Hello darkness my old friend

I really hope our friend Austen Ivereigh has had a nice, relaxing time of it in Tanzania. Seriously, I do, because what follows beneath may have a bad effect on Austen’s blood pressure.

Okay, so if there’s one thing that should have been made abundantly clear in Catholic circles by the clerical abuse scandal, it’s that a culture of secrecy and silence is not going to fly these days. It especially isn’t going to fly given an increasing unwillingness amongst the faithful to keep quiet for fear of rocking the boat. Indeed, the fact that you are reading this on the interwebs tells you that we are long past the point where there were a couple of weekly papers that could be leaned on by the Magic Circle if an inconvenient story needed suppressing. And yet, there are still some dumbos in the Catholic establishment who don’t apprehend this basic truth.

Exhibit A is the case of the Birmingham Three. This has now moved up a gear, with two developments. One is that it’s been made public that the three exiles are not guilty of any wrongdoing, which prompts the question of why three Oratorians acknowledged to be guilty of nothing have been treated more severely than, well, I’m sure some notorious clerical miscreants will come to mind. The other is that Ruth Dudley Edwards is on the case, and Ruth is a fairly heavy hitter in the media. The longer this drags on, the more it will spread.

It strikes me that if Iggy Harrison had come out at the start of this with some anodyne statement about the Three being sent away because of, I don’t know, personality clashes at the Oratory, the whole thing would probably have died down by now. At least it wouldn’t have taken on the dimensions it now has. And now, of course, the silence has become the story, and the silence is going to feed the rumours and speculation. It’s no wonder Uncle Jack Valero seemed a little subdued, even pensive, at the Evangelium conference. Not quite his usual ebullient self.

Which brings me to Exhibit B, namely Catholic Voices. I mention this because there is no earthly reason for Catholic Voices to be run along Chatham House lines, and if you announce some high-profile project and then are less than open about it, you positively invite speculation. This appears to be lost on our friend Dr Ivereigh, who apparently has taken to phoning around the dweebs Voices in an agitated state, demanding that one of them fess up to being the leak. Really, I am disappointed. I knew Austen didn’t understand the blogosphere, but I would have thought he might have heard of something called a “grape-vine”. We’re not talking George Smiley here. Perhaps we might put that down to the personal eccentricity of someone who might urge his wedding guests not to talk about the happy occasion lest he be subjected to some mild ribbing on the internet; or someone who would cajole his pal Robert Pigott into something as ineffably dopey as this. But no, I have a feeling this goes beyond Dr Ivereigh’s idiosyncrasies.

Perhaps the liking for secrecy is an Opus Dei thing. But I suspect it’s got more to do with a general attitude that the Catholic establishment shouldn’t have to be answerable to the great unwashed, and that asking awkward questions is just terribly vulgar. That’s a habit that the establishment will have to break, or be broken from, like it or no.

In the case of CV, which I reiterate is a perfectly sound idea in principle and should have been done years ago, it creates a sort of air of shiftiness around something that could perfectly easily be transparent; in fact, if it was transparent, it would be easier to get the great unwashed to adopt the project as something they can be enthusiastic about. But have Beavis and Butt-head grasped this concept? Noooo.

And of course, if you’re used to operating without scrutiny, this makes amateurish pratfalls much more likely. For instance, CV made much of its rigorous selection procedure, helped along by the involvement of such as Fr Stephen Wang, who is used to rigorous selection procedures in his Allen Hall capacity. This rigorous procedure ran to summarily dismissing a number of enthusiastic young Catholic bloggers on the grounds of their being “mad” (Ivereigh-speak for “slightly more orthodox than me”); yet apparently did not run to basic things like, oh, making sure that all the Voices would be present at the roll-out in September, without being derailed by small matters like visas running out. Do you think Simon Cowell runs X Factor with that sort of slapdash attitude?

This may not matter if it was just a Jack ‘n’ Austen vanity project, but no, the Catholic establishment is heavily vested in this boondoggle. It’s being co-patronised by Dan Brennan and Chris Jamison, neither of whom is a lightweight. Luminaries such as Vin Nichols, Charles Wookey and Jamie Bogle have popped in to meet and greet. Uncle Jack has been appearing everywhere to talk about how tremendously significant CV is. With that sort of buildup, you’d better hope the end product is good.

Here’s a final thought. You will of course be aware that there’s this outfit called the “Catholic Communications Network”, which is supposed to do the comms for the Bishops’ Conference on a regular basis. Arguably, it’s the notorious uselessness of CCN that makes a project like Catholic Voices necessary. But hark! What’s this? Papal Visit Communication Officers, linked to the individual dioceses? To paraphrase the divine Oscar, duplication of functions may be put down to inefficiency, but triplication looks like extravagance. At least the Magic Circle can’t be blamed for this appeal from the BBC, or we might be talking about quadruplication of functions.

As the late VI Lenin used to say, “better fewer but better”. I’d rather have a handful of comms people who know what they’re doing than a small army who don’t.

Moreover, this is a bit like the Greg Pope situation. When Eccleston Square identify a problem, their stock response is to throw money at it. Hence dealing with the Oona Stannard problem by creating a job for Greg Pope and hoping that he cancels Oona out, rather than having the Oona Stannard problem compounded by a Greg Pope problem. And Alexander DesForges being AWOL making a new series of Changing Rooms is to be addressed by new media teams springing up like dandelions.

Bearing in mind that the Catholic Church has, how shall we put this, certain issues with cashflow, and that we’re in an age of austerity more generally, it really is striking that the Catholic establishment are doing a good impression of Formula One drivers spraying champagne all around them. Does Vin Nichols think this is a sensible way to proceed? Does Dan Brennan think it’s a sensible way to proceed? Because I don’t.


  1. shane said,

    August 11, 2010 at 12:37 am

    Just seen this:


    “I don’t read blogs,” said Jack Valero. This was a bit of an exaggeration, for occasionally he skims, but he said he doesn’t (shocker!) read Damian T. or “Splintered Sunrise”.

  2. Roland's Horn said,

    August 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    You at least, dear Μr Sunrise, should know enough about the Catholic principle of mental reservation, and about the ambiguity of the term “”wrongdoing”” to realise that the suave Mr Valero’s denials are no cast iron guarrantee against there being murky details littering the background of the story of the “”Birmingham Three””. More attention needs to be given as well to the nature of the Oratorian vocation and those communities which try to realise it. Unanimity in the community is everything and the presence of an individual or a group which perturbs the community will necessitate drastic action if the individuals involved prove resistant to appeals to restrain their egregious behaviour.

    Let us imagine that a member of one community is problematic in his indisciplined lifestyle and impervious to exhortations to improve. Let us suppose that one or more of the others, having eccentricities of their own but less deserving of reproach in general, were to be manipulated into supporting the latter individual unconditionally – maybe on the basis of his positioning himself as a mighty warrior in the cause of orthodoxy. Then let us imagine that a minor scandal blows up in the community, which the aforementioned manipulative character blew up in importance and perhaps even divulged to outside sources, maybe even at a very sensitive mpment in the community’s history when eyes were trained on it to an unusual extent, all of this in pursuit of his own personal goals, none of which involved ends demed praisworthy by those acquainted with the spirit of the founder. Would this be considered wrongdoing? In the eyes of the community – although probably not to those of outsiders with more prurient interests – it well might; but they would be presumably be prevented by charity from making these details known (it is gravely sinful to reveal another’s sins to those unentitled to the knowledge) and might take refuge in ambiguous language designed to protect the individual’s reputation as well as that of the community.

  3. Jim said,

    August 13, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Will someone explain the term ‘Magic Circle’ as used frequently in this blog? Thanks.

  4. marcpuck said,

    August 14, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    (Not really à propos to this post but I just discovered that you are mad and bad and dangerous to read, tsk. [Hypertext transfer protocol backslash backslash and then bit.ly/beU2yH] I know people for whom heresy and an appreciation of, say, Anselm Kiefer and Mass lessons in the vulgar tongue are indistinguishable, so you have my sympathy.)

    • August 16, 2010 at 12:40 am

      That post you link to is the most HILARIOUS thing I’ve read in weeks. Subscribers to [i]Dull Marxist Gossip Quarterly[/i] take note – [b]that[/b] is how you complain about a blog. XD

  5. Res Miranda said,

    August 25, 2010 at 11:31 pm

    The Guardian is looking for 3 or 4 “ordinary Catholics” to join their Papal Visit Panel. An opportunity for those who were not selected as Catholic Voices stooges? It would be interesting to hear experiences of the application process.

  6. March 27, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    […] from a Catholic is known to take a controversial stand for fear of being deemed “mad” (i.e. “slightly more orthodox than Austen Ivereigh”) by association? Perhaps most significantly, how does it affect our liturgical praxis? Are we […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: