Kung cats among Patmos pigeons: now here's a pretty impasse

WHEN the rumoured existence of some encyclical on Papal infallibility (taking a strong line adverts,' Kung) reached Orthodox ears, it gave an edgy start to last week's EastWest ecumenical talks on the isle of Patmos.
We know, however, that no one, not even the Pope,
deemed to be "infallible" in any geese which is independent of the whole Church. The real question then
Ia. what is "the whole Church"? The Orthodox have long held very definite views on this point; and from such views they have never deviated.
According to them in fact it was the Latin West which split itself off from a mainstream Christianity whose roots were essentially local and whose centrally authoritative voice was expressible only in ecumenical councils.
The seven most important of these took up the first eight Christian centuries and laid the basis for Catholic dogma to this day. All were held in the East and none was attended by a Bishop of Rome whose exclusive right to the title of "Pope" was not then recognised.
The East-West split, when it finally came, left the "Patriarchate of the West" isolated. Thereafter it perfected its own theory of jurisdictional primacy based on Rome. "Populism" is thus the hinge on which all will finally turn.
So if there IS an anti-KUng encyclical (or even motu proprlo) floating about, its publication could jeopardise
further progress towards reunion with the Orthodox. Abandonment of any such document (or the thinking behind it) could, on the other hand, leave Kung as moral victor in the final round.
Noppue *1 muove as Galileo would say.
LAST WEEK (The Daily Telegraph, June 4) the Rev. William Oddie, Oxford's chaplain-delegate to graduates, criticised Cardinal Hume's plea for help to the homeless, If necessary out of public funds. "To set such a priority at a time of economic stringency requires courage, imagination and sacrifice," the Cardinal had admitted in his appeal issued jointly with the Bishop of London.
Mr Oddie, however, saw such "good intentions" as pavings on "the road to socialism." The Cardinal's suggestions, in other words, clash with the monetarist philosophy of the present Government.
A hundred years ago Cardinal Manning was also accused by the establishment of "socialism" for his outspokenness on the 1885 Royal Commission on housing. But in those days the Archbishop of Westminster lacked influential Catholic voices to back his call for compassion.
Surely It should be different today? Unfortunately the Hume initiative has come at an embarrassing moment for some. It highlights, among other things, the painful dilemma of an erstwhile Catholic Herald columnist, Mr Norman St John Steve*, which possibly accounts for his relative Silence of late. Or hadn't you noticed?
Only a Year ago "our Norman", by gaining Cabinet status, raised hopes all round on the basis of his fine record for liberal and enlightened ideas. Alas, to be a liberal in the Thatcher Cabinet is to be known as a "wet." And that's too much for any ambitious politician to take.
AMPLEFORTH College is much in the news at the moment. Another former Catholic Herald columnist, Mr Kevin McNamara, MP, has annoyed some of his constituents by wanting his second son to take up a music scholarship to the well-known North Yorkshire public school.
The Kingston-upon-Hull Labour party locals produced some disingenous arguments with which to chide their MP. So, for that matter, did the Tory tabloids in order to try and raise some political capital out of the event.
On the scholarship front, in general, however, there is good news from Ampleforth. The latest Ampleforth Journal reports the receipt of £16,687 in a recent appeal, part of whose proceeds were for scholarship purposes and part for a farewell present to Dom Patrick Barry who retired as headmaster last year.
Behind the scenes, Ampleforth "old boys" and parents have been saying that they would have contributed even more but for the infelicitous wording of the original appeal letter. Shame.
The same Journal printed a much deserved appreciation of Fr Barry's administrative, intellectual and many other qualities. Despite his unfinished "sabbatical", murmurings have been heard as to his suitability for the vacant See of Brentwood. Someone even bolstered the argument by pointing out how few of our present crop of Bishops hold Oxbridge or similar degrees — in addition, that is, to the less academically respected Gregorian (Roman) variety.
At Brentwood, however — as at Menevia where Bishop Langton Fox has been unwell for so long — there is tantalisingly little news. When in Brentwood Bishop Casey resigned, he agreed to stay on as Apostolic administrator. This itself (rather than the naming of a Vicar-Capitular) is an unusual step unless a new appointment is expected quickly. But no such appointment has been made.
Did whoever was first choice decline the post or was his candidature vetoed? Rumours on the subject are conflicting. But all agree that delay causes damage.
One Brentwood priest made a comparison with the business world and said that no self-respecting company would leave itself for so long without a managing director.
For Bishop Casey, meanwhile, life must be difficult. He obviously still receives invitations to attend official functions and to perform confirmations. Should he accept these and risk being do trop when another Bishop is appointed? Or should he refuse and add still further to the general confusion?
Urban us