The Birmingham Three: How therefore could there have been a verdict?

Blogged by James Preece on 5th July 2010

What on earth are Catholics and non-Catholics to make of the situation? On the one hand three staunch pro-life, pro-family advocates suffer apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice. On the other hand Archbishop Nichols, just a couple of months ago, was painting the previous government's intentions on sex and relatonships education in an entirely postive light - when those intentions included continuing to enable the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality in schools, including Catholic schools.

What on earth is happening when, on the one hand, apparently peremptory ecclesiastical injustice can be unhesitatingly meted out to staunch upholders of Catholic teaching on life and the family, and, on the other hand, the appointment of a blatantly anti-life, anti-family former Member of Parliament to be deputy director of the Catholic Education Service is indignantly defended by representatives of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales?

He quotes Dr Tom Ward, corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life...

Three Oratorians have been condemned to an indefinite sentence of removal after abrupt eviction from their home at Cardinal Newman’s Oratory in Birmingham.

This penalty of an indefinite sentence to widely distant monasteries is ordinarily associated with very serious moral failings. However it appears that the investigative process was incomplete before they started their sentence. How therefore could there have been a verdict? Indeed was there even a charge? These men are attested by their own authorities to be innocent, virtuous and to have done no harm. They have an almost unrivalled track record in this country of defending life and the primary and inalienable right of parents as educators of their children. They are totally faithful to and outspoken in their defence of the Papal Magisterium.

...

It is a scandal that these men with outstanding ability to cooperate in the defence of the authentic understanding of Cardinal Newman’s teaching on conscience have been summarily removed from the Oratory which, in the light of the imminent Papal beatification of its founder, has now become the best platform in the world from which to defend Newman and the Papal Magisterium.

Remember how Archbishop Nichols handled the Terry Prendergast situation? He said nothing and waited. It fizzled away in to the past until it seems almost obsessive compulsive to mention it. He's doing the same with Greg Pope and the exact same thing is being done with the Birmingham Three.

Bring them home.

Rate this blogentry: + -

+18

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Margaret said...

Please consider this: ALL members of the Birmingham Oratory community are defenders of the Holy Father, life issues and support the Beatification of Cardinal Newman - not just the 3 who are away at present. I would not care to speculate on the internal affairs of the community, however I can say that the Fathers who remain are loyal to the Papal Magisterium and are quite capable of defending it and do.

James said...

When King Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon only one Bishop, St John Fisher, spoke out with sufficient vigour to be imprisoned.

Does that mean the other Bishops were all bad men?

No. It means many good men thought it better to keep their heads down and try to do good from inside the system - especially when the alternative was death.

The remaining Oratorians know that if they speak out they will also be banished, they have to weigh that against the good they can do by staying put.

I don't blame them for keeping their heads down.

Chris said...

The problem I have with the conspiracy theory is that it makes no logical sense. If it were true, then the people concerned were obedient enough to their superiors to undergo banishment for (as you alledge) being too outspoken on various issues. With that level of obedience (let's not forget, they could have just refused to go and told people what the superiors were up to) you could have just told them not to say anything, and they would have obeyed. Bish bash, problem solved. It is somewhat logically inconsistent to think that there is a massive well planned conspiracy and cover up that didn't think that there was either a) a better way of solving the problem, or b) that there wouldn't be a fuss about what happened.

As for the remaining Oratorians living in fear of speaking out, that seems somewhat unlikely, as no one is going to banish everyone in one go, as that would be really rather obvious.

I have a feeling that the end of this is going to reveal something more complicated than a Fox news style liberal conspiracy, and that reputations of all sorts of people concerned are likely to end up damaged.

james said...

They couldn't "have just told them not to say anything" because they were excercising a legitimate right to speak within and from their community. These guys are obedient to legitimate authority, not to people with no authority to tell them to be silent.

But what the visitor did have authority to do was to take away that right to speak within and from the community.

I don't think there is a massive conspiracy in terms of people getting together in smoke filled rooms and plotting - you are right to say that such a thing would have come up with a better plan.

Rather, what we have is a cultural consensus that conservatives who complain and obstruct the agenda are a problem combined with a lot of preassure from above to get everything neat and tidy in time for the Papal visit.

Ted said...

Chris,

If it is just conspriracy theory run wild - well we can conveniently just be labelled as a bunch of nutters. If it's not, we'll still just (conveniently) be labelled as a bunch of nutters.

Only time will tell and the deciding factor will be in the interpretation of Newman's legacy. If that interpretation is as the first gay saint of conscience, the wackos would seem to have been correct in their reading.

The fact that 4 (or 5) Oratorians have left/ been removed rather shortly before the papal visit and the canonisation of Newman would seem to point to there being a little bit of an issue in Birmingham. Putting the conspiracy aspect aside for a moment, it does seem a bit odd that almost 50% of a community bail out just before a papal visit and the canonisation of such an important figure to their community.

I agree with you that, whatever the outcome, repuations shall be damaged. Not least of those whose reputation shall be damaged is Newman's. As for reputations already damaged, I can think of 3 who have already suffered that damage.

In the meantime, if it is believed that an injustice has been suffered by 3 good and holy men, are we not under an obligation to try to rectify it or should we just sit back and see what happens?

And the worst thing about all of this? A house divided........

Chris said...

The thing is, that I don't think it is convenient in the slightest that people might be labelled a bunch of nutters. Especially when I share many of their views on the outcomes of various situations being deplorable (eg the sex education issue) even if I have reservations of the assigning of the causes.

I agree that the timing seems unfortunate, and this might not be coincidence. However, it might be, or indeed perhaps the more likely scenario would be that there has been an underlying issue for a while, and someone thought, this is going to mess things up when the Pope comes/the Pope isn't going to visit the Oratory because of this, and decided to step in and sort it out.

As far as I can see, at the current moment, most people are of the opinion that the exiles are suffering an injustice, and if anything, in certain circles, their reputation has actually been enhanced. I would agree with the comment that you should feel obliged to try and rectify an injustice, but as mentioned previously, I have seen little in the way of evidence to suggest that this is the case. In fact the evidence provided that I have seen so far amounts to little more than circumstantial "there are liberals about and therefore they were the ones what done it" coupled with the sort of "The Church is a shadowy background presence that likes to dissapear people from parishes" riff which seems a bit Dan Brownesque.

If you are right, then fair enough, I would support you, but without any reason to do so, I rather feel inclined to trust that the right thing is being done already, and that there are good reasons why we are not being told.

Ted said...

Chris, now you come to mention it, there would already seem factually to be some parts of the Dan Brown formula already present in this situation without anyone having to resort to fiction or conspiracy. Legacies, the Vatican, disappearances, a certain organisation, uncertainty - it's all there. Now if only I had the imagination to make up the rest I would have a blockbuster novel and film rights on my hands...

I wish I could share your trust that the right thing is being done already but, in the face of "Who knows what's down the road?", I find trust in somewhat short supply at the moment.

Let's hope for a happy ending with the good guys overcoming all obstructions in their paths. Now that gives me an idea for the grand finale of my forthcoming blockbuster novel "The Oratory Dilemma".

Frank said...

Yes, reputations have been called into question. Contrast the Holy Father's much more sensitive handling of Augsburg Bishop Mixa, as reported in THE TABLET.

Pope seeks to heal rifts as resignation of German bishop is confirmed
5 July 2010
Pope Benedict XVI has sought to dispel divisions in the German Church and has "definitively confirmed" the resignation of the former Bishop of Augsburg, Walter Mixa, who reportedly abused seminarians, misappropriated church funds and is an alcoholic. Following a 1 July meeting between the Pope and Bishop Mixa, the Vatican said the Pope stipulated that the bishop undergo "a time of silence, recollection and prayer” before being allowed to resume his episcopal functions. The Pope also urged all the bishops of Germany to offer Bishop Mixa their reconciliation.

Policraticus said...

Chris .... you state...
"With that level of obedience (let's not forget, they could have just refused to go and told people what the superiors were up to) you could have just told them not to say anything, and they would have obeyed."

But what if you are placed under threat of some greater sanction than just being left on an indefinite period of absence from your home and 'family' in religion - if you break silence?

and yet from the excellent web site www.justiceforpriests.org expert canonists in the association's newsletter argue that even in a case where there is an accusation of sexual abuse they state: "Know that nothing you say to any agent of the diocese is considered legally confidential....
KNow that you cannot be FORCED to undergo psychological assessment or evaluation....
Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by bishops, provincials or diocesan officials. They have as much power as you give them"

Now if that's true of a cleric under suspicion of the crime of sexual abuse which we know with certainty the three are not since it is on record that 'They have done nothing wrong' [Jack Valero - Oratory Spokesman] then one can safely assume that the Three must have been under such duress that the 'level of obedience' was such that it came with the full weight of Apostolic authority -or at least the implication of it which would be hard to resist but that one imagines [by agreeing to its terms at the time of delivery] they [the Three] would not have FREELY chosen to be absent from the Mass of Beatification [in said terms] let alone run the very real risk of not being returned to their home until after a disproportionate length of time.

Sean said...

Has anyone thought about writing to the CDF about this, or about the Prendergast/Pope/Oratory thing?

+10

Hestor said...

I have said that anyone who knows a good canon lawyer or anyone who has contacts in Rome, should do an act of charity and get them on this case. I am pretty sure that was has been done is illegal in canon law terms.

All communities and religious orders have to work within the framework of the church's law: no one should be above the law.

Mark Dobson said...

The only one I know of is this guy:

http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/

Michael said...

Does anyone have a link to the source of information that the 'Birmingham 3' have been sent away for speaking out and being too orthodox?

Jacqueline said...

A canon lawyer was reputedly with them at the expulsion order.

+10

Auricularis said...

The canon lawyer who was with them seems likely to have been Fr. Gareth Jones - the former novice who left after a couple of months. It doesn't seem with hindsight that he was there to be on the side of the "Birmingham 3".