Tidings

P: Is Pope Paul VI grievously ill? That recurrent question began circulating again in Rome after a visiting diplomat came away from a meeting with the Pope, worrying that his "sunken eyes presaged death within weeks." However, another recent visitor described the Pontiff, who turns 77 on Sept. 26, as "energetic and in full command." That assessment seemed to be bolstered by the Pope's appearance at last month's feast of the Assumption; he surefootedly negotiated the cobblestone streets near his summer villa at Castel Gandolfo to say Mass at a parish church. Rumors about Paul's health vary widely. Some reports hold that he has leukemia; others say that he suffers no more than pernicious anemia. In any event, the Pope appears to be actively considering the succession.

A document said to be in the works at the Vatican is expected to broaden the conclave of papal electors to include others besides cardinals: probably patriarchs of the Eastern Rite churches and perhaps representatives of the international Synod of Bishops. What is more, the traditionally "secret" conclave may be somewhat more open, with the voting prelates no longer locked up in the Vatican for the duration of the balloting.

P: New York Jesuit Joseph F. O'Rourke anticipated some sort of trouble when he went to Marlboro, Mass., recently to baptize the baby of Mrs. Carol Morreale (TIME, Sept. 2). Incensed by her advocacy of an abortion-information clinic, local priests had refused to perform the baptism, and O'Rourke stepped into the breach against orders from his immediate superior. Last week it was clear that the Jesuits took O'Rourke's disobedience much more seriously than he had expected: his New York provincial superior, the Very Rev.

Eamon G. Taylor, S.J., dismissed O'Rourke from the Society of Jesus.

Taylor insisted that his action "does not speak to" the abortion controversy in Marlboro, but reflected "differences of understanding and judgment" between O'Rourke and his superiors. Taylor stressed that he had decided on the dismissal (which had the approval of Jesuit headquarters in Rome) only after "careful review and discussion" with O'Rourke. But Father Frederick O'Connor, the superior who had originally ordered O'Rourke not to perform the baptism, wondered whether the young Jesuit had been given "ample opportunity and assistance to defend himself."

O'Rourke himself protested that O'Connor had not, in fact, forbidden him to baptize the child "under holy obedience" --the form of order usually used in grave matters. Moreover, he said, the dismissal procedures amounted to "almost a trial by Telex," and he intends to appeal the decision to the Vatican. Meantime, he remains a priest--if not a Jesuit--in good standing, though he must now find a bishop who will authorize him to exercise his priestly functions publicly.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.