all right. We are, and I have used the phrase
before, vicars of Christ in our own diocese. Thats the teaching
of the Second Vatican Council. But some of the bishops here in Rome
dont think that way.
Did the Vatican refer to the new ruling on bishops conferences,
that your decisions must be unanimous?
I know in our own conference that it was certainly unanimous. What
we were told is that it was unanimous.
[when the
disapproval came] Cardinal Hume phoned Cardinal Winning, who said he
would come out to Rome, and he did come out to Rome. He said something
to the effect that you wont get any more loyal hierarchies than
ours. You dont. As you probably know, other hierarchies are far
infamous than ours and take more chances. It wasnt what you
would call way-out bishops. It was Archbishop Kelly, hes one of
those on the short list for Westminster, and Bishop Des OConnell,
and Bishop Donal Murray - hes an excellent theologian as well.
It was excellent theologians who were doing this, with our own
advisors. Thats what was the annoying thing.
But Medina
would not budge, would not give permission for this use of rite three
of reconciliation.
Do you think this was done with the knowledge of the pope?
As far as I know this came from the curia. I wouldnt think the
pope had anything to do with it.
After the refusal, did the bishops consider going forward with
the absolution?
That was a specific use for the Holy Year. But in a number of our
dioceses, were aware that priests use the third rite. What they
do is let us know afterwards. If at Advent or Lent theres a
crowded church, you dont just say go away, go home or whatever -
you use the third rite. Again, they just phone us or write to us
afterwards and say I had to use the third rite - fine, no problem. We
wont say your sins are unforgiven at the end of the day.
Given everything youre saying about the tension between
bishops and the curia, why wasnt there more of an effort here to
get language about collegiality into the propositions?
I just cant answer that. There just wasnt. The tension
is there - there is tension. Its intimidating in the small
groups, when one realizes theres not quite a phalanx but a
number of curial cardinals. I don t know just how much theyre
noting of what each individual bishop says, but there is that too.
Shouldnt a synod include representatives of all the people
of God?
There are lay representatives in our working groups. There was a
proposition, about a page and a half, about women. Our moderator said
to the two ladies in our group - one is a religious sister, the other
is a laywomen - look, you work on this overnight and come back to us
tomorrow. Thats what we were doing this morning. I cant
remember how many changes those two women suggested to us, in that
proposition on the role of women in the church. Thats a partial
answer to your question. In Scotland, we have archdiocesan pastoral
councils, as other dioceses do have, with the bishop together with lay
women and lay men. That council works with me. The suggestion was in
the year 2001, to have an ecumenical assembly with other churches in
Scotland, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Episcopalian
church, and so on. Lay women and lay men are all involved in it. Were
working on that at the present time. I see no reason at all why the
voice of the laity shouldnt be heard with greater effect at the
synods than it is at the moment.
Why do the women sit in the back in the synod hall?
Id be far happier looking at three rows of women than three
rows of cardinals! But yes, all those things matter. We have to look
at the way the church is run at the present time with regard to that
sort of sensitivity. I remember when we had one of our first national
Catholic assemblies in Scotland. Just by chance, the bishops came in
and sat down [in front]. It was one of the ladies present who said,
the layout in the hall is all wrong. It just shouldnt be like
this.
that sort of sensitivity, were just not used to it
yet - and we should be, of course, with all modern methods of
communicating and so on. In terms of seating in the small groups, I
know some groups are more strict than others in terms of following the
pecking order.
Speaking of the voice of laity, in the synod many of the lay
voices belong to the new movements, while the We Are Church group was
not allowed in. Is there a problem with how representative the lay
voice is here?
Yes. I think that at diocesan level, if one were having a gathering,
one would tend to turn to ones organizations, like to Knights of
St. Columbine, or the Union of Catholic Mothers, and ask them to send
a representative along. Nowadays its easier with parish pastoral
councils to send representatives from these bodies along, which is
what I do in my own diocese. I get representatives from these lay
councils. In some ways, a group like We Are Church might see itself on
the edge, on the fringe, and it might be difficult to get them along.
But certainly there should be improvements with regards to the lay
voice at future synods.
Is part of the reason that there isnt more resistance to
the curia because there arent the same kind of theological
heavyweights among the bishops today as there were at Vatican II?
I would say that some of the heavyweight theologians
are
right-wing, in terms of the appointment of bishops in many parts of
the world. More diocesan bishops today are right-wing than previously,
so theres than to consider as well. Many are not as advanced
theologically as at the time of Vatican II. You have more right-wing
bishops in the curia who are going to ensure that right-wing bishops
are put into some of these open positions in the years that lie ahead.
Has the curia stopped the council?
The movement for reform in the church in a very positive sense has
slowed down, there is no doubt, because of the appointments, the way
bishops have been appointed.
Speaking of the appointment of bishops, do you have any idea how
much longer youll be running two dioceses?
[OBrien is currently administering the diocese of Argyll
and The Isles in Scotland. The see has been vacant since September
1996, when Bishop Roddy Wright disappeared and later revealed that he
was in a relationship with one woman and had fathered a child 17 years
earlier by another.]
Im in my fourth year. There are some problems which are
explicable. One problem is the whole background of the case, which is
very difficult because the bishop ran off with a married woman, and so
that is one problem. Secondly, our nuncio changed. Thirdly, the
cardinal in charge of the congregation of bishops retired, Cardinal
Gantin retired, and Cardinal Moreira Neves took over. So those things
did not help with the problem. Plus, its a small diocese. I
mean, producing a pope only takes 15 days or so. I mean, youve
got 120 fellows or so in the hall, and you know its gonna be one
of them. In a small diocese, there are all sorts of difficulties. A
third of the people are Gallic-speaking, among the islanders. Theres
a strong lobby that says we should have a Gallic-speaking bishop.
There are just 24 priests, and only 8 speak Gallic. A couple are over
age, a couple are too young, so its likely to be an outsider as
often happens. So were waiting patiently.
It seems that the bishops are just going along with a situation
in which millions of Catholics are not able to go the sacraments.
This is particularly true in Oceania, and it came out at the synod.
I didnt realize before that there are some islands where a
priest gets out every few years. All those things were publicly aired
[at the Oceania synod], and you know what happened at the end. The
archbishops were brought in and more or less told to keep the troops
in order
.
[Near the end of theOceania synod, several Australian bishops
met with a special delegation of curial officials and produced a
document calling for greater discipline in view of a crisis of
faith in Australia]
Were you at the Oceania synod?
No. I read about it in the Tablet
it was very good on
that.
What will it take to change all this?
Maybe Cardinal Martini was right is his submission, that we need a
gathering of bishops from all over the world coming together again,
talking about the issues to see if together we can see the way
forward. Not just bishops from all over the world, but also with
representation for religious congregations and from lay women and men.
Is it correct to say that nothing will change until we get a new
pope?
You can see that in the way he asks older cardinals to stay on past
the retirement age - Cardinal Hume, for example, Cardinal OConnor.
He obviously doesnt want change, and if he gets a new cardinal
in Scotland or wherever, there might be greater pressure for change
from the diocese.
So keeping the older cardinals on keeps the status quo?
Yes. The cardinal whos in charge of appointing bishops [Neves]
used to work in Rome, then went to his diocese and was brought back,
and hes 72 or 73 [Neves is 74]. He was brought back when
Cardinal Gantin retired at 75. So its certainly an older church.
Wouldnt a new council or a new gathering of bishops be
dangerous in light of the right-wing appointments you have spoken
about?
One would hope for a young set of bishops in the early years of the
next pontificate. I would personally see no reason for not having
representatives of religious orders and lay faithful there as well.
How common is it that bishops would be talking about potential
successors to this pope?
It certainly does happen. Bishops gossip just as much as everyone
else. I would say to Cardinal Winning, whos so and so, whos
that guy down there? Im not good at the names. I saw Tettamanzi,
and I said, Whos the wee fat guy? I know the famous
ones, like Martini and so forth. Whos that Spaniard? Rouco
Varela. Boy, I wouldnt want him. He talks and talks. But yes,
bishops do talk about it, just as we talk about Westminster. Obviously
well talk about the position.
Do you have any favorites for Westminster?
You're not going to tell anyone, are you?
Just our thousands of readers.
The Times now has their own list of favorites, I saw. All
the usual ones are on it -- Archbishop Kelly, Vincent Nichols, and so
on. As far as my own favorite, Ill just say that he wears the
same color robes as the pope. [the reference is to Dominican Fr.
Timothy Radcliffe, master general of the Dominican order]. He has
traveled the world
you know, its in his job to meet every
Dominican in the world at least once during his nine-year term. He
makes the rest of us pale into insignificance in terms of the kinds of
experiences we had had before being appointed bishops
He has not been a pastor, has he?
Yes, but the kind of administrative work the Archbishop of
Westminster is called on to do, dealing with people in difficult
situations, Timothy Radcliffe has certainly done that. He was
appointed as master of the British province before he became master
general. I think he has had tremendous experience, and he has
impressed lots of people at the synod with his interventions.
Are you in touch, is Cardinal Winning in touch, with Roddy
Wright these days?
Im more in touch because Im his metropolitan. Were
in touch, yes. Not every week, but Christmas cards, that sort of thing
we
exchange letters.
Is he happy?
Yes, I think so. As far as one can tell - I cant know about
his internal state, but he seems happy.
National Catholic Reporter, October 22, 1999
|