Tim Walker at the Daily Telegraph has an article about the terna for Westminster which is, according to his source, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop Peter Smith and Bishop Arthur Roche. The Mulier Fortis has an interesting observation on this article concerning the claimed source of the leak.
Tim Walker speaks of "my man at Archbishop's House" as his source. Mac suggests that this indicates political manoeuvering: an interesting point.
On reflection, however, I have to say that none of this can possibly be true. The terna for an archiepiscopal appointment is covered by the Pontifical secret. To leak this would incur a latae sententiae excommunication.
Has anyone suddenly come off the Mass rota?
13 comments:
How interesting.
I didn't know leaking ternas was an excommunicable offence, Has it always been so ? And is it an offence to listen, I wonder ?
I am thinking that during a long vacancy at Arundel & Brighton in 1976-77, after Achbishop Bowen was translated to Southwark, it became an open secret who was on the terna. Simply a rumour ? Possibly. But I don't think so. It turned out to be true.
who were the other 2 names back then?
yours sinfully etc ...
Isn't this just a re-hash of the same rumour of a few months ago. And wasn't there another rumour that the same terna had been rejected?
Either way, and I say this more in hope than expectation, if it was going to be someone from the magic circle would that not have been announced nearer the time the Cardinal reached 75?
In the recent Catholic World Report, William Oddie had a remarkbly sound article about the very subject. He provided sound, plausible reasons, why each of the three named bishops are unlikely to be translated to Westminster.
If I might mangle an old prayer: "send us bishops, Lord; send us holy bishops".
I was surprised to read that my Archbishop (George Cardinal Pell, of Sydney) has apparently been lobbying the Holy Father to elevate someone not already a bishop. It's something I would love to ask him about directly, though he's just as likely to refuse an answer.
Last time we picked the current Archb the Catholic MPs were circulated with a letter asking their opinion but also warning them of the pain of execution if they were to leak their preference.
I would think Archbishop Nichols is pretty obvious - once he didn't get Liverpool (which Archbishop Worlock's grand plan), he became a contender for Westminster. Both he and Archbishop Smith have made the right noises for Rome - Nichols on safeguarding Catholic schools and smith on right to life issues. Nichols very shrewdly has not dismantled Maryvale or interfered with it so he can't be accused of sabotaging the only orthodox centre for Catholic theology in the UK.
LOL Father - thanks for the link...!
Indeed how very interesting!I am just hoping and praying that we will not end up with more of the same, in our hour of need.
I am reliably informed that one of the favoured candidates (not mentioned in this list of three) is known to have made a recent visit to Rome. Although disguised as a holiday, it was presumably for fittings for mitres and other episcopal regalia. What is interesting is that the visit was made whilst the Holy Father was on his Apostolic Trip to the USA - the candidate obviously hoping that his shopping trip would go unnoticed. When quizzed, the priest simply claimed that he had gone to buy some religious books. I rest my case!
Fr. Tim,
Is the "leaked terna" the reason why you've suddenly stopped packing your book collection into boxes?
Just kidding...
:-)
Tony Abbot, 'execution' is a rather severe punishment for an MP who leaks his preference!
... smith on right to life issues
Are you serious about Archbishop Smith being a "defender" on right to life issues? Anyone remember the comprimise deal he did with Lord Fallconer?
Would the lifting of any excommunication in this situation be a matter for the inTERNAl or exTERNAl forum?
The Pope can always ask for a second list. After all, one good terna deserves another.
Archbishop Nichols's "safeguarding Catholic schools" must be seen in the context of his Chairmanship of the Bishops' Conference Department of Education and Formation at the time when the bishops approached the government to remove the right of Catholic schools to interview prospective applicants. This isn't the place to rehearse the arguments against this course of action or the problems it has caused, but the decision was taken without any consultation with schools or governing bodies. Those governors and head teachers who wrote to HIs Grace to protest received replies that can only be described as dismissive.
Then there is the so-called "voluntary agreement" between Archbishop Nichols and the Secretary of State for Education (Alan Johnson) as he then was; this related to the proportion of non-Catholics to be admitted to new Catholic schools and, to the best of my knowledge, the full contents of this agreement have never been made public.
Post a Comment