The Westminster succession

Stuart Reid

The new Archbishop of Westminster, who is likely to be named by the Pope later this month, Will inherit a church that is going through its worst crisis since the Reformation. Priests are defecting, pews are emptying and theologians are becoming shriller, questioning (and denying) received doctrine and rejecting with

i

-contempt the practices of centuries. Such s the legacy of the Second Vatican Council, which opened with such high hope and good intentions in 1962.

The good intentions may remain, but much of the hope has disappeared. Catholics are no longer sure where the truth lies, or who holds it, since these days the truth tends to change from diocese to diocese and from parish to parish. In Place of the old certainties. Catholics are Offered the "spirit of Vatican II", aspirit justify almost by progressive Catholics to. al

most any liturgical or socio-political madness from high wire acts during Mass to support for Marxist terrorists.

At the heart of the present uncertainty and bitterness is the controversy surrounding the new Mass. The old Latin (Tridentine) Mass, the Mass of the English martyrs and of Beethoven a_nd Bach, was mandatory until the mid 'sixties. irice then, whether this was the Pope's intention or not, it has been proscribed. Only if Eserrnission is given by a bishop can the old

asS be said. This strikes many people within "ne Church — and possibly just as many outside .as both outrageous and absurd. While few Iraditionalist Catholics would wish to see the W Mass banned, they would like to see the old

ass given equal status with the new, believing, quite reasonably, that this would bring some peace to the Church. Who would deny mein their wish? In all probability the next Archbishop of wvv.estminster would. The new Archbishop .hose jurisdiction, like that of his predecessor, will. cover England and Wales, is most tutinlikelY to go back on the ruling concerning (,,e,Mass, especially since it had the blessing c""uelt, one suspects, the reluctant blessing) of ardn the al Heenan; and compared with most of e contenders for the See of Westminster,

Cardinal Heenan was a conservative.

It is understood that the names of the contenders were delivered to Rome last month by Archbishop Bruno Heim, the Apostolic Delegate. The names were drawn from about ninety suggested to the Archbishop by some 800 Catholics. (For the first time in England and Wales, lay people as well as religious were asked to put forward nominations.) Nobody knows how many names have been submitted to Rome, but there are certainly fewer than ten and probably no more than six. It is likely that the three names put forward, as a matter of tradition, by the Canons of Westminster Cathedral are on the list, and Archbishop Heim will have indicated his preferences.

Now it is up to the Congregation for Bishops to go through the list and submit three names to the Pope (in fact this process may well have been completed). It is customary for the Congregation's list to be drawn from the names submitted by the Apostolic Delegate, but the congregation has the power to prepare a completely fresh list. The names submitted to the Pope carry the labels dignissimus (most desirable), dignior (more desirable) and dignus (desirable). The Pope will make his choice from the Congregation's list.

Progressive Catholics, who are well represented on the Establishment, are seeking an Archbishop imbued with the spirit of Vatican II, a man who has the qualities of leadership, spirituality, 'charisma' and who is, above all, 'a man of today'. They do not specify whether he should be able to levitate at will. The traditionalists. on the other hand, hope for very little. since none of the candidates with a serious chance is particularly sympathetic to them. Paradoxically, some traditionalists hope that a progressive will be appointed, since, as they argue, such a man would allow anything — even the old Mass. One thing is clear, however: there can be no reconciliation, at the moment anyway, between the progressives and the traditionalists. The new Archbishop, therefore, if he is to maintain any sort of order, will have to be all things to all men; a man for all reasons. The seven most widely tipped candidates are Basil Hume (fifty-two), Abbot of Ampleforth; Derek Worlock (fifty-five), Bishop of Portsmouth; George Patrick Dwyer (sixty-seven), Archbishop of Birmingham; Alan Clark (fiftysix), Auxiliary Bishop of Northampton, Michael Bowen (forty-five), Bishop of Arundel and Brighton; Christopher Butler (seventy-three), Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster; and Michael Hollings (fifty-three), parish priest of Southall. The three front runners appear to be Bishop Worlock, Abbot Hume and Bishop Bowen. Abbot Hume is rumoured to be the favourite at Westminster, and, as a bonus, he has the approval of Mr Norman St John-Stevas. He has a long, thoughtful face and is said to be good at reconciling the theological and liturgical differences within his Benedictine Order. (If he can bring this power of reconciliation to the country he will be a blessing.) He is also said to be an able administrator, but is considered shy. Bishop Worlock does not suffer from this last handicap. He is well thought of by the Establishment (and by Ladbrake's) and it is therefore safe to call him a progressive, though he is reported to keep his theological views to himself these days. That is just as well. He is remembered as a strict conservative when, in the early 'sixties, he was secretary to Cardinal Godfrey, Cardinal Heenan's predecessor. He is an able administrator who knows the sign language of Westminster.

The Apostolic Delegate is thought tO favour Bishop Bowen. The bishop is a former Guards officer and has a great deal of charm. He is liked, even by the testy traditionalists. As one of them put it: "He knows how to hold a knife and fork."

Archbishop Dwyer would be a popular choice in the country because of his forthright denunciation of the IRA. But the Archbishop has indicated that he does net want to move to Westminster, and Rome may take that into account.

The most interesting outsider is Fr Hollings. He was seen over Christmas on television, ministering to the Sikhs of Southall and the lame of his parish. He is respected as a conscientious social worker, though whether a social worker is quite what is needed at Westminster is debatable. He is a dynamic and progressive thinker, a gentleman (the Athanaeum) and a hero (Sandhurst, the Coldstream Guards and the Military Cross). He is the darling of the extreme progressives (and therefore popular among the more cynical traditionalists). Common sense may suggest that he does not stand a chance; but common sense is not a reliable servant when it comes to guessing which way Rome will jump.