A new Pope needs to visit Scotland and wake up our sleepy bishops
Thank God the Protestant Reformation came along to introduce a bit of order and rectitude to this Roman bacchanal.
Following the Reformation in Scotland, it took another three centuries or so for the Scottish Catholic hierarchy to be restored. And, having learned its lesson, the new Scottish Catholic church seemed a bit less inclined towards its old medieval theatricality and corruption For a few decades it would be heavily influenced by Ireland from where many of the missionary priests came across to help us get back on our feet.
Read more
By the time Pope John Paul II paid us a visit in 1982, the Catholic Church in this country was most decidedly Scottish. Moreover, its prelates were, as one old newspaper journalist put it, 'either punters or the sons of punters'. They were all rooted in the communities which reared them and conveyed the authority of Rome with reassuringly working-class cadences. You could have a drink with them.
During that golden age of the Catholic Church in Scotland its main figurehead was Archbishop then Cardinal Thomas Winning before his death in 2001. The Cardinal was a charismatic and no-nonsense son of a Wishaw miner who bore his eminence lightly. He also seemed to take every criticism of the Catholic Church personally.
Him and his lugubrious aide de camp, Monsignor Tom Connelly, were regular visitors to every newspaper and broadcast outlet in Scotland where they'd discuss the church's position on the matters of the day with assorted editors and executives. Whisky would be taken.
No political and social issue was considered out of bounds by Cardinal Winning. He once phoned me personally on the old Herald news desk to express his fury at what he considered the racist abuse of refugees in the north of Glasgow. 'Can we get this story to ourselves,' I asked him. 'Only if you promise to make it the splash,' he replied.
He defended Scotland's Catholic schools as though his very life depended on it, arguing that they were centres of excellence which raised the expectations of families in some of Scotland's most deprived communities.
He also rebuked the Labour Party in Scotland for taking its large cohort of Catholic voters for granted and laid the groundwork for their migration to the SNP by courting Alex Salmond.
Read more
The Scottish Catholic hierarchy's relationship with Rome since then has tended to proceed on a 'steady-as-she-goes' basis. So long as the schools are being protected and the activities of swivel-eyed, Latin Mass fanatics are kept at a safe distance we can all be left in peace to make our daily compromises with the secular state.
Lately though, the dynamic has shifted in the hierarchy. As Pope Francis embraced the world and all of its peoples and their human concerns, the Scottish Catholic church has curiously retreated into an exclusive, platinum lounge version of itself.
Last year, its widely-respected and long-serving Press Officer departed quietly. There are no current plans to replace him. For the first time in many decades, the Church has no official relationship with the media.
There's also been a resurgence of media and political attacks on Catholic schools as some bad actors in civic Scotland seem to have sensed that the bishops are asleep at the wheel. Catholic teachers are desperately seeking guidance on how to maintain authentic Catholic values as they face pressure to succumb to gender ideology. The Scottish Catholic Education Service (SCES) is woefully unfit for purpose. In the university sector, some Catholic academics are beginning to feel heat for upholding their faith-based beliefs.
Earlier this year, I attended the annual Cardinal Winning Lecture, organised by the St Andrews teaching foundation for Catholic education. This is normally an opportunity to hear the thoughts of political leaders and global academics on the faith/society interface.
This year's event was a depressing affair, featuring eight (or maybe nine) academics and Catholic panjandrums all telling each other how grand life was. The only permitted question from the floor was a long, self-satisfied statement of the obvious from Archbishop Leo Cushley. It was, quite literally, a waste of everyone's time.
A few years ago, a group of lay people in the archdiocese of Edinburgh were effectively ordered to cease their activities simply because they'd asked why some recent senior appointments had been filled by priests belonging to a little-known society of Opus Dei types.
When Francis' successor is elected, he'd do well to make another visit to Scotland. The Scottish bishops are all good men who have worked hard to restore the church's reputation following its lamentable cover-up of historical, sexual abuse. Right now though, their assorted eminences could be doing with a gentle wake up call.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
At last the ‘Iron Chancellor' has turned, but the cost could be fatal
While Rachel Reeves has often invoked the soviet nickname embraced by Baroness Thatcher, she has typically struggled to live up to the 'Iron Chancellor' moniker she craved. Where Thatcher declared 'the lady's not for turning', Reeves has more frequently been found flip-flopping. We now have details of the latest volte-face, and a rough value has been ascribed to the political capital Labour burnt during its first major fiscal event. The price of all goodwill afforded to a new government? £450m, or 0.05pc of the total tax take. Since the winter fuel payment was first scrapped for all pensioners except those in receipt of pension credit, we've been patiently expecting this about-turn, which doesn't scream confidence in government policy. At midday yesterday, HM Treasury confirmed that a new arbitrary figure had been laid down to determine the deserving/undeserving old, this time set at £35,000. Those below this line of personal income will be entitled to £200 per household (up to £300 if all residents are over 80), while those above it are not entitled to keep the money. Yes, that is a personal income allowance to judge a household payment. On £35,001 and live alone? Not a penny. Two of you on £35,000 for a total household income of £70,000? The full amount. One of you above and one below? The payment will be split, and the one earning above the threshold will have to pay theirs back. Will it rise in line with the triple lock? No clue. Where does £35,000 come from as a limit? Well it's less than average earnings and nowhere near any tax bracket, so answers on a postcard please. Will the Government ensure only those entitled to the benefit receive it? No. It will be paid to all and clawed back through PAYE or self-assessment tax returns. Sound complicated? It sure does – and complicated generally means expensive administration. High street accountancy firms will leap on the confusion, but I'm not sure this is the productivity boost Reeves dreamed of. So far, nobody has cobbled together any estimates for how much this system will cost HMRC to develop and implement, but it's not zero. Don't forget, the previous eligibility criterion of being a pension credit recipient has already sparked its own costs. According to former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb, the flurry of new applicants has already added a £200m annual cost, reducing the benefit to Treasury coffers to just £250m, not £450m, before any admin costs are factored in. That's 0.03pc of the total tax take. He explained: 'These changes wipe out most of the extra revenue which the Government was expecting to get from the winter fuel payment policy. 'Not only has the Government knocked more than a billion pounds off the expected revenue but it has also had to find more than £200m per year extra because of the surge in pension credit claims. 'Overall, the amount raised looks tiny relative to the political damage which the whole episode has caused to the Government.' But it's not just political damage – in the immediate wake of the news, gilt yields rose. Certainly, some element of this is simply factoring in the lower revenues the Government can now expect, but more critically, it is shifting perceptions. The long shadow of Liz Truss's mini-Budget continues to haunt Labour, and they are likely to be undone by their own political spin. Reeves et al oversimplified what happened in September 2022 and tied their hands in the process. Changing policy is a natural part of government and waiting for the next Budget isn't always possible, but when you tell the nation (and markets) that it's fiscally irresponsible to do so, you cannot be surprised when eyebrows are raised. Reeves's Spring Statement already effectively broke her promise of one major fiscal event per year – yesterday's revelation has broken most of the others. The policy is not accompanied by an Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast (although one is promised for the next Budget), and weren't we told the cut was necessary to fill the black hole? Before the changes, ING's James Smith, a developed market economist focused on the UK, had already predicted that Reeves would have no fiscal headroom – now she'll miss it by at least another £1.25bn. With the two-child benefit cap also likely to be axed, which will add another £3.5bn to the outgoings side of the balance sheet, not to mention the £17bn cost of boosting defence spending to 3pc, Reeves is more likely to have a sore neck than any headroom. But the Chancellor keeps painting herself into a corner – she has once again recommitted herself to not raising income tax, National Insurance or VAT. She has doubled down on her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules and respect for the OBR, forcing her to fiddle with the margins every time the bond markets hiccup. We'll have to wait and see what happens with Wednesday's spending review, but something will have to give soon, and it's looking more likely than ever that it will be Reeves.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
In limbo: families hoping for change to UK income rules for spousal visas
Three weeks ago, Keir Starmer said the UK was at risk of becoming an 'island of strangers'. But for countless British citizens across the country, that isolation is already a lived reality by design of immigration rules that force them to choose between their homeland and family. The minimum income requirement dictates how much a person needs to earn in order to bring their non-British partner here. Set at £18,600 for a decade, the Conservatives announced plans to raise it dramatically to £38,700 before backtracking after a public backlash, instead moving it in three gradual stages starting with £29,000 in April last year. David Kitenda (left) with his children Naomi and Daniel and wife Rebecca. Kitenda says the income threshold has made him feel unwelcome: 'It feels like another way of stopping people of certain other backgrounds.' The threshold of £29,000 was temporarily frozen by Labour upon taking office. The government has asked the migration advisory committee to review the policy and its findings are expected imminently. What the government does, or does not do, with the results has the potential to drastically transform family life for those separated by the threshold. It could reunite children with missing parents, end enforced single parenthood, enable couples to begin families and end years of living in limbo. Camille Auclair and Moisés Álvarez Jiménez met in Mexico in 2017 and two years later they were married. The couple temporarily settled in Mexico in the knowledge they would eventually move to the UK. But in 2019, Auclair became severely unwell after undiagnosed pelvic actinomycosis devastated her immune system, leading to two hospitalisations within six months. Camille Auclair and Moisés Álvarez Jiménez at their home in Mexico. But another shock came the following year when she was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency, meaning her chance to start a family could be ending fast at just 28 years old. Her condition triggered a pressing need to return home – not only to be closer to family, but with the added urgency of wanting to start her own. 'I was faced with a timeline. I was essentially told, if you ever want to have children, you're probably going to have to have it facilitated with fertility care,' she said. She spoke to an NHS doctor who said someone with her condition would be eligible for fertility treatment but that she would have to use an anonymous sperm donor, as her Mexican husband was ineligible for NHS treatment until he gained residency. For an emerging artist living in Mexico, reaching the £18,600 threshold was already a challenge, only exacerbated by her health. But nonetheless, Auclair was on track to make it – until the bar was abruptly raised to £29,000 in 2023. The couple's chance of having children in the UK ended in an instant. By the time she would be earning enough, conception would be too difficult. 'Can you imagine someone saying to me in 20 years' time: 'You never had children – why?' And I say: 'Well, because I didn't make enough money for the UK government to approve my husband coming to my country with me,'' said Auclair. 'I want the option of having a child in my country, but I don't want it to be with a stranger. Yes, I could move to the UK alone, quit my career and try to find a job that pays enough, but at what cost? It's my whole life we're talking about, everything I've worked for.' The couple say the threshold is yet another example of how UK policy discriminates based on race and class. Acknowledging that has been painful, for Jiménez in particular. 'It's honestly demoralising and dehumanising. It makes me feel terrible. It has even made me resent the place I come from. And that's a terrible, terrible feeling,' he said. 'For us to come to Mexico, it was so easy. My country was so welcoming to her.' Leighton Allen, 29, is not earning enough to bring his two sons and wife over from Tanzania. Instead, he sees them once or twice a year and is watching them grow up through his phone. Last time he visited, his son did not recognise him. 'I'm the person in the phone,' he said. 'It hit me quite hard.' Rights groups campaigning to end the threshold, such as Reunite Families UK and Cram, say one of the most troubling things about the policy is how it discriminates against women, people of colour, and working-class families. They say that falling in love and starting a family with someone is a spontaneous experience, one that people seldom have control over – but the Home Office policy effectively demands it to be otherwise. Gemma and Lizzie managed to meet the threshold before it increased to £29,000, but application and renewal costs have totalled £12,230 so far. The uncertainty and renewal fees have halted their dream of fostering a child in the UK. Another troubling aspect is that many assume that bringing their partner to the UK is an intrinsic right, and do not realise the threshold exists until after they have committed to someone and started their family. One of those is Lisa Young*, 31, who was five months pregnant when she found out about the threshold and eight months pregnant when it was increased to £29,000. With her due date around the corner, she realised she would have to make a choice – raise her child alone in the UK and rely on state benefits, or stay in Japan with her husband. Her husband watched as she was forced into an unbearable choice. 'He said you can stay here,' Young said. 'And I said, but I can't. I can't do this without you. I don't want to do this without you.' Lisa Young* photographed with her young daughter. Young was forced into exile, leaving her to face motherhood alone in a remote Japanese town built to house the families of factory employees, where her husband worked shifts. The isolation has taken a serious toll on her mental health. 'But at least Japan took me with open arms,' she said. Her spouse visa there cost £20, compared with the UK's £4,525 for applications made outside the country. She has been reaching out to online support groups of other British citizens who do not earn enough to bring their partners to the UK, with their separation made more painful by the fact that their partners' income does not initially count towards the threshold. The overwhelming majority, she says, are women, and their main reason for not being able to meet the threshold is because they have children. 'Sometimes I feel like I don't even want to live in the UK because they are so anti-family, they are so sexist, they're so racist, and so misogynistic at a policy level. But obviously I want things to change. I want to have the right for me and my family to return home. 'If Labour really were the party for working people, ordinary working people, then they wouldn't keep a policy that discriminates based on economic class.' David and Macsen Lewis photographed at their home in Newport in early May after two and a half years of separation from Lucy, Macsen's mother. Just a week ago, Lucy was able to join her family in the UK for the first time. But it is not just women who feel the brunt of this policy, it is also children and fathers. When David Lewis's elderly mother's declining health forced him to return to the UK, he found himself navigating single parenthood, bringing his four-year-old son Macsen with him and leaving his wife, Lucy, behind in Kenya. As a carer, Lewis had been assured he would be exempt from the income requirement and could sponsor his wife's visa to join them. He expected the reunion to take three or four months at most. Instead, it stretched to 28 months – nearly two and a half years – after the Home Office informed him that carers must provide care for two years before qualifying to bring their partners to the UK. Lucy has finally joined her husband and son, but the couple believe the prolonged separation has had a lasting impact on Macsen. Initially angry and guarded after his mother's absence, he has become withdrawn and emotionally distant. 'The mother is the most important thing in the life of all developing young people, and that was something he didn't have,' said Lewis. 'Everything changed about him.' From left: nine-year-old Tariq, Jessica, six-year-old Layla and Sanas photographed at their home in Newcastle. The right to family life in the UK is protected under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which means those who do not qualify to bring their partners here can apply for exceptional circumstances, though such requests are commonly rejected even in cases where people meet the criteria – as happened to Jessica and Sanas. Sanas, from Sri Lanka, was only able to join his family after he and Jessica went public about their separation and overturned the Home Office's initial rejection. At that time, the UK government had issued a travel warning for Britons visiting Sri Lanka as it endured economic collapse, with severe shortages of necessities such as fuel, food and medicine. Jessica and Sanas spent 11 months apart and say the separation had a lasting impact on their 10-year-old son, Tariq, as well as the entire family's sense of stability. 'He lives with a feeling that his father could be taken away from him,' Jessica said. 'We can't ever really relax. We're always waiting for the next [policy] change.' After surviving a violent carjacking in Brazil, Raquel moved back to her home town in Havant, Hampshire, with her two sons for safety. But despite earning £23,000, high childcare costs and visa fees mean her husband, Manoel, remains separated from the family apart from temporary tourist visits that are only affordable because of the modelling careers of their two sons, Jaime and Emanoel. 'Black clouds hang above us all,' said Raquel. 'The storm abates but never fully passes.' The review comes as Labour faces pressure to appease the right, compromising the values the party once campaigned for. In its 2017 manifesto, Labour vowed to abolish the threshold and proposed replacing it with a requirement that families demonstrate they can live without recourse to public funds. And yet, in its recent immigration white paper, the government announced plans to crack down on legal migration routes, with families a target area despite previous pledges. From his home in Newport, Lewis said he felt like he and countless others were being scapegoated and legal migration had become a bargaining chip. 'There is so much good that comes from legal migration and they are demonising it because they have to be seen to be doing something.' Now that Lucy is here, she cannot qualify for benefits, and yet Lewis believes there is a widespread assumption that it costs taxpayers for her to be here. 'If something happened and she had no income and no way of supporting herself, she would be on her own.' Roksana Aung and her son Alexander, eight, photographed at their home in Cardiff. 'But because I am British, my son has no father and I have no husband,' said Roksana. Roksana Aung is a single mother who has lived alone on a remote Cardiff estate since 2017 with her eight-year-old son, Alexander. Aung cannot work because of her chronic illness, fibromyalgia and post-traumatic stress disorder, and receives benefits and care support. Her husband, Nay Lin Aung, is an undocumented migrant from Myanmar. The pair met when working together in Thailand; he was the captain of a scuba boat, and she dealt with the tourists. After Aung's Thai visa ran out, the three of them tried living in Myanmar but the fighting became too intense – prompting Aung to return to the UK and Nay Lin Aung to flee to Malaysia. Despite meeting the criteria for exceptional circumstances, there are no viable pathways in the UK immigration system to accommodate undocumented migrants such as Nay Lin Aung through spousal visas. The rules say he must make an application from his country of origin, which is now in a state of civil war. If Nay Lin Aung were able to join his family, it would mean Aung would no longer have to claim benefits or need care support. 'But because I am British, my son has no father and I have no husband,' she said. When asked what she would like to see happen, Aung said 'he could ask for a visa, board the plane, and come here', and then sighed. 'Wouldn't that be nice.' *Lisa Young declined to give her real name. *Jessica and Sanas declined to give their surname.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Labour leader praises new MSP Davy Russell
Anas Sarwar says the party's newest politician will "put his community first" after his surprise by-election win Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar praised new MSP Davy Russell for his constituency-focused campaign as he registered a surprise win in the Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse by-election to become the party's newest MSP. Mr Sarwar and deputy Dame Jackie Baillie were both in attendance at the count at South Lanarkshire Council's headquarters as Mr Russell claimed the seat with a 602-vote majority over the SNP; with the Labour leader saying the area's new representative will 'embed himself in the community'. Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer also congratulated Mr Russell on his 'fantastic victory' as he got set to head to Holyrood; while council leader Joe Fagan says the new MSP will work with the local authority on projects including the Hamilton town centre masterplan and new Larkhall leisure centre. Mr Sarwar said local voters had 'laid the first stone in the pathway to electing a Scottish Labour government next year', and told the Hamilton Advertiser: 'It's important that I reflect on not just the result but on the many conversations I had on the doorsteps in Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, and there are three things that came across from people here. 'One is they do want a UK Labour government to demonstrate more quickly a positive difference in their lives; secondly, they are done with an SNP government that has done so much damage to our country for the last 18 years; and third, they have rejected the poisonous politics of Nigel Farage and Reform.' He said of Mr Russell: 'He deserves immense credit – to take the personal attacks on the chin and still remain so resolute in doing the work needed to make sure we won this by election was phenomenal. I always thought there was an element of classism and elitism in some of the attacks that were made on him and ultimately, he has done his friends and his neighbours proud by winning this by-election. 'Davy will be as an MSP be what he has been in this campaign and what he has been for many years, which is someone who's going to put his community first. He's going to embed himself in this community, he's going to listen, he's going to reflect their concerns, he's going to work really hard for them.' The Labour leader added: '[The campaign] demonstrates that [next year] there will be noise from Reform, there'll be misinformation from the SNP, but ultimately if you want to improve our country, you want to change our country, only Scottish Labour can beat the SNP. Sir Keir Starmer posted congratulations on X, telling the new MSP: 'I look forward to working with you' and saying: 'People in Scotland have once again voted for change. Next year there is a chance to turbocharge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border.' Mr Sarwar told the Sunday Mail: 'I have never experienced a campaign in my life where the national commentariat was so alien from what the reality was on the ground. 'Despite people making very silly comments about how Davy talks or how he acts, he kept strong, he kept his feet on the ground and he kept working hard. That only further endeared him to his neighbours, friends and his own community, rather than pushed him further away.' South Lanarkshire Council leader Joe Fagan welcomed the area's new MSP, saying: 'The people of this constituency elected an authentic local champion, who is willing to work with the council to take forward the masterplan for Hamilton town centre and the new Larkhall leisure centre, and who will fight to get a fairer funding deal for councils and communities neglected by the current Scottish Government. 'Davy is not a politician, he had never stood for election before but he wants to give something back to his community and clearly that meant something to thousands of voters across Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse. He and the Labour team proved the pundits wrong and delivered a hard-won victory. 'Frustration with politics pushed some people to make a protest vote but it made others reflect on what matters most to them and vote for a genuine, local man in touch with their priorities.' He also criticised the SNP campaign, calling it 'thoroughly dishonourable', saying: 'They asserted Labour had given up when Labour was winning. They talked up the prospects of third-placed Reform – a party they regard as being of the toxic hard right – for their own ends. They criticised decisions made by the council to balance the books, knowing that £480 million of real-terms cuts to South Lanarkshire by their own government was the root cause of the problem.' * Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here. And did you know Lanarkshire Live is on Facebook? Head on over and give us a like and share!
