Outside the Magic Circle

Outside the Magic Circle | Dominic Scarborough | Analysis for Catholic World Report

Tension builds between the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and orthodox Catholics.

The Holy Father’s September visit to the United Kingdom was widely regarded as a great success, both as a tonic to British lay Catholics and as a wake-up call to the country’s secular society. But the visit also highlighted the tension that exists between his pontificate and what dismayed English Catholics call the liberal “Magic Circle” of bishops who make up the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (BCEW).

Several of its number are known to be deeply opposed both to this papacy and to that of John Paul II. The first reason for this opposition is that the members of the BCEW have been largely self-selecting from a small pool of like-minded “insiders” who come through lines of patronage that can be traced back to one man, the late Archbishop Derek Worlock of Liverpool. At the Second Vatican Council, Worlock had been one of the first of the English bishops to promote a new liberal vision for the Church.

The vision appropriated the structures, cultural loyalties, and financial contributions of the old, inward-looking, triumphalist “ghetto” Church to build a new, outward-facing Catholicism that focused on social climbing and liberal politics. Ultimately, Worlock’s vision aimed for the broader acceptance of Catholicism by the secular elite.

This post-conciliar vision of a more visible Catholic presence is, however, at odds with Pope Benedict’s conceptions of what visibility and presence require. The BCEW’s vision ever since the days of Archbishop Worlock has aimed at “liberating” Catholics from their past and helping them to embrace the values of secular society. But Pope Benedict’s vision aims at fostering orthodox Catholics who can act as a “creative minority” in the wider culture. The differences between these two visions are ultimately irreconcilable and go to the heart of the debate over the meaning of Vatican II.

The second reason for the tensions with the Pope is the structure of the BCEW, which appears to undercut the individual bishop’s teaching role in favor of presenting a common front on every issue. The BCEW has mimicked the power structures of the traditional British trade unions that look anachronistic today. The BCEW is a rigid bureaucratic structure centered on the idea of the central committee and employs a plethora of professional lay and clerical sub-committees, all paid for by the ordinary Catholics it claims to represent. The irony is that the pursuit of this agenda has been to the detriment of halting the decline of the very working-class, “grass-roots” Catholicism that once gave the bishops a legitimate voice on issues of real social concern.

This “grass-roots” Catholicism has been decimated by a collapse in religious practice among the indigenous Catholic population, which, if it were not being buoyed up by massive levels of immigration from Eastern Europe and the developing world, would have already signaled the end for many parishes and even dioceses.

Read the entire article...

Comments

[Randy]

I think the term Magic Circle is quite disrespectful. We are to respect the office of bishop even when we don't agree with the man who holds it. He disagrees with the way Abp Nichols has handled the issue of homosexual ministry and the latin mass. OK, make your points. But you need to be careful. You cannot help the church by smearing her bishops. Being Catholic is about accepting a set of leaders even more than it is about accepting a set of doctrines.

[ignorant]

What does the description, "Magic Circle," mean and why is it used by some to describe the English Episcopate?

[TDJ]

Randy, perhaps you should read this:

On Being Divisive.

It may nuance your opinion a bit.

-Theo

[Randy]

There is a difference between holding to a doctrine and attacking all the bishops in a given country. It sounds like splitting hairs but when you tell people their bishops are no good you attack the church. When you tell people that you would like the church to improve in a few areas where you feel she is not living up to her teaching. That is very different.

I actually think Abp Nichols is a step in the right direction from Abp Murphy-O’Connor. But even with very bad bishops one must be very careful. Talk of a magic circle where you try and paint some large group of unnamed bishops as generically bad needs to be avoided. Specific statements and actions can be critiqued but one must be clear that nobody is being encouraged to disobey their bishop.

[LJ]

“the counselors and structures of the episcopal conference exist to serve the bishops, not to replace them.” - Pope Benedict XVI

(Source - http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1207aa04-d9db-4037-b96b-70e09da9026e Article from November 15, 2010 in California Catholic Daily re: Pope Benedict addressing Brazilian Bishops)

He is underscoring that the individual Bishop has teaching authority in his own diocese.

While it may be useful in some cases and causes to present a unified front in a nation by all of its Catholic Bishops, if individual Bishops are being intimidated into supporting a political/ideological position because a Bishops' conference is owned by a particular cabal of like-minded Bishops it needs to be asserted that the conference does not have the authority to do that. Any individual Bishop does not have to answer to the conference.

I don't think it is disrespectful to the office of Bishop generally to point out this situation. If there is such an inner "magic" circle of Bishops they are exercising authority they do not have.

The one with the authority to break up the party is the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. It is to be hoped that he will make strategic moves to strengthen and embolden the individual Bishops in England and undermine the usurpation of authority.

[Randy]

Is he really distinguishing between bishops as individuals and bishops acting together? I don't see that. He talks about a magic circle. That is not the bishops conference. It is an insulting name for a group of unnamed bishops he does not like. Very similar to a liberal calling a group of conservative bishops the Catholic Taliban. There is a principle that goes beyond which side is you think is right.

Bishops getting together and acting as a group is a good thing. Jesus said, “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” But in context he said it about the disciples in the context of binding and loosing. So it to apply primarily to bishops. So bishops getting together is not the issue.

There is also the assumption that the pope would be immune from this attack. Maybe for this particular writer he is. But in general disrespecting bishops leads to disrespecting popes. Pope Benedict appointed Abp. Nichols. Why would someone read this and not think the pope is part of the problem?

[LJ]

"Is he really distinguishing between bishops as individuals and bishops acting together?"

The presumption of your question is that all of the Bishops in England are acting together without any constraint on the individual Bishop. But the point is made that the structure of the BCEW has centralized the power to a select few.

"The BCEW has mimicked the power structures of the traditional British trade unions that look anachronistic today. The BCEW is a rigid bureaucratic structure centered on the idea of the central committee..."

I understand precisely what the author is speaking of, having personal experience with two different unions that operated in this way.

The point stands that this represents a power hierarchy created within a nation and controlled by a few, that is not part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. Regardless of the social or political orientation of this inner circle (drop the term "magic" and the point remains) it is a usurpation of power and the author is maintaining that in this case it is inhibiting and curtailing the authority of individual Bishops to teach orthodoxy in their own dioceses.

The fact remains that the few do not have the authority to control the teaching outside of their own dioceses, in the dioceses of other Bishops. But this apparently is what is happening. It is not the first time in the history of the Church that this has happened, not to mention a plethora of other abuses at the episcopal level, such as the selling of bishoprics and the ordaining of teenagers to the episcopacy as a reward to wealthy or noble families. This specific structure may be new, but power politics in the Church is not.

From the Code of Canon law;
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.

If, as the author suggests, the lay faithful are being fed heterodoxy whether at the behest of a central committee of the BCEW or otherwise, their fundamental rights as lay Catholics are being violated.

In the early centuries of the Church, during some of the debates over the great heresies that led to our creed, particularly in the east, Catholics were known to riot in the streets over the heterodoxy of certain Bishops. I doubt they would have felt much sensitivity over the term "magic circle."

We, and many Catholics in England, have an advantage unavailable in the past, and that is the availability of good orthodox information, directly from the Vatican if necessary. It is unfortunate, but many times we have to inform ourselves, remaining loyal to the authority set over us, receiving the sacraments, speaking the truth whenever and wherever possible and praying for the time all of those in the priesthood and the episcopacy lay aside socialist politics and focus on the gospel.

[Randy]

I don't know the conference "is inhibiting and curtailing the authority of individual Bishops to teach orthodoxy in their own dioceses." If they want to they have the ability to do it. Bishops are frequently asked to speak at high profile events in the diocese. Most write regularly in a diocese magazine or some such thing. If the BCEW has taken a wishy-washy position and they want to take a stronger stand they can do that.

The reality is that not many of them do. Why? Not because of the official structures. It is more a lack of courage. There is a culture where moral cowardice is nurtured and encouraged inside the church. That is not only the bishops. You see it in many Catholic institutions. But how do we change it?

We don't change it by attacking our bishops directly. We can change it by teaching the true faith ourselves. Shining a light challenges those in darkness to choose. Accept light or put the light out. So you might be persecuted. Respect the office. Respect the truth. Pray without ceasing. Be patient.

It is not a question of whether the bishops feel sensitivity over a term. It is a question of whether the church is respecting the office of bishop. If we stopped allowing our bishop to be the bishop when we disagree with him then we would be protestants very quickly. The paradox is that pursuing the truth can cause people to fall out of communion with the body and lose not only the truth and but much more.

[LJ]

We don't change it by attacking our bishops directly. We can change it by teaching the true faith ourselves. Shining a light challenges those in darkness to choose. Accept light or put the light out. So you might be persecuted. Respect the office. Respect the truth. Pray without ceasing. Be patient.

In this I agree with you entirely Randy. Well said.