The Pope blocks Cardinal
from accepting a seat
in the House of Lords
by Paolo Rodari
Translated from
December 15, 2009
The British publication
The Tablet 'announced' the dates for Benedict XVI's trip to the United Kingdom next year - Sept. 16-19 - even as the Church in England was abuzz over some 'news' from Rome.
The Pope, reportedly through the usual diplomatic channels [in this case, the Apostolic Nuncio in England], has informed Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, emeritus Archbishop of Westminster, that he will not allow him to accept a nomination to the House of Lords in the British Parliament.
The seat, which is a lifetime appointment and would have meant conferment of a peerage on the cardinal, was offered to him by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last April, after Murphy O'Connor retired as Archbishop of Westminster and president of the bishops' conference of England and Wales, and had let it be known he was interested in a peerage.
But the Pope, reportedly after consulting some Curial cardinals, decided against it.
Until recently, Murphy O'Connor's entry into the House of Lords was thought to be a . It was believed that such certainty was why Murphy O'Connor retired as Archbishop of Westminster. True, he had turned 77, and bishops usually are supposed to retire at age 75. But all previous Archbishops of Westminster had served until they died, usually past 75.
Gordon Brown, after meeting with the Pope in the Vatican last spring, said later he was confident about an agreement to Murphy O'Connor's nomination.
Either Brown made an unfounded claim, or the Pope subsequently changed his mind.
Murphy O'Connor has now told the
Tablet: "When I retired seven months ago, the Pope asked me to become a member of the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Evangelization of peoples. I thinks this is the best way for me to continue serving the Church".
In fact, his membership in those congregations is no small matter: his weight, particularly in the Congregation for Bishops, will be enormous in the nomination of Anglophone bishops.
However, the Pope's reason for not granting Murphy O'Connor his wish is canonical. The Church forbids any priest from taking on any political responsibilities. There can be no exception to this rule, not even for a cardinal.
Gordon Brown had said that Murphy O'Connor deserves to be in Parliament because of his "multiple gifts, personal integrity and leadership on great ethical questions, including a sensitivity to the plight of the poor". He said the cardinal deserved to join 28 Anglican bishops, including former Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, who entered Lords after retirement.
The cardinal's statement to the
Tablet showed the pragmatic style that characterized his ministry at Westminster. Although he as considered liberal for championing the post-Vatican II liturgical innovations and social openings, he was firm about proposing the Christian faith as the only valid alternative to secularism.
When he stepped down as Archbishop of Westminster last April he said: "I think the principal danger for us is to convince ourselves that we are not what secular culture wants us to believe of ourselves - that we [the Church] are becoming less influential and that we are in decline".
Damian Thompson, who was always critical of Murphy O'Connor for his liberal indulgences, had this comment on his blog:
Pope 'personally blocked' cardinal
from joining the House of Lords
Pope Benedict XVI personally turned down Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s request to be allowed to accept Gordon Brown’s offer of a seat in the House of Lords, according to a report today by Paolo Rodari, one of Italy’s leading Vatican commentators.
Rodari, writing (in Italian) on his blog Palazzo Apostolico,
[No, it was an actual news item in Il Foglio; Rodari publishes his articles on his blog as well, but clearly tags his posts as a Foglio article or as his own blog entry] says the Cardinal wanted the honour, and that Vatican permission was regarded as a “done deal” until recently. But the Holy Father, after consulting several cardinals, chose to “stop the Cardinal on the threshold of the House of Lords”, as Rodari’s headline puts it.
I’m really not surprised by the Pope’s decision:
he has always detested the notion of priests joining secular legislatures [but it is not just his own personal objection; it is canon law! The late Gianni Baget Bozzo was suspended by John Paul II for choosing to run and serve in the European Parliament; and Benedict XVI allowed the Bishop of Paraguay to leave the priesthood after he ran and won as President of his country]], which is what Murphy-O’Connor’s elevation would have involved.
The slightly surprising thing is that the Cardinal allowed it to be known that he wanted to accept Gordon Brown’s offer: did it not occur to him that the further the plan was pushed, the more likely it was that the Pope would veto it personally?
I’d love to know exactly what went on behind the scenes in this case. Recently the Cardinal was made a member of two important Roman dicasteries, a significant honour that was presented by the Catholic Media Office as a measure of the “extraordinary esteem” in which the Pope held the Cardinal. Rodari’s article will add credibility to rumours that those curial appointments were a consolation prize for missing out on what the Cardinal really wanted: a seat in the Lords.
(An afterthought that has just occurred to me. Did the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Faustino Sainz Munoz, not warn the Cardinal that this plan was going nowhere, and that therefore he should not be seen to go along with it? If not, why not? He could have spared his good friend considerable embarrassment.)
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 16/12/2009 03:54]