Who Do The People Say He Is?

I would like to devote another post to St Thomas Becket, if I may, following on from yesterday's. One of the interesting aspects of Thomas's life was how the ordinary people of England saw him. As you read through the hagiographical lives, the various letters and documents, you hear of the opinion many of the great and good had of him in the years of his chancellorship, ministry as archbishop, exile and assassination victim. There were those who admired him, but for the most part officials of the kingdom and Church found him to be a difficult man. 

King Henry's view is all too well known - by the way, there is no evidence that he ever said, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" Given his own conflicted personality, Henry loved him then hated him, then wept for him after the killing and, later, prayed to him in his troubles, proving a grateful client when those prayers were answered. Other officials at the royal court saw him as a troublemaker, he made life difficult for them. Things were no different in the Church: some of the bishops admired him, others were furious with him. Then there were a few who conspired against him and among them, there were one or two who may well have had a part in his killing. Pope Alexander II, desperately trying to hold on to the papal throne, was up and down in his reactions to the archbishop, but in his heart he realised that Thomas was indeed a true son of the Church, even if he was a flawed one. But what about the ordinary faithful?

When Thomas was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury he was universally seen as the king's candidate, a lackey. When he decided to go his own way and assert the Church's rights and tried to consolidate her assets for the good of the Church, people may well have been taken aback - they were not expecting this. Thomas made enemies as he sought to take back Church lands which had been usurped by tenants and unscrupulous landowners - things had been lax towards the end of his predecessor's administration: Theobald had been taken up with ending a civil war in England. Some of Thomas's enemies would have a had in his killing. However, it seems the ordinary faithful, who carefully observe their pastors, may well have been pleased with what they saw and held out hope for the future.

One interesting insight into people's view of him before his exile emerges from his last stand with Henry II at Northampton in October 1164. Following another row, Thomas fled Northampton Castle in a very dramatic manner, and as he left angry barons and bishops behind him, some of the denizens of the area were cheering the archbishop as he rode furiously across the countryside heading for exile. At that stage, for all his great work, Henry was gaining a reputation of being a bit of a tyrant and the archbishop seemed to be the one who was an obstacle to the king's ambitions. If this is true, then Henry's subsequent exile of hundreds of Thomas's family members, friends and allies may well have confirmed the people's view of their king. 

By the time Thomas returned to England on the 1st December 1170, he was regarded as a hero by the ordinary faithful. Crowds welcomed him to the shores of England, crowds came out to meet him as he made his way to Canterbury, and when he came to his city, official delegations and the denizens of the city greeted him at the gate, held a banquet in his honour and accompanied him to his cathedral where he sat on his cathedra for the first time in six years. When he decided to visit London in the middle of December he was, again, greeted by crowds and official delegations - he was a Londoner. This adulation and expression of support proved problematic for Thomas because Henry and his officials feared that, now that he had the people of England on his side, the archbishop could stage a coup. This fear led the young king Henry, Henry II's son, to refuse Thomas's request for a meeting and order the archbishop to return to Canterbury and remain there. There could be no doubt, Thomas had the hearts of the people.

Thomas's assassination cemented this adulation. On Christmas Day, 1170, huge crowds had gathered in the cathedral for his Mass, there he prepared them for what was to come - a wave of dismay swept over the congregation. On the evening of his martyrdom, there was a congregation present for Vespers, they would witness the martyrdom and become the nucleus for the veneration which ensued. As his body lay on the paving stones of the cathedral, the people had rushed to him and had to be restrained by the monks from touching it. It was in those moments that his blood was soaked up by clothes and collected in bottles, these relics would be distributed throughout England and become instrumental in the miracles that followed. Devotion grew very quickly. As the cathedral was closed, it was now desecrated and had to be purified and rededicated, people waited at the doors for it to be opened so they could go to the archbishop's tomb. It took some time for the cathedral to be reopened, but as soon as it was, the people headed for the crypt and Thomas's tomb and vigil of the faithful began; only Henry VIII's destruction of the shrine in 1538 would end it, though the faithful continued to invoke Thomas, and do so to this day.

As I mentioned yesterday, as the ordinary faithful turned to Thomas and invoked him, gathering around his tomb, king, barons, bishops, church and civil officials were confused. They could not understand where this veneration was coming from. They knew Thomas as an ambitious and troublesome man, one who disobeyed his king, put the Church and his bishops at risk, disturbed the peace of the kingdom - surely this man was no saint. But why the devotion? Why the miracles? Had God gone stark raving mad? In reality, they missed something, they did not see that, in the heat of battle and in the fires of humiliation, Thomas was changing: there was a side to him they could not see. That may have been so, if Thomas had a hidden life, it could be said, it was hidden, they could not be expected to notice it. However, the ordinary faithful saw it, or at least caught a sense of it, even before the martyrdom. This is one of the things I find most interesting in the life of Thomas of Canterbury: those in power failed to see God at work but the simple faithful did. That is an important lesson for all of us, particularly for those in authority, and most especially those in ecclesiastical authority.

In the midst of the dispute, the simple faithful who look to their pastors, could see God at work in Thomas, their simple, virtuous lives opened them up to a knowledge their pastors did not have. Theologians would call this knowledge through connaturality. Open to the Holy Spirit, they can see a saintly life unfold before them; the Holy Spirit speaks to them and guides them. This might remind you of another work of the Spirit in the midst of the people of God, that of the sensus fidelium - the 'sense of the faithful'. In history we have seen this sensus at work many times in the Church, the most famous example being the Arian crisis when bishops and priests became Arian but the people remained orthodox. Moving from the knowledge through connaturality as manifested in the devotion of the people to St Thomas, we might just reflect for a moment on the sensus fidelium given its importance in the life of the Church.

The sensus fidelium, as you know, is the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church whereby the faithful manifest consent on matters of faith and morals, they know the truth of the faith and sense, even if they cannot explain it in sophisticated theological terms, when something is not right. As a priest I have encountered it many times as people, many uneducated in theology, will ask me about certain issues and problems and will inevitably identify what is wrong. On a number of occasions I have had someone say to me: 'Father, I just have a sense that that is not right'. That's it. We see this at work as people look to their clergy, they can spot the ones whose teaching is just be a bit off, and those who are solid. One thing we need to bear in mind when discussing the sensus fidelium, is that it is the sense of the faithful, not of those who reject or dispute the faith, that sense cannot find a home in those who embrace ideas or actions that are contrary to the Gospel or moral teaching of Christ and his Church. That is why we must be very wary of polls.

As I mentioned above, I have encountered this sense many times in my ministry, and I believe it is being manifested today as the faithful respond to the crisis that is enveloping the Church. Very often these members of the Church are ignored and dismissed; they would be regarded as the 'pray and pay' brigade who are meant to stay silent as the pastors get on with their work and often take advice from people whose views would not reflect the sensus fidelium at all. As a priest I have seen that too often. What is happening now, as some of our bishops and clergy hurl the Church into an ever deeper crisis, the ordinary faithful, the 'pray and pay' brigade are intensifying their prayer and are no longer paying. I think that may well be a manifestation of the sensus: if the pastors are unwilling to listen, take action in the face of obscenity and infidelity, or engage in it themselves, then the people will withdraw their support. Perhaps I may be wrong in this, but I see this as a type of famine that God will inflict on the Church through the action of his faithful. As we see in Scripture, when the leaders did not listen to God, famine was sent; the contemporary famine may be an increasing shortage of funds - poverty might bring some back to their senses. Interestingly, in the life of St Thomas, poverty and suffering had a part in deepening his conversion.

I believe we are seeing an increase in the manifestation of this sense in recent times, and I think the Second Vatican Council not only foresaw it but encouraged it. The council has often been called the council of the laity. Among its main aims was to reiterate the universal call to holiness and encourage the lay faithful to take their place in the mission and ministry of the Church. Now, it should go without saying, the council never envisaged the laity taking up the role of the clergy, occupying the sanctuary and presiding over the liturgy - that is not their role. As a cardinal said to me a number of years ago, one of the reasons evangelisation has been so slow to get going was because many of the laity had abandoned their area of mission to populate the sanctuary. He was correct. The laity and their mission is vital to the Church, but they are to be out in the world evangelising. To help us understand how this is to be done the Church offers, among other things, the example of the saints, in particular those in the early Church who collaborated with the apostles in bringing the Gospel from Jerusalem to all parts of the Roman empire. In this mission, the sensus fidelium has a part to play.

Now, I am aware that many dispute Vatican II, particularly Traditionalists, and yet, perhaps unknown to them, they are fulfilling what the council called on them to do: they are standing up and taking their place in the Church, proclaiming the Gospel, the truths of the faith and, like the faithful during the Arian crisis, calling their pastors back to fidelity. I believe the age of lay evangelisation has come, or more correctly, come again in earnest. Our bishops and priests must fulfil their proper role as clergy, so too our religious, but our laity must play their part, not populating the sanctuary and certainly not hidden away in private life, but out in the world as collaborators of the apostles moving the New Evangelisation forward. Professing the fullness of the faith, they can be trusted; these are the ones who recognised the holiness of Thomas Becket and led their pastors to see it. Of course, the pastors of the Church must ensure the laity have what they need to carry out their mission, in particular solid food when it comes to teaching and spirituality. In this, the lay faithful may have to exercise some pressure to ensure their clergy are faithful and committed to faithfully handing on what Christ and his apostles have taught.

If the laity are ahead of the clergy in this, in their orthodoxy and their desire for holiness, then it is not the first time. The devotion of the faithful with the miracles of God had to work on the bishops and clergy of England following the martyrdom of Thomas Becket, the devotion of the faithful and the work of God may have to do the same again in these first decades of the 21st century. May St Thomas, who proved to be a true friend to the laity of the Church, continue his work among us and assist the faithful in living their faith and proclaiming it in these difficult times.