Putting Leo’s road map into action

Letters to the Editor of The Tablet

Austen Ivereigh is right to identify Aparecida as formative for Francis’ pontificate and Leo’s (“Leo’s Road Map for the Church”, 15 November). Yet his analysis curiously evacuates the document of its theological substance.

Aparecida does not begin with institutional mechanics. It begins with the poor, described as bearing the “suffering faces of Christ” (§393) and as a place where “everything having to do with Christ has to do with the poor” (§393).

The bishops call the preferential option for the poor “one of the distinguishing features of our Latin American and Caribbean Church” (§391) and root it in Christology itself (§392). This is a theological claim of constitutional magnitude, not pastoral sentiment.

Equally absent is Aparecida’s kerygmatic insistence. Its opening proclamation is unambiguous: “We have no other treasure … no other priority, but to be instruments of the Spirit … so that Jesus Christ may be known, followed, loved, adored, announced, and communicated to all” (§14). Without this encounter and proclamation, structural reform becomes mere ecclesiological cosmetics.

Also missing is Aparecida’s robust theology of popular piety: “Popular spirituality is a legitimate way of living the faith” (§264) and “the spontaneous missionary activity of the People of God” (§263). The document’s ecological teaching is equally blunt: “The interests of economic groups that irrationally demolish sources of life are not to prevail” (§471).

And it insists on the missionary protagonism of lay people and youth: “To promote a mature laity, stewards in the mission of announcing … the Kingdom of God” (We Hope section, bullet 5).

Once these elements are restored, Leo’s map reveals itself not as managerial refinement but as recovery of the Church’s apostolic instincts: poor-first, Spirit-led, and missionary through and through.

The question is whether we will engage Aparecida’s actual substance or merely appropriate its name.

Hal St John
London SE28

In his article Austen Ivereigh rightly draws attention to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales synodal silence over the past year. Having been assured from reliable sources that the 2025-28 synodal implementation phase was to be on the bishop’s autumn plenary agenda, many of us have waited with baited breath to learn of our pastors’ plans.

How much longer are we to hold our breath? There appears to be no sign of a commitment to synodality in the bishops’ published outcomes, nor Cardinal Vincent’s “Reflections” on this 2025 autumn plenary.

Given the fallout of so many committed Catholics after the failure to implement most of the 1980 National Pastoral Congress’s recommendations, many of which have been repeated in the synodal process, I wonder how many will be around for all the planned processions and other events?

Instead of being an untorn net, the Church is at risk of disrepair through lack of care from its fishers. Thankfully, the synodal journey continues with grassroots groups nurturing the desire to be a more welcoming, inclusive and outward-going Church in action, regardless of episcopal encouragement.

Martin Pendergast
London E9

Nichols and abuse

I write in response to your article on Cardinal Nichols’ eightieth birthday (News, 8 November).

As a victim/survivor of child sex abuse whilst in the care of the Comboni Missionary Order, I have had some involvement with the Cardinal over several years. I was angered but not surprised at his criticism of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, suggesting that all it was concerned about was finding someone to blame.

IICSA, for the first time, gave victims of abuse a voice, calling to account those who failed them, like Cardinal Nichols.

The Cardinal appears to maintain the opinion that the Church best determines its own course through child sex abuse. The Church does this by failing to sanction those who repeatedly fall short of safeguarding standards and purposefully cause further abuse to victims and the Church itself.

Simply put – the Catholic Church does not do sanctioning. If it did, the Comboni Missionaries would have had their faculties to reside in dioceses removed long ago. Instead, the Church prioritises its own forgiveness of the abuser, while simply encouraging the abuser to adhere to safeguarding standards.

Neither of these is “helpful” to abuse victims/survivors. My experience included a meeting in which the Comboni Order demanded that a diocesan bishop should be prevented from attending, even though his sole purpose was to provide me with pastoral support. Cardinal Nichols was aware of the situation at the time.

The Comboni Order still has permission to reside in the Cardinal’s diocese and no tangible sanctioning for their appalling, unchristian behaviour has been given.

Chris Speight
Croydon, Surrey

Locked out

Like so many times in recent years, I was inspired by Austen Ivereigh’s article (“Leo’s road map for the Church”, 15 November). What struck me most was the fundamental observation that people are not leaving the Church, but the Church is leaving the people.

I did a personal examination of my own ministry as a priest in Portsmouth diocese for over 50 years. I think many people returned to the Church or became Catholics because of how I treated them with respect and dignity. But equally, many people left the Church because of my legalistic clericalism. That, in essence, is why the Church is leaving good people.

To update my pastoral experience, I conducted a practical experiment one recent Sunday. I visited three local parish churches. Two of the three were firmly locked. One had a cemetery adjacent – the dead were locked in and the living locked out.

The third church had both its front doors open and was very welcoming with a wonderful, prayerful atmosphere. I spoke with two people who assured me the church was open every day from dawn to dusk.

I left that special place with a strong sense that this church had not left its people, nor had its people left it. If we lock people out, they will stay out. Open churches means open hearts and lives and the Holy Spirit is present.

Tom Grufferty
Knock, Co. Mayo, Ireland

Jubilee Debt act

Christine Allen’s column (“Seeds of hope”, 15 November) was both a proactive and despairing one. I was appalled when this government drastically cut international aid, with no real thought on how this would affect desperate and beleaguered African countries, such as South Sudan.

If a Debt Justice law could be enacted to ease their debt liability, it would indeed be a law this government could be proud of. It would be an ameliorative step in a humane, progressive and equitable direction.

Judith Daniels
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk

Twenty-five years ago, I was in Edinburgh with a symbolic chain from my parish, saying “Break the chains of debt”. I’m still waiting. Will it take another 25 years?

Judith Collin
Yate, South Gloucestershire

Marian devotion

Is the Church about to embark on its first Augustinian/ Thomist dispute in some time?

In the case of the ruling of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (View from Rome, 8 November) that it is “always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation”, signed by Pope Leo, and citing Popes Benedict and Francis against the term, it would seem so.

In Augustinian theology, to which the last three popes have all held in different ways, all grace must come directly from God. But in Thomistic theology, it is not so. Secondary causality is a vital Thomistic theological principle: grace often comes both from God and from some secondary cause.

Mary’s Yes to Gabriel is a secondary cause of our redemption, and so to call her “co-redemptrix” simply is a true statement, from the point of view of Thomism.

It surely cannot be “always inappropriate” to say something that is factually true. Surely the possibility of using the term in theological discussion is a separate question to that of the propriety of using the title in public Marian devotion, and one that should be left open?

Sara Parvis
University of Edinburgh

Banger of a hymn

Now that the whizzes and bangs of bonfire night are over, I am reminded of a Mass at which I concelebrated some years ago in St Mary Undercroft, chapel of the Palace of Westminster.

We were commemorating an ex-priestly colleague who died all too young as an MP. The congregation was inter-faith and crossed party-political boundaries. On studying the order of service, Catholics present couldn’t help but catch each others’ eyes and raise eyebrows — the final hymn was “Faith of our Fathers”, recently featured in your letters pages.

The irony of the words “in spite of dungeon, fire and sword” were not lost: we were singing this in the very place “we” (i.e. Catholics) tried to blow up. Happily, we live in more tolerant times. The occasion caused many a smile – as it would have to the man we were remembering.

(Fr) Ed Hone CSSR
Dean, St Edmund’s College, Cambridge

My main memories of “Faith of our Fathers” in my Glasgow childhood are of Celtic supporters singing it triumphantly / aggressively, especially at Rangers matches, and at school.

We used the Westminster Hymnal, and while teachers and girls obediently followed the words on the page, boys would amend the line to “Scot- land will then indeed be free”.

John Duffy
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Eastern Churches

I share Patriarch Sako’s disappointment with the Vatican (“Vatican fails to respect Eastern Church”, 8 November). I am a Chaldean and he is my patriarch. He is very intelligent (two doctorates) and loyal both to the Catholic Church and to his country, Iraq-Mesopotamia (“cradle of civilisation”), which received the Gospel from St Thomas the Apostle.

That’s how ancient the Chaldean Church of Iraq is, and that’s how ancient the other Christian Churches of the Middle East are. Hence, I support Sako’s call on Vatican officials to show more understanding and respect towards the eastern Churches.

(Dr) Joseph Seferta
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Speaking of relics

I smiled as I read the end of Fr Julian Shurgold’s recent letter (8 November). I have been a relics sceptic since the 1950s, when Sr Agnes Gertrude thrust handfuls of them into our pockets as we walked into an elocution exam.

I don’t remember anything about the exams, but I do know that those of us with whom I have contact after all these years still have excellent diction, whatever else has succumbed to the ravages of old age. I think though that this owes more to Sr A.G.’s skill as a teacher than to the efficacy of the relics.

Ruth Wood
Chepstow, Monmouthshire