Thursday 16 June 2022

 

Granny’s lace – why is Pope Francis so unsupportive of ordinary clergy?

If faith, as the nuns said, was the substance of things hoped for, 
then lace was the outline—the suggestion—of things not seen.

Iris Anthony, The Ruins of Lace (2012)

From time to time it seems as though Pope Francis can’t resist the urge to tell priests off in his speeches; he’s not afraid to employ mockery and sarcasm, either. That he has never been a simple parish priest frequently seems to come across in the content of his reproofs; so many of them tend to be anticlerical, as if this somehow profits the flock. It doesn’t necessarily make life easier for those of us at the coal face. 

The Holy Father has commanded priests to “smell of the sheep,” as if the parish clergy of today are like the absentee-incumbents of centuries past who drew the revenues of parishes they never visited. He has also told us not to make the confessional, that source of healing grace, “a torture chamber”. Perhaps his experience in Argentina differed, but any torture on that front usually comes from the penitent’s own conscience.

The latest swipe was aimed at the clergy of Sicily, about whom he admits he knows little. 

I dont know, because I dont go to Mass in Sicily and I dont know how the Sicilian priests preach, whether they preach as was suggested in Evangelii gaudium or whether they preach in such a way that people go out for a cigarette and then come back.

Next came this pointed aside. 

Yes, sometimes bringing some of grandmas lace is appropriate, sometimes. Its to pay homage to grandma, right? Its good to honour grandma, but its better to celebrate the mother, Holy Mother Church, and how Mother Church wants to be celebrated. So that insularity does not prevent the true liturgical reform that the Council sent out.

So the pope does not like priests wearing cottas or albs ornamented with lace. Fine, but personal taste has never been within the remit of papal infallibility, nor even a lower level of the magisterium. With a captive audience of Sicilian bishops—not the priests themselves, but their superiors—the Holy Father seemed to want to bolster a type of episcopal camaraderie by having a dig at their clergy. 

In any case, in Mediterranean countries and other hot climes the purpose of lace is not necessarily to advance decoration, but to reduce perspiration; it is practical, not ideological. Lace was a sensible development of the body-length alb in lands where hot days are the norm, at least in summer. Of course Sicilian priests wear lace, and of course many a pious Catholic lady—even a nonna or a mamma—delights in making such vestments in service of the Church she loves. 

By caricaturing Sicilian priests as mummy’s boys Pope Francis risks alienating these ladies, the most loyal part of the flock, but maybe the Sicilian clergy were stand-ins for another target: the lace-wearing clergy of the North and the West. The issue of Lacegate is not the lace per se. The Holy Father himself points to the larger issue: the liturgical reforms that followed Vatican II, and in particular those who are regarded as out of step with it—the traditionally-minded clergy.

Providence may be at work in this, of course. The Petrine office was never more exalted than after Vatican I, which decreed the infallibility of the pope but was prevented from teaching more broadly on the roles of the episcopacy, clergy, and laity. Nevertheless, the arguable incompleteness of Vatican I allowed the Church a strong central voice and a united identity in the face of the turbulence of the last century, and not least the blight of communism. 

Given Pope Francis’s failure to condemn unequivocally the naked aggression of President Putin, or to offer concrete succour to the people of Ukraine, then it may be time to revisit this approach. Many people, even his supporters, seem to think that the pope is now animated by an awareness that his time is running out. Simultaneously, the majority of young people who still persevere in the Church are voting with their feet and embracing more traditional liturgy in steadily increasing numbers. Time is on their side.

It is sad that the Holy Father so often seems to express a dislike of the ordinary clergy; he so rarely encourages us that sometimes it’s as though he thinks we are part of the problem, and not the solution. We’re not perfect, of course, but the deficiencies—real and imagined—of the modern presbyterate are not the cause of the Church’s woes. Rather, they are symptoms of a deeper malaise: a decades-long turn to the world, rather than to God, which has decimated the numbers of practising Catholics in the West. 

The focus for any cure to this lies beyond both the parish clergy and liturgical tastes. Never mind lace; if we wish to heal the Church’s ailments then surely the first question needs to be this: “If the sheep have gone astray, then what have their shepherds been doing?”

Dom Hugh Somerville-Knapman is a monk of Douai Abbey, and parish priest of Scarisbrick in Lancashire

9 comments:

  1. Mid-Summer's Day -5 and counting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Piss off, Gene. You should look up the word "blackmail" and see what it actually means - to extort money or payment in kind from someone by means of making public their criminal behaviour; or to extort money or payment in kind from someone by revealing discreditable, embarrassing, or disgraceful behaviour.

    You have, Gene, ceaselessly insisted that the malicious filth, nasty allegations and sleazy dirty-mindedness you have written and published about my wife, my son, my nephews and myself on this blog is nothing more than

    the exercise of your legal right to free speech
    the publication of fair comment or, to use your own egregious description
    "rip-roaring badinage exchanged in a spirit of good humored to- and-fro".

    If this is indeed the case, then drawing the attention of

    Fr Nicholas Schofield
    Fr Matthew Heslin
    Deacon Abrahams
    The Westminster Record

    of the contents of your blog is not blackmail, or anything of the kind. It is merely my reciprocal exercising of my right of free speech, an invitation to those people and institutions to avail themselves of their right to make comment, and a chance to split their sides at the rip-roaring badinage exchanged in a spirit of good humored to- and-fro involved in your account of buggering my wife, fathering my son and accusing my nephew of promiscuous, incontinent and selfish ses rendering him liable to die of AIDS. All of these issues will, I am sure, entertain them royally.

    That is not blackmail, Gene, and you know it.

    Mid-Summers Day -5 and counting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh! yes it is blackmail. You are threatening me that unless I cease publication of my blog you will reveal damaging details about me to certain parties. Undoubtedly blackmail. Blackmail is one of the most malicious of all crimes.

    Back in the day there was a notable blackmail attempt in Uxbridge. The blackmailer threatened a local wealthy businessman that unless he left a large sum of money at in a phone booth in Uxbridge details of an alleged adulterous affair by this businessman would be made public. Luckily the man's daughter received the blackmail letter. A trap was set by the police and the blackmailer was caught re-handed. I remember as a boy of ten being fascinated by front pages stories in the Uxbridge Gazette about the case.

    The inept blackmailer was given a lengthy prison sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Like all your fictions, Gene, this is laboured and totally unconvincing.

    "You are threatening me that unless I cease publication of my blog you will reveal damaging details about me to certain parties."

    This is a lie. I do not require you to cease publication of your blog. I merely require you to conduct it with the sort of common decency that should come natural to someone who calls himself a Christian.

    So far from demanding that you close your blog, I have offered you the chance to go on publishing it with no further interference from me, provided that the following perfectly reasonable conditions are observed:

    1] that all references of any kind on this blog to my wife, my son, any members of my family and myself are removed forthwith - this includes all such references made at any time in the last eleven years.
    [2] that all references to TES Opinion, my role on TES Opinion and "the clique" on this blog are removed forthwith - this includes all such references made at any time in the last eleven years.
    [3] that no references of any kind, overt or covert, to the subjects listed at [1] and [2] above are made on this blog ever again. The term "references" must include written posts or pictures - photographs, cartoons, paintings, drawing - which purport to portray my wife, my son, my family and myself.
    Finally, you will post a withdrawal of the accusation that "Myrtle Thornberry" committed suicide after being persecuted by "The Clique", and make an unconditional apology for having both made, and persisted in, that accusation.

    For my part I undertake never to post on your blog ever again unless you breach any of the conditions outlined at [1], [2] and [3] above.

    And in any case, what I plan to share with Frs Schofield and Heslin and Deacon Abrahams are not "damaging details" – or are you finally admitting that what you have published about my family and myself is nothing but a pack of lies of which any decent person ought to be ashamed. As usual, Gene, you can’t open your slack, drivelling gob without dropping yourself in it.
    As you have claimed with tedious regularity, these "damaging details" represent the results of your right to free speech, the results of your making fair comment about my family and myself, and rip-roaring badinage levelled at me in a spirit of good humored to- and-fro.

    Nor have I, nor would I, attempt to extort money from you. What I want you to do is to behave, for once in your life, like a decent, Christian human being instead of a perverted bag of filth. And if the only way I can make you do that is to force you to do so, then I will do it.

    Your bleating about blackmail and free speech is nothing more than an attempt to justify your wish to continue to publish filth about my family and me. If that is Roman Catholicism and Christianity in action, then you can keep, you vicious little sod.

    Accept my truce, do as you are told, and that is the last you will ever hear of me.

    Otherwise prepare to be neck deep in shit a week from today.

    Midsummer Day -4 and counting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Now Detters it IS blackmail. And blackmail is a dreadful sin. You have read about that Uxbridge case. I remember how shocked I was as a boy of ten that such a crime should be attempted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stop blustering - you are not even kidding yourself. Your bleating about blackmail and free speech is nothing more than an attempt to justify your wish to continue to publish filth about my family and me. If that is Roman Catholicism and Christianity in action, then you can keep it, you vicious little sod.

    Accept my truce, do as you are told, and that is the last you will ever hear of me.

    Otherwise prepare to be neck deep in shit a week from today.

    Midsummer Day -3 and counting.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Midsummer Day -3 and counting,

    ReplyDelete
  8. Midsummer Day -3 and counting

    Sumer is icumen in,
    Loude sing cuckou!
    Groweth seed and bloweth meed,
    And springth the wode now.
    Sing cuckou!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Midsummer Day -2 and counting.

    ReplyDelete