Bishop Caines—Father Hagan: bishop and parish priest

Bishop Caines and Father Andrew Hagan’s relationship is tested by the events surrounding Alice Pagett: the bishop must oversee an investigation that could affect the whole diocese, while the parish priest faces its consequences at St. Joseph’s Church. They share a concern for caution, but differ over what caution requires. Bishop Caines seeks a disciplined inquiry and a managed public response; Father Andrew Hagan, troubled by the girl’s condition and the crowds around her, fears that the church and Alice herself are being drawn into something harmful.

Parish Priest and Diocesan Superior

Father Andrew Hagan serves as parish priest at St. Joseph’s Church, while Bishop Caines has the authority to direct the diocesan response to the reported cures. Their relationship therefore operates on two levels: a formal chain of responsibility and a pastoral partnership under pressure. The bishop recognizes that Hagan needs support after Alice’s first recovery attracts public attention. He assigns Monsignor Delgard to observe and guide the younger priest, help control any situation arising around Alice and her apparitions, and report back. The arrangement places Hagan under episcopal oversight, but it also indicates that Bishop Caines regards the parish priest as someone who should not be left to handle the crisis alone.

That oversight is not presented as simple distrust. Bishop Caines trusts Monsignor Delgard’s judgment and relies on him to bring order to an extraordinary situation; he also looks after Hagan’s immediate condition. When Hagan arrives looking pale and shaken, the bishop offers him brandy, noticing that his hand trembles as he takes the glass. The gesture sits alongside the hierarchy: Bishop Caines can direct the response, but he also sees the physical strain the events have placed on his priest.

Shared Caution, Different Urgencies

Both men resist treating the claims as established miracles. Earlier evidence supports the view that Alice’s deafness and muteness had psychological origins: examinations found no physical damage to the relevant organs. Father Andrew Hagan accepts that she can now hear and speak, but the medical explanation does not settle what caused the change. The unresolved question is whether the experience was self-induced or divine. Bishop Caines likewise insists that the case must be investigated before any judgment is made, emphasizing that the church’s guidelines are intended to guard against declaring miracles that later prove scientifically explicable.

Their agreement on the need for evidence conceals a difference in pace. Bishop Caines is prepared to convene the Conference of Bishops, involve the apostolic delegate, and bring the matter to the Pope’s attention, possibly for discussion at the next Synod in Rome. Father Andrew Hagan responds that this is moving too fast: there is no proof that Alice saw Our Lady or that the cures were miraculous. The bishop does not dismiss the objection; he answers that establishing precisely those points is the purpose of the inquiry. Their disagreement is thus less a contest between belief and disbelief than a dispute over how quickly church authority should organize itself around claims that remain uncertain.

Alice and the Question of Return

The sharpest personal conflict emerges over whether Alice should be allowed back to St. Joseph’s Church. Hagan argues that she should be kept away permanently, a striking change from the church’s place in her life: Alice has known it since childhood and is described as deeply attached to it. Bishop Caines rejects the proposal as impracticable and points out that the child has been found weeping in her room at the convent because she misses the church. In his view, exclusion would prolong her confinement and distress rather than offer a workable solution.

Hagan’s warning is urgent but not fully articulated. When pressed, he can only say that something about the situation does not feel right. Bishop Caines challenges him to explain his reluctance to accept the apparently wondrous events, making clear that doubts can be aired even with Gerry Fenn, a reporter, present. The exchange reveals different responsibilities toward Alice: Hagan is focused on the traumatic effect of her obsession and fears renewed exposure, while the bishop also weighs her attachment, ordinary childhood life, and the impossibility of keeping her shut away indefinitely. Neither man’s concern cancels the other’s; their disagreement exposes the difficulty of protecting Alice while responding to the public claims made around her.

Inquiry, Publicity, and the Limits of Authority

The bishop’s public handling of the case gives their relationship a broader institutional dimension. He announces that six alleged cures will be examined by a specially formed medical bureau and that its findings will go to the International Medical Committee. The bureau is to examine medical records, consult each person’s general practitioner and hospital, conduct its own examinations, and compile a dossier. It can assess whether a cure is medically inexplicable; it cannot determine whether divine intervention caused it. That spiritual judgment belongs to Bishop Caines and his advisers, and he states that the final decision on recognition rests with him as the bishop of the diocese.

This division of authority helps explain why Hagan’s insistence that there is no proof matters even within a process the bishop is actively advancing. The investigation is not yet a declaration, and its medical and spiritual judgments are deliberately separated. Bishop Caines also reveals that the Church has reached an agreement to purchase the field beside St. Joseph’s Church, connecting the practical management of the crowds and site to the formal inquiry. Hagan, meanwhile, objects that the church must not become a fairground. His fear concerns what public attention is doing to the parish, while the bishop’s response organizes that attention through procedure, oversight, and public statements.

Their relationship remains cooperative but strained: Hagan voices his reservations within a process Bishop Caines controls, and the bishop continues to hear and test those reservations rather than treating them as a final verdict. Together they represent two necessary but competing forms of responsibility—care for a parish and a vulnerable child, and accountability for claims the Church cannot responsibly endorse without investigation.