HOW IN REETNT TIMES THE CHURCH
ACQUIRED ITS PRIESTS AND THE STRUCTURES
WITHIN WHICH THEY WORK
Now this is the point at which it is worth considering how, in changing times, the Roman Catholic Church has acquired its priests, and the structures within which they work, but before doing so, it is worth stopping to consider the priest in the context of the Catholic family.
What a priest is, discussed previously, helps to account for the considerable emotional investment that many families, and parents or a parent in particular, have in having a son a priest. To have a son a priest, for many parents and family members is to be blessed by God in a special way, and this emotional and social investment is such, that it is not unknown for young men to have become priests, because once embarked on the process, they lacked the moral courage to disappoint those who had this emotional investment in their future lives as priests. And where a young man did have the moral courage to change his mind, (as I know from two cases in point), the sense of disappointment in the parents, was palpable.
As for the structures within which priests live and work, the Church is composed of Diocese: geographical areas presided over by a bishop. i.e. the Diocese of Portsmouth. But in cases where the population density is especially high, these areas are known as Archdiocese, that as the name suggests, are presided over by an Archbishop, who will have one or more auxiliary bishops working with him. Each diocese is divided in to parishes, (small communities) that in the main are served by diocesan priests, that is, priests who have been ordained by the bishop to work in his diocese. But, within a diocese there may be any number of religious orders. Religious orders, (such as the Franciscans or Dominicans), are groups of men who live within the diocese, but whose existence is independent of it, to the extent that they live in community, have their own structures, their own particular spirituality, and rule of life, and leadership. But their existence within the diocese and the work that they do within it, are at the invitation of the bishop. As a consequence, there are two types of priests at work: secular, (diocesan priests), and regular (those who, as members of religious orders follow a rule of life), but, the nature of their priesthood for both these groups is the same. As regards celibacy, there is also a distinction to be made, (the significance of which, in the context of this discussion, will become apparent later). Diocesan priests do not take a vow of celibacy. In keeping with the Church rules, they promise to remain celibate, whereas priests in religious orders take a number of religious vows, one of which is celibacy, and the distinction is important. The priest who takes a vow, surrenders the right to marry in the context of his commitment to Christ in the particular order to which he belongs. The diocesan priest does not, because, being celibate is not an essential requirement of what it is to be a priest. In many instances, and often because there is a shortage of diocesan priests, priests in religious orders, again at the invitation of the bishop, will take charge of parishes, or engage in other forms of pastoral work. This in itself is not a bad thing, but as we will see later, for very human reasons, this division of priests into secular and regular, can be in conflict. What I call, the politics of faith.
Now as to how the Church acquires its priests, brings us to the early twentieth century, when through advances in education and industrial development, the priesthood ceased to be one of a limited number of choices of career. In this new situation, interest in the priesthood declined, and to such an extent that the Church, (The Vatican), in addressing the issue, promoted the opening of "junior seminaries". These were places where boys from the age of eleven would be educated with the expectation that they would become priests in religious orders, while the diocese relied on its supply of priests from Catholic grammar schools. At age eleven, the link with the priesthood among those in the junior seminary, would have been tenuous, but the quid pro quo was, that if the Church didn't get a priest out of the boy, the parent, in return, would get a well educated young man, who would have better prospects in life than otherwise might have been the case.
Now in the case of one junior seminary that I knew of, (but that now no longer exists), it worked like this. In each year there would be an intake of young boys, somewhere between 20 and 24, who would embark on a programme of secondary education with the long-term view that they would be priests. And in a social context what was significant about these junior seminaries was, that they took boys who were knowns as, "Eleven Plus failures": boys who had failed the entrance exams, (state exams), that would have given them access to the Catholic Grammar Schools, with their emphasis on academic achievement and a career. In the junior seminary they lived as boarders, returning home in the school holidays, and to the credit of the priests who taught them, most of these boys finished their schooling with levels of education, comparable to the schools from which they had been excluded. But the end result, in terms of the stated objective, was self-defeating. Over a span of about 13 years, (the number of years that it took to complete the process to ordination), the end result was minimal; in one year the number of those ordained was 3, in the following year 1, in the next year 0 and in the subsequent year 4. So by the law of diminishing returns, it was self-evident that the process was unsustainable. But that apart, the very idea of junior seminaries seemed wrong and for me, a denial of true religious faith: a denial of the nature of the relationship between faith and intelligence. Intelligence that requires us to recognize things for what they are, and to act accordingly. For me, the dozen or so priests who were engaged full time in teaching, should have been returned to the purpose for which they were founded, missionary work, in the course of which, if it was God's will, men of mature age and experience, (at least in comparable numbers), would come forward and express an interest in the priesthood. But when I discussed this with one of the order's priests, his justification for the junior seminary was straightforward: that "the Holy See", (the Vatican), had told them that if they wanted to survive they would have to open a junior seminary. And for this priest, that seemed to be the end of the story. But somewhere in the order's leadership, there was the recognition that this junior seminary was unsustainable. So after considerable effort they succeeded in opening a junior seminary, (also now closed), in a Catholic country, in the hope of counteracting the shortfall. Which brings me to - the church political.
Before they succeeded in opening this new junior seminary, the order met with stiff resistance from the bishops that they approached. Undoubtedly these bishops would have given sound reasons for their decision not to allow the order to become established in their diocese. But the perceived wisdom was, that the bishops interests in keeping the order out, was in maintaining the supply of future priests from within the diocese, for themselves. So in the promotion of the Gospel, the reality was, that vested interests, (on both sides), were in conflict - the church political!
THE CHURCH IS GOVERNED - AND CONTROL
Now all this activity, the administering of the sacraments, the ordaining of priests, the consecration of bishops, the governing of diocese and religious congregations, appointments, adherence and non adherence to the authentic teachings of the Church, and the government of the Church on a universal basis, are prescribed in codes of church law, otherwise known as Canon Law. And this Canon Law, that in its origin dates back to the first century A.D. has been endorsed and expanded down the centuries. Hierarchical and prescriptive, it has a duel purpose: to preserve by interpretation and guidance, the authentic teachings of Christ, and to hold together the individual church's, (diocese), as an institution that is the visible and unified representation of the presence of Christ on earth. And while the ultimate source for Canon Law is God, the ultimate authority as exercised in the Church, resides with the Pope. Besides being prescriptive, Canon Law relates to every area of Roman Catholic life, as exemplified in the matter of sex and contraception. Based on doctrine and tradition, (and in the context of this blog), these all controlling canons, have resulted in some notable conflicts in the latter part of the twentieth century, between priests and the higher ecclesiastical authorities within the Church. Cases in point are the "worker priest movement" that in the 1940's originated in France, and the "liberation theology" movement as ascribed to priests working in the impoverished and dangerous areas of Latin America. In these movements, priests, drawing on their experience, were seeking to adapt their methods of ministering to souls, to forms of work and spirituality that identified them more closely with the daily realities of people's lives. In France in particular, priests were willing to leave the comfort zone of traditional parish and work alongside dockers and those employed in other industries, but in the end, both movements, (though for different reasons), were effectively suppressed.
From the Church's point of view, it is understandable that it would want to have structures in place, that would help to secure what is known as "the deposit of faith". But somewhere in this desire to be an all controlling influence, in every aspect of life, (organizational as well as doctrinal), it seems to me, lies the explanation for the failure of leadership, (on an alarming scale), to deal effectively with sexual abuse. What is incomprehensible, is not that individual men and women might, at any one point in their lives, fail to live up to their professed ideals, but that people could be known to fail systematically and in a manner that was a betrayal of a sacred trust; and that those who had the responsibility to do something about it, not only lacked the moral fibre to do it but effectively condoned the abuse, by moving offending priests between parishes. Well, in terms of trying to understand what was going on, here is one way of looking at the problem.
CONDITIONING
Those people who have committed themselves to a life of service in the Church, and especially those who have reached high office, have, from their earliest school-days been indoctrinated in respect of a set of beliefs and values that are to do with absolutes, (and indoctrination is not too strong a word): values constantly reinforced by the idea of obedience to the Church (to those in authority within it), an obedience that extends to processes as well as to beliefs. Now imagine that you were a priest, (for there are good priests in plenty), a bishop or a Cardinal confronting the problem of paedophile priests, whatever your moral standpoint, you would by a lifetime of conditioning, instinctively look to the system to provide the solution, rather than taking a level of personal responsibility that would call the system into question. Almost certainly you would feel the full weight of ecclesiastical authority above and beyond you. What a charge: that by your independent actions you might be a cause of scandal, and bring the Church and your fellow priests into disrepute. To be willing to face this charge, you would have to be a man of singular faith and personal courage. If you start life with the Catechism, (which I have written about elsewhere, with affection), and move from there to a junior seminary and into a system that discourages any level of independence of thought, let alone of initiative, in matters clerical, your capacity to think "outside the box" would be greatly reduced. But the explanation is more subtle still, because anyone nominated for high office in the church, is thoroughly vetted for their orthodoxy, in every aspect of church life, before their appointment is confirmed by the "Holy See". And this, without doubt, has been a contributing factor in the failure to act appropriately in the present crisis; and as to why that failure has been widespread.
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
In the context of guilt by association, at the present time it must be very difficult to be a priest, not only are doubts raised about their personal conduct, but about the usefulness of their vocation. And this guilt by association reaches to the highest level. Recently in the context of child sexual abuse, I came across an article claiming that the particular abuse that the writer was interested in, was known to the Vatican in 1961. By implication, this links the much loved Pope John XXIII with the scandal. It is understandable that people might think, "well he must have known, after all the was Pope." But as I recall from reading his diary: Journal of a Soul, which from the age of 14 he kept over a lifetime, being chaste, was of paramount importance in his spiritual life.
And in parallel Pope John Paul II, is linked to the crisis, by association with the discredited Father Marcial Maciel, founder of The Legion of Christ. This religious order has confirmed that the recent stories that have appeared about him, are true. According to Wikipedia this religious order by 2008, had priests in 22 countries, (763 priests and over 1,300 seminarians, and a lay movement Regnum Christi with 70,000 members. The Legion of Christ, we are told, operates centres of education, "minor seminaries, ["junior seminaries"], seminaries, schools and/or universities in Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, Chile, Brazil, Ireland, France, Germany, Canada, the United States and the Philippines....."
Well, what has emerged as true, is that Father Maciel was leading a double life. Separate from his work for Christ and the Church, he had accumulated a personal fortune, had a daughter in Spain and three and possibly six children in Latin America. And several men who were seminarians of the order, but who now are in respected professions, have given formal testimony to the Vatican, that while they were seminarians, they were sexually abused by Father Maciel. Well Father Maciel was a man whom Pope John Paul II admired, and whom he asked to accompany him on various visits to Latin America, and on the web you can find a picture of the Pope, obviously infirm, blessing Father Maciel. "Surely", I can hear you say, "he must have known, after all the Church claims that the Pope is infallible! How could he not have known?" I mention infallibility, because this blog is written with the uninitiated in mind, so let me assure you in passing, that the concept of the infallibility of the Pope, has nothing whatever to do with his daily life. He, like you and I, looking up at the sky could decide not to take an umbrella when going for a walk, only to be soaked in the rain. All that seems certain is, that the present Pope, Benedict XVI was made aware of allegations about Father Maciel in 1998, and that as Pope, he took decisive action against him in 2006, but that Maciel died in 2008 before he could be held accountable. Now whether or not this information was passed to Pope John Paul II, I have no means of knowing. It may well have been, at some point, and he may have entrusted it to Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), whose job it was to investigate such claims.
Whatever the truth, one thing is certain, Pope John Paul II was not in the ordinary run of men. Under the Nazi occupation of Poland, he was no longer able to complete his university studies. Instead between 1940-1944 he worked at various jobs, including work in a lime quarry, and chemical plant, while studying clandestinely for the priesthood. And it is accepted as fact, that he risked his personal safety to protect Jews from the Nazis. A brilliant scholar, he became aware with ever increasing conviction after his fathers sudden death, that he was destined to be a priest. And as they say, "the rest is history". And though for me I can say with confidence, that everything about his life is a denial of the idea that he would have condoned or turned a blind eye to sexual abuse by the clergy, the sad truth is, that John Paul II, by virtue of his office as Pope, is (in the widest sense of public consciousness), linked to the current sexual scandal, which brings me back to Father Maciel, and the question of, Who knew what?
WHO KNEW WHAT?
I was enjoying my university graduation dinner in Liverpool, at the age of 53, when someone drew my attention to a priest that I had known years previously, and told me of the unfortunate circumstances of his death. They were such, that for some time he must have been leading a double life. Sad at hearing the news, I spent months racking my brain: searching for something that might have pointed to the circumstances of his life. I knew him well, or so I thought. But no matter how hard I tried, I simply could not find anything that would have pointed to this double life. He was an affable personal man, a pragmatic man who liked to get things done, and who said his prayers etc., and ended his life in a position of some responsibility. In terms of trying to understand what might have gone wrong, and what the choices for him might have been, had he concluded that his priesthood was a mistake, the best I could do was reflect on the seeming impossibility of his situation: the fact that he was the product of a junior seminary, and that he came from a family and a country that would have been in awe of his "vocation" to the priesthood. Where had he to go? I found myself asking, had he wanted to acknowledge the inappropriateness of this double life, and I had no real answer, for at a practical level, the Church was all that he had known as a way of life, (outside of his immediate family), from the age of eleven. And I imagined it as well nigh impossible, in these circumstances, for him to explain his predicament to family and friends.
And much nearer home, a personal story.
In my bachelor days, both myself and a younger brother Brendan were living separately in London, and seeing that Brendan was struggling to cope, I persuaded him to come and live with me. For about ten months we lived successfully together before Brendan had a complete mental breakdown and had to be "sectioned" under the Mental Health Act. (That is, admitted to a psychiatric hospital regardless of his wishes). As it happened, he was in a passive state and not capable of expressing any wish. Now like my priest friend, Brendan was as affable a man as you could have wished to meet: he had an air of optimism about him, and he was liked equally by men and women; and it wasn't in his nature to be wilful. But when the investigation began into the circumstances of his illness, I was taken aback by the extent to which Brendan had a life, (and in particular a circle of friends) that I knew nothing about. Taken aback, because it was not in Brendan's nature to be guarded. But somehow, in his dealings with me, and right up to the point of his collapse, he had compartmentalised his life, (not because he was doing terrible things), but perhaps, because in keeping things from me, he had a sense of having, some control, in a life that was otherwise out of control.
So from my own point of view, (which I extend, in a general way, to the Church), it is entirely plausible that in the present crisis, good people were deceived, and that the wider issues surrounding the sexual abuse, (the reprehensible nature of the abuse accepted), are not necessarily as clear cut as they might seem.
SO, WHAT OF THE FUTURE?
In respect of what the Church is, and the nature of its priesthood, nothing has changed. And there is a sense in which, human frailty is as integral to the fabric of what the church is, as is grace. Or put another way, our sinfulness is the very reason for the Church's existence. Were we saints, we would be somewhere else. And central to this sinfulness, is the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ. And in the context of the crucifixion of Christ, suffering, is integral to the spiritual life of the Church, as it is for the individuals within it, for besides telling us that "the gates of Hades [Hell] will not prevail against it", Christ said this, in the context of his own impending death:
"Then he said to them all, "if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will loose it, and those who loose their life for my sake will save it..."
The Gospel of Luke, 9. 23
This message, though in one sense a mystery, in another is simple enough. God incarnate, (in the person of Christ), having taken our sins upon himself in the Crucifixion, invites a response: that we accept that this "daily" going against our lesser inclinations by conforming to His will, as represented in the life of His Church, is the path to union with Him, in holiness of life. And implicit in this daily obedience to His will, is the belief that everything that happens to us, however terrible it might be, has within it, a means of grace. The suffering is not specified, nor are we expected to go looking for it, but the nature of it is clearly implied in the word "daily". And while I don't want to be misunderstood, for I accept that I have no right to speak for the sexually abused: the emotional, psychological and spiritual damage done to victims, has within it, that same potential for spiritual growth when linked to the crucifixion and death of Christ. Something that only really becomes apparent to all of us, as Simone Weil puts it, when we learn to see the world from God's point of view.
Personally, I take encouragement in knowing that God is making His presence felt in the world, above and beyond whatever denomination we might subscribe to, and in the truth, that by that same presence, Christians do not have a monopoly on virtue, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion, that however much we might fail, or however confusing and contradictory a place the world is, (and it is riven with contradictions), God will have His say. And I have witnessed stunning examples from outside the confines of my own Church, of how good has relegated evil to its rightful place.
1) The setting off of a bomb at the cenotaph in Enniskillen in 1987 where people had gathered to remember the dead of two world wars. (A single act worthy of any Nazi). But infinitely more powerful was the account of the indefatigable love of a father and daughter as they lay among the rubble: a love that was rooted in Christ. After Marie's death, (she was 20, and a nurse), her father Gordon Wilson refused to bow the knee to the pedlars of death.
2) And here in England, where we had the example of Colin and Wendy Parry, whose son Tim, age 13, died some days after being grievously wounded by an I. R.A. bomb, set off in Warrington. Colin and Wendy Parry for all their grief, refused to allow the memory of their son Tim, to be defaced, or his family to be destroyed by these pedlars of death. Instead, they wrote a biography, "TIM, An Ordinary Boy", about their son's life, and about the trauma of caring for him in his last days. And they set up a foundation, The Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Foundation for Peace.
And what is truly significant, is, that before the bombs went off in Enniskillen and Warrington, no one had heard of either Gordon Wilson or Colin Parry. Why? Because, until they were confronted with unmitigated evil, they were ordinary men going about their ordinary lives.
3) And if I want to go further afield, I would want to remind you of Aung San Suu Kyi, a woman of singular stature.
4) As for the past, when Christian churches would have been bitter rivals, today, they draw strength from one another, and take inspiration from one another's saints. This is what I think lay behind the dismay at the uncharacteristic remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, about the Catholic Church in Ireland. Many of his own prelates understood that a crisis in one section of the Christian community, has the potential to wound us all, and that what is needed, is mutual support and understanding.
5) And unchanged and unchanging will be the work of Mother Teresa, who left the safety of an established convent to work among the destitute, and who left nuns in saris, to continue her work. This is the same Church that is struggling with the problem of paedophile priests. An Icon of our age, her work and her message has gone beyond the narrow confines of the Roman Catholic Church. Recently we found it in the music of the young Latvian composer, Eriks Esenvalds, a Baptist, who in her memory, (and as commissioned by the Riga Youth Choir Kamer), has written, Pilens okeana (A Drop in the Ocean): the words of Mother Teresa in respect of her work among the destitute.
Now however positive these things are, we are still left with the problem of the Church and its priests. So before I go any further, and if I am to be true to myself, I must acknowledge that the junior seminaries that I have long thought of as indefensible, were capable of producing good priests; that is, men who were committed to their work and who grew in stature as they grew in experience. That said, I must also say that the current public talk of "sin" as being responsible for the current crisis bothers me. Of course, the systematic sexual abuse was sinful, and the inept dealing with the problem may have been sinful also, but with the current emphasis on "sin", my fear is, that the Church might not look at its structures, in particular, how it acquires its priests and prepares them for their ministry in a world that is ever more intrusive. However magnificent the spiritual ideal, the Church does not exist for itself, and in this context, the truth, for me, is, that the insistence on a celibate priesthood in the West, is deeply damaging, and self evidently wrong. And my view has nothing to do with paedophilia, though the option of a married clergy, might greatly ease the problem. In justification for my point of view, I quote this passage from the Gospels:
The Gospel of Mark, 2. 23-27
Here, for me, the message is clear: that in terms of God's plan, the Church is there as a servant, to meet the needs of humankind. In this context what the Church needs are priests, whose job it is to help the faithful through the precarious business of life, by making the sacraments available to them. And if I go no further than England, where the Church is in a state of entrenchment, this need is not being met.
Now the only thing that I can say with certainty about a married clergy, is, that they would bring to the Church a new set of issues. But it is not unreasonable to believe that those who arrive married, would bring a greater experience of life, emotional maturity, and a more discerning attitude to those in authority, that does not exist in those young men who have been nurtured in the system. And in opening the door to a married clergy, (as an option for priests), my hope would be that it would result in an increase in numbers and make more readily available, the sacramental life of the Church. As I see it, the Church is never an innovator in such matters, instead, it tends to bow to necessity, and by the time that it does, much that is good, has been lost. And for those of you who, understandably don't know, let me explain that there is nothing in the Churche's view of the nature of priesthood, that prevents diocesan priests from marrying. It is a disciplinary rule that could be relaxed tomorrow, as it has been in the case of married clergy from the Anglican Church who have converted to Catholicism. As for priests in religious orders, the emphasis needs to be on a greater flexibility in terms of age, and consequently maturity, at the point of entry, (something that appears to be beginning to happen), with recruits being accepted up to the age of fifty, (something unheard of forty years ago). And though it is arbitrary, given the ever intrusive world in which we live, and in which future priests will have to work, the mid twenties would seem to be a good starting point, rather than the traditional, straight from school approach? Certainly, from my point of view, there would be more true religious faith in an approach that respects age and experience, rather than trying to capture recruits to the Church at the earliest opportunity. So the question for me is, Has the present leadership in the Church got the capacity to understand that the Church in its priests, does not exist for itself, any more than the sabbath, but for the purpose of bringing help and encouragement to men and women in their uncertain lives?
AND A LAST THOUGHT. JOHN HENRY
(CARDINAL) NEWMAN, 1801-1890
Almost certainly I have gone on for too long, but I want to end on a note that I think is appropriate to the present circumstances. It relates to the story of a priest in the Church of England, (who interestingly, made a conscious choice to remain celibate though he could have married as an Anglican priest), who, after lengthy and distinguished service in the Church of England, in 1845, became a Roman Catholic, a priest, and without having attained high office in the Church, was made a Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879. To tell this story, at this sensitive time, might appear to be at the expense of the Church of England, but that would be a mistake, and a gross disservice to Cardinal Newman, for whom, the break with the Church of England, was gradual and painful; and who as a Catholic priest was ever grateful for what he had gained from the Anglican tradition. In Apologia Pro Vita Sua, he recalled a religious experience while ill in Sicily in 1832: what he described as an increasing presentment that he would not die, for he had "work to do in England", though he had no idea what this work was. Here in part, is the story as he tells it:
"I got to Castro-Giovanni, and was laid up there for nearly three weeks. Towards the end of May I left for Palermo, taking three days for the journey. Before starting from my inn in the morning of May 26th or 27th, I sat down on my bed, and began to sob violently. My servant, who had acted as my nurse, asked what ailed me. I could only answer him, "I have a work to do in England."
In this state of uncertainty, but wanting to be in obedience to the will of God, on the return journey to England, and still wholly committed to the Anglican Church, John Henry Newman wrote these compelling lines: thoughts that transcend time and circumstance, which is what makes them wholly appropriate to the present moment:
Lead Thou me on!
The night is dark, and I am far from home -
Lead Thou me on!
Keep Thou my feet, I do not ask to see
The distant scene - one step enough for me.
I was not ever thus, nor pray'd that Thou
Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears,
Pride ruled my will: remember not past years.
So long Thy power hath blest me, sure it still
Will lead me on!
O'er moor and fen, or crag and torrent, till
The night is gone;
And with the morn those angel faces smile
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile.
_________________
© Cormac McCloskey
(1) Pope Benedict XVI letter to the Catholics of Ireland - here
Margaret Clitherow -link
Code of Cannon Law - website Not for the faint-hearted,
but some sub headings might be of interest.
Worker priests: Wikipedia 1
Liberation theology Wikipedia 2
Journal Of A Soul
Author: Pope John XIII (1958-1963}
Publisher: Geoffrey Chapman 1965 / 2000
ISBN 0 225 66895 5
Simone Weil 1909-1943
Remembrance Day Bombing at Enniskillen
TIM : An Ordinary Boy
Note: Jonathan Ball was a young child age 2 who died
in the same explosion as TIM at Warrington
Authors: Colin & Wendy Parry
Publishers: Hodder & Stoughton 1994
ISBN 0 340 61790 X
Aung San Suu Kyi Wikipedia 3
For the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God
(Biography of Mother Teresa of Calcutta)
Author: Kathryn Spink
Publisher: Colour Library International 1981
ISBN 0 906558-55-7
A Drop In The Ocean
By Eriks Esenfalds (b. 1977) Video performance here
Apologia Pro Vita Sua [A Defence of his life]
By John Henry (Cardinal) Newman (1801-1890)
Publisher: Penguin Classics 1997 / 2004
ISBN-13: 978-0-14-43374-6
Lead Kindly Light
From, John Henry Newman:
Prayers, Poems and Meditations
Selected and Introduced by A. N. Wilson
Publisher SPCK 1989 / 2007
ISBN 978-0-281-05973-7
N.B. Since publishing this blog, I have removed the word "Protestant" from the final section on J. H. N. and replaced it with the word Anglican, in keeping with Newman's view as expressed in Apologia Pro Vita Sua. My use of the word Protestant, in context, was too loose a definition: the word used by Mewmam was "Anglican".
Note: This blog, "Priests: Part 2 was first published on Windows Live Spaces, by me, on 30th April 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment