ANALISIS DE LA LEY DE CONTUMACIA – LEY N° 26641.

One of the most illuminating issues through which to consider the Holy See’s relationship with the Holy Land, with the various British authorities involved with Palestine, and with the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem as the diocesan bishop during the first part of the pontificate of Pope Pius XI, is the struggle over the appointment of a person of British birth as auxiliary bishop of Jerusalem to “assist” the Latin Patriarch, Monsignor Barlassina, in the discharge of his duties. That struggle demonstrate palpably that whilst the Holy See did attempt to accommodate the desires of the British Government over this matter, the Holy See is generally reluctant to interfere in the day to day affairs of one of its own diocesan bishops or to influence any bishop’s conduct within his own diocese and does so only in exceptional circumstances, as Pope Pius XI himself did when he rebuked Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna in 1938 following the Austrian Anschluss.

The Holy See had, since 1919, favoured the use of Father Paschal Robinson,125 a highly talented American Franciscan priest of Irish birth, in the conduct of inquiries regarding matters pertaining to the Holy Land. He enjoyed the confidence of Cardinal Gasparri at the Vatican’s Secretariat of State and had impressed the British authorities since their first encounters with him in Jerusalem after 1918. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, when considering Father Robinson’s correspondence and reports, that he was always eager to encourage the British authorities, and the Holy See, in the notion that his appointment as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem in replacement of Monsignor Barlassina would be in the best interests of both the Catholic Church generally and of the new British administration in Palestine. It seems doubtful that he was ever seriously interested in a subordinate role as either English- language secretary or auxiliary bishop to Monsignor Barlassina in Jerusalem, though he never appears to have clearly stated this and permitted the possibility of one of these events occurring to be discussed from time to time. However, his various very capable, subtle and diplomatic forays into the affairs of the Latin Patriarchate and

125

other Catholic Churches in the Holy Land fostered a view that an “Englishman” holding episcopal office in the Latin Catholic Church in the diocese of Jerusalem could do much to help smooth the three-way relationship between the British Government, the Holy See and the Latin Patriarchate. The British Government, at as senior a level as Marquess Curzon himself, actively desired and sought this outcome. The Holy See, at the level of its Secretary of State and even of the Pope himself, was willing to accommodate Britain’s reasonable aspirations in this regard. The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Bourne, very actively championed this cause. The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Monsignor Barlassina, worked relentlessly to avoid this manifestation of interference in his authority by both the Holy See and the British Government. Whilst he was not ultimately able to prevent an Englishman from being appointed as his auxiliary bishop he was able to thwart Robinson’s appointment and then to undermine from the outset the position of the unsuspecting appointee and reduce his position to a nullity, finally driving him into impoverished exile in the north of England. The whole adventure brought no apparant benefits either to Great Britain or to the Holy See other than for the latter to be seen to have accommodated the British request to make this appointment.

The campaign to appoint an English-speaking auxiliary bishop in Jerusalem was well underway by the middle of 1922 when Father Robinson wrote from Rome to Mr Shane Leslie,126 a socially prominent Anglo-Irish Catholic layman, on 25 June 1922 to concur with Leslie about the desirability of Monsignor Barlassina being replaced in Jerusalem but opining that this did not appear possible at that time:

The Holy Father himself told me so. What is all important, therefore, in my opinion, is to secure the appointment of an English-speaking auxiliary who could act as an “officier de liaison” when questions arise between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities. I have reason to know that both the English Cardinals [Bourne and Gasquet] recently spoke to the Pope and the Secretary of State in favour of such an arrangement and that there was no objection

126

made whatever on the part of the Holy See. Quite the contrary. It only remains, therefore, for the Foreign Office to take up the matter without further delay.127

The Colonial Office file notes show that “Father Robinson wishes to be auxiliary bishop of Jerusalem” but that “Barlassina is opposed to an English auxiliary bishop”.128 The evidence supports the conclusion that Robinson was subtly lobbying to be appointed auxiliary bishop with a view to being soon thereafter appointed Latin Patriarch in succession to Barlassina.

Cardinal Archbishop Bourne of Westminster initiated his own campaign to have Robinson made Secretary to Monsignor Barlassina and “liaison officer” between the British administration in Palestine and the Latin Patriarchate in late July of 1922. Bourne had recently met Robinson in London when the latter accompanied Monsignor Cerretti, Apostolic Nuncio to France, for meetings regarding the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.129 Mr Ronald Storrs, Governor of Jerusalem, became one of the key drivers of this strategy, telephoning a senior official in the Colonial Office on 28 July 1922 “to say that Mgr Cerretti and Cardinal Bourne are prepared to support all action towards the appointment of an English Auxiliary Bishop in the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem”. He went on to say that the Colonial Office must do two things to support this cause, firstly, to put forward the name of Father Robinson for the office, and secondly, to get the Foreign Office “to press Count de Salis to take up the matter vigorously at the Vatican”.130 The Colonial Office then consulted the Foreign Office as to “whether Father Paschal Robinson would make a good Auxiliary Bishop and also whether the support of Monsignor Cerretti and Cardinal Bourne is likely to be sufficiently strong for us to have some prospect of

127

G.1.6.4. CO 733/31, ff.54-55, Letter of 25 June 1922 from Father Paschal Robinson to Mr Shane