A plea to Archbishop-designate Stack: tell the people of Cardiff that you believe in Our Lady’s intercession

I believe he meant it in the sense that Mary intercedes for us, but in a different way to the unique intercession of her son.

What I would question though is the mindset of most of the people who are complaining about this. I think they look for faults in what the Bishop is saying, hoping to have grounds to criticise. Why not take the construction in accordance with Church teaching (which is by no means a contrived construction) until there is evidence that it was made in another sense? The key words to me seem to be “may sometimes seem to distort” – put that in the context of an address to the Synod and I think they become quite reasonable. He is saying to people who in the main do not believe in the Marian declarations made under Papal Infaliibility that he understands how these can cause them difficulty as seeming to lessen the importance of Christ. And it is a fact that they do – that is they do “seem to lessen” if you do not understand them properly. The rest of his speech encourages them to study and reflect – no bad thing surely? – it does not say “they seem to and do”.

How about giving him the benefit of the doubt? This is an area that requires thought and prayer from each of us – exactly how the intercession of the Saints and Mary in particular works is not easily intelligible to us and I do not wish to castigate the man for acknowledging this and being aware of the difficulties that it causes Anglicans.

To deny Mary’s intercessory role is, clearly, quite wrong – indeed, heretical. There is, however, the title used by some ie. “Mediatrix of all graces”, that some would say goes too far – seemingly making Our Lord dependent on His Mother. Perhaps, Bishop Stack had this in mind?

“Some” might say it goes too far, but Leo XIII wouldn’t be among them. So we read in Iucunda Semper Expectatione about the movement from the Pater to the Ave in the Rosary:

…having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”

We are commanded to Love our neighbour; and St Paul reminds us that is using every ordinary and extraordinary means to be ready to excuse [1Cor 13] until it becomes impossible; for then we deny Truth itself – the Person of Christ.

Bishop Stack has left us little if no room for manoeuvre – there’s virtually no possibility [unless we resort to a 'bevanite' "emotional spasm" in the heat of the moment] for giving the benefit of the doubt – he said what he said – and the clarification demands a retraction of what he definitely said and a reiteration of the dogmatic position of the Church.

I’m sorry to say this but it would be duplicitous not to recognise the euphemism ‘needs more study’ for what it is: A relativist, pragmatic and thoroughly misleading suggestion that the Marian doctrine is not clear – when it most certainly is!

[This sort of mendacity is far from rare in the contemporary Church - one need only refer to +Vin's comments regarding women priests [implying the future may alter a case which the Church has declared is closed] or Opus Dei ‘moral’ theologian Fr Martin Rhonheimer [and Ivereigh etc] declaring the Church has not spoken on a proscription of the prophylactic intention in the use of condoms [it doesn't need to - as present teaching absolutely forbids it!] or when Archbishop Smith tells the House of Commons that Catholic teaching does not have any moral reservations with the Mental Capacity Act [it certainly does!] Or when Bishops Conference issues a document on palliative care stating that nutrition and hydration should NOT be considered as clinical treatment then proceeds to meander through a quagmire of obfuscation which ultimately suggests that the situation is not black and white therefore where necessary they CAN be considered as such – and therefore [euthanisingly] withdrawn [as it is in their sanctioned 'Liverpool Care Pathway] Or when our beloved Cardinal persistently referred to Anglican Orders as if they were valid!!! Or when Timmy Radcliffe preaches to a congregation of celibate and non-celibate homosexuals telling them ‘your love is not wrong’ and then later claims that he’s not referring to sexual acts – although that’s very far from what the audience is inferring! Or when ex-Herald writer Peter Stanford goes on Beyond Belief as a “Catholic commentator” and declares he has no problems with the notions of Jesus being sexually involved with Mary Magdalene – in fact he finds the idea quite appealing!]

I defy any one of you to tell me you have never heard a Catholic in a position of authority either diminish, deride or dismiss the necessity of frequent confession – whether it be a southcoast Bishops’ ‘it’s only for serious sin’ or the odious Fr Richard McBrien’s pelagian proselytising that the efficacy of absolution is never complete and merely relative to the psychological state of the penitent!! And what do we teach our children – My catechetical resource material for my seven year old students in the US preparing for their first confession [imposed on me by the +Trautmann regime] mentioned sin only once – in a chapter title – “making a mistake is not a sin” – and the source of the forgiveness of sins? Our Redemption through the Crucifixion? It’s left to infer this by a single picture – a silhouette of a cross on calvary [with no commentary or explanation]

It’s quite unfair to single out Bishop Stack – look at the whole of ARCIC – it’s an unmitigated sham – virtually every statement within the ‘joint declarations’ are so ill-defined that each side interprets them in
their own particular way – to the point of being diametrically contrary positions! Both Catholicism and Anglicanism were being sold out by [albeit well-intentioned] intellectual scoundrels!

The usual form of promoting heterodoxy invariably falls back on the following structure:

1. The statement that – “Catholic teaching Y is grounded in reason X”
[When it almost always isn't X - X is usually a minor exigent or a historico-cultural consideration or merely a secondary justification - the major reason for the Doctrine Y is definitely not X]

2. But if we consider the arguments of anti-X – they do have some justification – there are some pertinent considerations we cannot dismiss by those of good intent who make appeals to anti-X and therefore adopt an anti-Y position [The people who argue for anti-Y invariably do NOT appeal to anti-X - but reality doesn't really matter - this is selling out of the faith here - it doesn't have to be logical, coherent or cogent]

3. But it’s such a profound intellectual minefield which requires dialogue and scrutiny and ‘prayerful’ discernment [The old "requires future study and reflection" euphemism - indicating it's all open to debate when it most certainly isn't]

4. And who knows what the future socio-cultural demands upon the Church might force it to reconsider such issues?

5. But at present the Catholic teaching is this – and the Holy Father has said it’s because of X [The Pope andthe Magisterium haven't - but that's an irrelevance] and we must follow that teaching AT PRESENT – OUT OF LOYALTY AND OBEDIENCE – [i.e. not because it's real or true or irrefutable or incontrovertible - but because this is the present situation - and we're just doing as we're told until it changes]

6 [this is the doozie!] But it is NOT a Catholic’s job to uncharitably denounce those who hold the anti Y
and anti-X position – And if there are any who ever suggest that these people are not of good standing or are not in good-conscience – I suggest they should hold their tongues!!!

Recognise it?
You’ll find it everywhere – applied to virtually every aspect of the Faith – the cruel uncharitable insensitivity of the Orthodox – to be ill-mannered enough to suggest that someone might be in error! Oh- the humanity!

Does not the appointment of Bishop Stack straight to an Archbishopric indicate the very strong influence of Cardinal Cormac on episcopal appointments now that he is in the Congregation of Bishops (or whatever it is called)? I find that more worrying than the appointment of Bishop Stack in itself.

Bishop Stack was and is the Archbishop of Westminster’s appointee on the Board of Trustees of the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth. Rumour has it that he ground his teeth and bit his lip out of obedience to Cardinal Cormac on more than one occasion and was firmly silenced on one occasion. I suspect Bishop Stack has now been rewarded by Cormac but let us hope that now that he got out from under his feet he may prove his own man. It won’t be the first time that an assistant Bishop from Westminster has come up trumps – vide Lancaster.

But how far does obedience to one’s ecclesiastical superior go? I thought the Nuremberg trials rather put paid to the “I was only following orders” excuse.

I attended an ordination by Bishop Stack once. In his sermon he said obscurely that the new priest would “enter into holy communion with God’s people”. At the end of the ordination, the parish priest read out the Holy Father’s blessing on the new priest, which clearly referred to the priest’s vocation to offer up our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary through the Mass. Afterwards, commenting on Bp Stack’s sermon, one of my friends exclaimed: “At least the Holy Father understands the theology of the priesthood!”

Nor would it be the first time out of mischief that a Bishop was wilfully intending to be misunderstood and misrepresented.

Well have you actually asked him, written to him, sent him this article? He won’t know to do that unless you send him this article. There’s no guarantee he’ll read this just because it’s on the internet or in the paper…

This one sided article begs a number of questions.

1. Why does William Oddie resent Bishop Stack?

2. Surely a Catholic / Christian journalist would feel duty bound to express a sense of balance and extol some of Bishop Stack’s good points and virtues….as well as perceived reservations. Bishop Stack is a bishop of excellent standing , loved by the wider Catholic community. His appointment to Cardiff has been carefully vetted and judged worthy by conscientious Catholic authorities .

3.Is William Oddie as an ex editor of The Catholic Herald expressing official Catholic Herald editorial policy and sentiments?

1. Where in the article does Mr Oddie show “resentment” of Bishop Stack? He just raises two queries.

2. I suppose he could have said something on the lines of “Bishop Stack is a jolly good chap and loved by many” but frankly some might regard such as weasel words particularly as he may not know whether they are true or not.

“His appointment to Cardiff has been carefully vetted and judged worthy by conscientious Catholic authorities “. The problem is that some of us are not sure as to what prospective Bishops in E&W are vetted for. I remember at the time of Vatican II a Canadian Bishop describing our hierarchy as mugwumps who sit on the fence on every issue. I do not know if that was true then but since then many of them have seemed to have fallen off on the wrong side.

3. The answer to your third question is obvious and I expect there is a suitable disclaimer somewhere on the website.

I think that one needs to be a little blunt over devotions to, and claims about Mary. To the modern world, Marian devotions are often seen as updated versions of the ancient worship of a mother goddess and these claims can only be strengthened by the extravangances of such as St Bernadino even if supported by a more recent Pope. It is therefore reasonable, I suggest, if bishops feel that they need to underplay those extravagances which seem to have their justification in a view of the world, in fact, the universe. utterly alien to science and hence, wrong. Of course, there will always be those who wish to believe that a crowd at Fatima saw that the sun turned back on itself or that the so-called Holy House at Loretto was borne there by angels (via Dalmatia). But the reality is that these things cannot and thus did not happen and all the claims of saints and Popes to the contrary are just a distraction from making Christianity, and especially Catholicism, real to the modern world. I know that even the phrase “modern world” will raise the hackles of many who contribute to this forum but even if this move towards reality has caused many to leave the Church that others love, is it not better that the Church should try to be honest than be forever be held in thrall to often absurd superstition, whether ancient like Loretto, or modern, like Fatima? Mary’s place in the Church as the Mother of Jesus and an image of devotion for all is surely sufficient in itself and does not need to be surrounded by often bizarre and superstitious cults that circle around her like a cloud of whirling dervishes.

Well said Father.We come to a point in this country when Bishop/Archbishop bashing becomes tiresome. When every comment they make is picked over, reported out of context and misrepresented by the very people who claim to love our church and are faithful to the magesterium.
Can we not wait until the man has at least been installed before we put the traditional boot in? And as for Paul Priest…he lives a long way from Wales. Here in Cardiff we would like to keep an open mind! in Cardiff

I absolutely do not resent Bishop Stack. I hope that he succeeds in Cardiff: and I am simply pointing out one thing he needs to do if that is to come to pass.

Nonsense. Devotion to Our Lady goes back to the first century AD.

As for claims about French devotions etc.,. connected to Our Lady. The Immaculate Conception is Scriptural and secondly, even Martin Luther believed it.

Of course. Read more carefully.

Oh dear, why does this person claim that I am attacking Mary? I have already said that Mary’s place in the Church as the Mother of Jesus and an image of devotion for all is surely sufficient in itself. As to Fatima, I’ve no wish to get into an argument on an issue of which I willingly confess I know little except the general principle that seems to me, and doubtless numerous others, unlikely. But I do seem to recall that Pius XII was said to have carried out the required consecration in 1952 making one wonder why it was necessary for John Paul II to do the same about 30 years later. Are we really expected to believe that a certain specific form of words and actions was required to make one or the other valid, and hence free the world from a terrible tyranny If so, I fear such an approach can only reduce the concept of God to that of a supernatural civil servant, requiring the correct boxes to be ticked before action can be taken. This comes into the same category as those who claim wars, plagues and natural disasters etc. (note perhaps the word “natural”) are God’s punishments on the world fro whatever piece of nastiness is curent or fashionable – a piece of wicked nonsense that nobody with sense could attributed to a loving God. Also, and again I know little of the details, I thought the Fatima promise was that Russia would be “converted.” Since the fall of the Soviet empire, the Russian Orthodox rather than the Roman Catholic church has become much more popular there and its followers increased but nevertheless the Russia of Putin and his ex-KGB friends is hardly something to encourage belief in the success of the Fatima visions. Fatima does give rise to the oft repeated question mark over alleged miracles – why does God not make a better job of them? Why, for example, was the “dancing sun” of Fatima not absolutely clear and seen in exactly the same way by everyone looking at it?

But moving on, to the comments of Mr Bellord (below), taking the incredible size and complexity of the universe and our tiny place in it, if God is going to suspend the laws of that universe (e.g. a dancing sun might otherwise have made us all fall off), I ask again, why not make a proper job of it? He mentions the delightful suggestion of peasant children being briefed by the wicked Jesuits (who instructed me ages ago). Perhaps more likely in an increasingly secular world is the suggestion that miracles do indeed exist but take place for the amusement of all-powerful aliens with a sick sense of humour. Ridiculous, I know, but to the secular minds and upbringing of so many today, even the most outlandish tales of alien abductions and the like (why are they always somehow sexual?), reflect at least the infinitessimal possibility that such things might happen in the real universe without the need for a supernatural underpinning. I fear that some of the contributors to this forum will now deliberately pretend that what I have said indicates that I believe in such rubbish to give themselves the warm glow of feeling that they are dealing with an idiot: but there we are, perhaps they are right. In my view there is enough in the teachings of Jesus and the general decency of the lives of his followers in the Church, for people to live a Christian life without having to confuse matters by unnecessary claims of miraculous occurances and interventions.

Mr Bellord, I have just read reviews of the Penrose book – help!!

Tiresome Scarpa?
Dear Lady: Bishop Stack has an Apostolic mandate to teach the Catholic Faith – not ‘let’s not offend the Anglicans by defending Marian Dogma’ Faith…

I challenge you to provide any evidence that Bishop Stack has been misrepresented.

Misrepresentation is the main strategy of other ‘professional catholics’; it’s certainly not one to which II resort.

Plus there seems to be a little confusion over your present location: Look out your window Ma’am: That’s not Cardiff – That’s C*******!!! Isn’t it?

Mr Bellord – Many thanks for your thoughtful reply. There is much to consider here and I shall do so.

As to St Joan – a person for whom I have the utmost admiration – lest your readers think otherwise, it was not me who raised the claim of Jesuitical coaching. I agree that the Portugese rationalists and assassins who could murder the poor King and his heir, are exactly the sort of people who would make up lies about the children of Fatima, whose sincerity I would never doubt, although I do doubt the physical reality of their claims and wonder if the later revelations to Lucia seem to have been a little too convenient.

Thank you again.