CATHOLICS IN RHODESIA WAIT FOR LEAD

TONY MOCKLER Reports from Salisbury
CATHOLICS in Rhodesia and, indeed. other ChristI ians too—are awaiting the ree turn of their bishops from the I Council in Rome in the hopes that they may be given sonic i concrete guidance on how and where their duties lie in the present crisis.
Their doubts are twofold: i first the immediate question of how to act if there were to be an illegal declaration of independence, and secondly the general, long-term question of what their attitude should be towards the present regime.
Sunday after Sunday they hear sermons preached about the Little Flower and kindred topics but hardly a word of guidance comes from their spiri tual leaders on the topics of the day bar a careful and highly diplomatic statement -issued re cently by the Vicar General v.'hich referred to "grave consequences" and appealed for reflection before action.
It is generally agreed that the Cathol:c Church in Rhodesia is, in contrast to its position in South Africa. the most influential of the Christian Churches and therefore a clear condemnation of the present despotism would have a reasonable prospect of success.
To talk of the Church in Rhodesia as if it were one community is however misleading: there are really two almost separate communities. the European Catholics and the African Catholics, and it is only the former who could have any influence upon the present state of affairs. although in the long run few doubt that it will be the latter who -count.
Statistics for the Africans are almost impossible to obtain. but it is generally agreed by all denominations that the Catholic Church is the most important Christian Church among the native population both in influence and numbers.
Among the European population of a quarter of a million. one in three is nominally an Anglican. But the Catholics though they number only one in ten are the most cohesive group and have a potential influence out of proportion to their numbers.
This is partly because of history all Rhodesians know about Mother Patrick, a Dominican nun who accompanied the pi mee r column which first occupied Rhodesia in 1890. But even before the pioneers. the Jesuits had sent a mission to the territory of the Matabele king, Lobengula, and following close on their heels other missionary orders took over different parts of the country and now provide the best of education both for the Africans and the Europeans.
The prestige of the Church grew immensely from 1021 to 1956 when a splendid Chestertonian figure, Bishop — later Archbishop Chichester of Salisbury dominated the scene. Still universally remembered as "Chick" he became one of the best known and loved figures in Rhodesia and by the end of his ife had achieved the sort of minence in the Rhodesian poliical field that Cardinal Manning had under Queen Victoria.
Clearly it was hard to follow n the footsteps of a man of that type; and the present Archbishop Markel! Si., a quiet man known as a good administrator s by nature. I was told, cautious and diffident—hardly in fact the sort of man to give the leadership needed in the present crisis. The three other dioceses in the country are Bulawayo. Gwelo and Umtali. Bulawayo, like Salisbury, is more of a European diocese and Bishop Schmitt, a Swiss, is not well known outside his diocese.
The only bishop to have come back to Rhodesia because of the crisis is Bishop Haene of Gwelo. lie has tried to avoid publicising his return though it might he thought that publicity is precisely what is needed for any positive action taken by the Catholic hierarchy at the present time.
Bishop Laniont of Unitali is an Trish Dominican. known for his forthrightness and his ability as an orator: he is also the only one of the Bishops with any written achievements to his name--a book entitled Purchased People protesting at the condition of the African. But Umtali is a remote missionary diocese and a voice there is a voice crying in the wilderness, far from the centre of power.
Priests and laymen alike are criticising the hierarchy for their failure to give a lead and to advise Catholics how to act. But all critics admit that the hierarchy is in a difficult position, largely because many practising Catholics support the Rhodesia Front and some are prominent members of it.
Meanwhile sonic of the "progressive" Catholics proclaim that the Europeans just do not matter at all, an attitude that makes the hierarchy's position still more difficult.
And then there are the practical snags that occur: for instance before the General Election this spring Archbishop Markel!, Si. of Salisbury, advised all Catholics that they had a duty to vote but shortly afterwards the African nationalist leaders called on their followers to boycott the election—with the result that many Africans now think that the Church is trying to sabotage the nationalist movements. Such misunderstandings would make any bishop reflect on the advantages of doing nothing.
Furthermore the official apologists stress that the hierarchy have made their position crystal clear. In 1961 they issued a pastoral entitled "Peace through Justice" which utterly condemned racial discrimination and came out unmistakingly against the oppression of four million Africans, reproaching the whites for their spiritual
apathy and materialism in very explicit ternis.
There can be no doubt that the C'hurch's heart is in the right place. But having issued a pastoral five years ago the bishops appear to think that they have done their bit. "Their attitude is." said a priest, "that the Church has made its position quite clear and that thelaity know what that position is, so there's no problem."
Such extraordinary ignorance of human nature seems barely credible. It is not easy even for journalists to find a printed copy of "Peace through Justice" and it needs little "nous" to know that the ordinary layman will prefer to do nothing to disturb his comfort unless it is continually drummed into him that he has a duty to act.
On April 20, 1964, Church leaders — Methodist, Congregational, Anglican. Presbyterian and Catholic—issued a short joint statement, a staiement of principle which appeared to deal with the problem of a UDE It laid down that no extreme act outside the Constitution could he justified without the expressed consent of the people of the country.
This seems to imply that a UDI (certainly not having the
expressed consent of the Africans) is immoral. But no practical conclusion was drawn from this. What the average Christian in Rhodesia wants to know is what he should do and how precisely he should act : the principles are clear hut the difficulty of putting those principles into practice is the difficulty for which the sheep most need a shepherd to guide them.
Only the Anglican Dean of Salisbury, the Very Rev. Sammy Wood. has attempted to give this practical guidance—in a sermon preached in the Cathedral on October 17. After recapping St. Paul on authority he said that a UDI would be morally wrong.
Then he went on to the real question: if it comes, should the Christian obey the government or not? His answer was that it depended on the action taken -by Britain: if Britain did not suspend the constitution, then the citi7en should obey the Rhodesian government. But if Britain did suspend the constitution, then "many would be put in a most frightful dilemma especially those who have bound themselves by an oath of allegiance to the Queen". It is noteworthy that no Catholic in a comparable position of authority had even attempted to deal with this problem of conscience.
Later the Dean explained privately that he felt he could go no further than this statement of the principles and of the dilemma. Individual action, he felt. must he governed by the great Anglican principle of freedom of the individual conscience.
'I his principle is not welcomed by the C:atholic Church: the hierarchy have a duty to lead and their people have a duty to obey. Individual priests have spoken out but their sermons naturally carry little weight in the church as a whole.
One priest told me about a series of sermons he had delivered in European areas about conditions in the African townships. A few of the congregation had walked out, but on the other hand one factory owner had come round afterwards and told the priest that he had not realised the hardship of the rents inflicted on the African workers and that he would immediately raise their wages.
This story shows both the latent goodwill and the extraordinary lack of contact between black and white Catholics. This lack of contact is due partly to apathy. partly to the language difficulties, but most of all to the Land Apportionment Act which divides the whole country into African and European areas.
On the other hand, a survey undertaken by Yale University in 1962 and described as the most thorough and scholarly sociological survey ever to be undertaken in Southern Rhodesia found Catholics more openminded on racial issues than any other denomination.
But the problem is one of leadership. That the present government is a despotism—more than authoritarian, less (as yet) than tyrannical -can hardly be denied: that its policies both towards the African in general and towards UD1 in particular are immoral and have been defined as immoral by the hierarchy in 1961 and last April seems also perfectly clear.
Parliamentary opposition to the present trend has failed: so has the next bulwark against the advance of despotism—the liberal professions—the lawyers, the academics, the journalists.
It appears that the Catholic Church alone is in a position where it could with "a reasonable prospect of success and of setting up an objectively better state of affairs"—a vital conditioncome out openly against the immorality of the government.
Admittedly there are practical difficulties but there is also the very practical point that the Church's good faith as seen by the vast African majority is on trial.