An extract from my Christmas Morning Homily

And he dwelt among us.  Literally, in the Greek, it says, he set up His tent among us.  He threw his lot in with us.  It wasn’t just that he passed through – making an appearance and then vanishing like a shooting-star making its way across the heavens.  That would make the Incarnation, the Word becoming Flesh, a wonder – something to be commemorated, but not the mystery we celebrate today.  No, He became one of our tribe in such a way that our sufferings are His sufferings, our victories are His victories.  When he ascends to the right hand of the Father, it is not to abandon us, but rather, to lead us on that same journey.  The manner of His coming shows what He intends.  He wasn’t born in a palace or behind closed doors.  He wasn’t insulated from the hardships of life.  He came among us in a stable where poor shepherds and wise Kings found an equal welcome.  He came to us as a child – so that instead of putting fear into our hearts, He might draw love out of them instead. 

To all who did accept Him, he gave power to become children of God.  That is why we rejoice today.  He didn’t just come among us as a teacher or a guide.  He came to transform us – to make us children of God.  Beginning with the love and wonder we feel when we gaze on Him in the Nativity scene, He wants to transform our entire being – to turn our hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, to bind up our wounds, to give us the strength to walk righteously and to restore our friendship with the Father.  This day, we see the Saviour who has come to search for us, the one who wants to spend time with us.  Come, therefore, and let us find him.  Let us adore Him who is so great.  Let us spend time with Him in prayer.  Let us receive Him in the Eucharist.  Let us know His reconciliation.  Let us see his Glory and learn from his humility.  Let us welcome the One who is the true light.

The mask slips...

From Saturday's Irish Times, Senator Joe O'Toole displays his anti-Catholic bigotry:

“One mention of pregnancy termination and the church leadership is galvanised into action. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should be asked to send a cable to Armagh on where it is we stand, and let the cobbler stick to his last. They can do the praying up there and we’ll do the legislating down here, thanks very much.”
As John Hanafin (FF) had stated, we were an independent republic, and we would do our own business, added Mr O’Toole. “We won’t be lectured to by any fundamentalist whether he is wearing a red hat in Armagh or a white hat in the Vatican . . . This is not an issue of abortion. This is an issue of protecting pregnant women whose lives are in danger.

One wonders whether such discourse about any other religious group would be tolerated? That reference to the Minister of Foreign Affairs sending a cable to the North betrays a less than respectful attitude to our brethern on the other side of the border. One wonders whether Senator O'Toole also has a gripe about the fact that our current President is a Northerner? (I could also be pedantic and point out that Cardinal Brady is a Southerner by birth and that his diocese straddles the border.)
Pope Benedict very presciently noted last week:

There also exist – as I have said – more sophisticated forms of hostility to religion which, in Western countries, occasionally find expression in a denial of history and the rejection of religious symbols which reflect the identity and the culture of the majority of citizens. Often these forms of hostility also foster hatred and prejudice; they are inconsistent with a serene and balanced vision of pluralism and the secularity of institutions, to say nothing of the fact that coming generations risk losing contact with the priceless spiritual heritage of their countries.
[snip]
I also express my hope that in the West, and especially in Europe, there will be an end to hostility and prejudice against Christians because they are resolved to orient their lives in a way consistent with the values and principles expressed in the Gospel.

Catholics should expect more of this. Don't let the politicians get away with it.

A curate's egg from the Irish Catholic...

The editorial in the Irish Catholic is somewhat of a mixed bag this week - Garry O'Sullivan does make a good point about the usefulness of a more visible act of penance on behalf of the Irish hierarchy.
However, his rather unfocussed anger draws in a whole range of other issues which muddy the waters significantly and which generate a lot of unnecessary heat.
I'm particularly disappointed by his handling of the Bishops' recent pastoral letter on Friday penances (PDF). 
He complains:

Yet the leaflet makes no mention of why Pope Benedict called for penance. No mention of abuse. Just silence on the anniversary of the Murphy Report from the collective group. Remember this moment well because this is the moment that the institutional Church in Ireland picked itself up, dusted itself off and went back to business as usual.
Reading the leaflet, the language is the language of a Church that has long passed. There is no life, no Christ, no Good News in the language used, it's all penance and no explanation why we should be so penitential? What exactly are Christ's faithful in Ireland doing penance for? For the sins of paedophiles? For the bishops who covered up? For the remaining bishops? Where are they today? Certainly not out there leading by example but ducking and diving as usual.

Garry misses the point here - and I don't think that he's understood the Pope's letter properly. It's quite clear from the Holy Father's letter that it's not a question of doing penance specifically for the sins of paedophiles or bishops. What the Pope explicitly asked for was to offer our penances for the following intention: "to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland." What Garry fails to appreciate is that the Friday penance is something which should have been part of our life as Catholics long before the Pope's letter to us - it should be part of normal Catholic life and is part of the Church's discipline (see Canons 1249-1253). I suspect that most Irish Catholics were aware that abstaining from meat on Fridays was no longer strictly obligatory - but I doubt that more that one in fifty were aware that they should have been doing some form of penance on Fridays - either the traditional abstaining from meat or substituting another penance in its place.


I really fail to understand what Garry O'Sullivan means by the leaflet being written in "the language of a Church that has long passed" or that "[t]here is no life, no Christ, no Good News in the language used." The letter explains:

Penance is an essential part of the lives of all Christ’s faithful. It arises from the Lord’s call to conversion and repentance.
We do penance in memory of the passion and death of
the Lord,
* as a sharing in Christ’s suffering,
* as an expression of inner conversion,
* as a form of reparation for sin.

What's so objectionable about that? Christ's public ministry is preceded by the great figure of John the Baptist whose great call is to repentance and conversion. Christ's first public act is - although He Himself was sinless - was to submit to the penitential Baptism of John.
Penance (and particularly fasting) as a means of uniting ourselves to Christ's suffering, as an act of remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, as an act of reparation and as a motivator and expression of interior renewal is central to the Christian tradition. Maybe making a sacrifice for Christ and making some feeble gesture aimed at union with Christ crucified is hardly something we can set aside because it doesn't measure up to some kind of pie-in-the-sky, happy-clappy idea of what the journey of faith is about. A more sober, realistic assessment of the human condition rooted in the wisdom of the great spiritual writers will see the absolute necessity of penance both as a discipline of the Church and as something that the ordinary Christian would eagerly embrace as being part of the fabric of Christian life.

I fail to see how - post-Murphy - the Irish Church can aim for renewal without a recognition for the need for penance as part of the ordinary Christian life. Having come face to face with the sins and weaknesses of abusers, those who enabled abuse, those cover-up abuse and those who lacked the courage to speak out, we should realise more that ever that a Gospel of optimism and shiny-lights is insufficent. Our Friday penance should be a reminder to us of our weakness, a reminder of our need to cling to Christ-crucified, a reminder to us to remain spiritually alert, a reminder to us that we should voluntarily seek solidarity with those who suffer and a reminder to us of our humble dependence on the Lord. It is also a reminder to us that the vigour and the renewal of the Church is not unrelated to the holiness and asceticism of her members. The call for a more humble Church makes little sense if Catholics are too stiff-necked to be penitential. 

I'm also puzzled by the following paragraph in the editorial -

We've seen it recently - when can someone with Aids use a condom? The debate is like the supposed theological debate of the Middle Ages - ''How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'' The mother of a priest who was in the thick of the resignations and general chaos in the Irish Church post-Murphy Report made a fascinating point to me recently. ''How could a Church'', she asked, ''which was so interested in controlling condoms and making sure everyone behaved in the bedroom as they the Church said was the proper way to behave, could then turn around and give a free pass to those who were molesting children?''

At best, it strikes me as glib. Why bring in the whole debate about the Pope's remarks about condoms? That's hardly the fault of the Irish Church or the Irish Bishops. The Good News of the Church's teaching about sexuality is implicitly trivialised... and given the fact that the debate involves literally involves matters of (physical and spiritual) life and death, I don't think it should be cheaply used to take a potshot at the Bishops.

In fairness to Garry, it's important that he's raising his voice at this time. It would be interesting to hear an episcopal response to what he had to say. It's debatable whether the 1st anniversary of the Murphy Report is the appropriate time for the Irish hierarchy as a whole to make a statement. Perhaps there's more happening at a local level, more things happening quietly than this editorial would suggest. However, it's so unfortunate that the some of the main points of this editorial seem, in my estimation, at least, to miss the mark.

Coping with Recession

The current Irish economic and political situation reminds me of some advice offered by Flann O'Brien during the dark days of the Emergency (World War II).

THE BROTHER has it all worked out.  

What?  

The war. How we can get through the war here in the Free State. I mean the rationing and the brown bread and all that class of thing. The brother has a plan. Begob you'll be surprised when you hear it. A very high view was taken when it was explained in the digs the other night.

What is the nature of this plan? 

It's like this. I'll tell you. We all go to bed for one week every month. Every single man, woman and child in the country. Cripples, drunks, policemen, watchmen - everybody. Nobody is allowed to be up. No newspapers, 'buses, pictures, or any other class of amusement allowed at all. And no matter who you are you must be stuck inside in the bed there. Readin' a book of course, if you like. But no getting up stakes.  

That strikes me a curious solution to difficulties in this dynamic iron age. 

D'ye see, when nobody is up, you save clothes, shoes, rubber, petrol, coal, turf, timber and everything we're short of. And food too, remember. Because tell me this - what makes you hungry? It's work that makes you hungry. Work and walking around and swallying pints and chawin' the rag at the street corner. Stop in bed an' all you'll ask for is an odd slice of bread. Or a slice of fried bread to make your hair curly, says you. If nobody's up, there's no need for anybody to do any work because everybody in the world does be workin' for everybody else. 

I see. In a year therefore you would effect a saving of twenty-five per cent in the consumption of essential commodities.  

Well now, I don't know about that, but you'd save a quarter of everything, and that would be enough to see us right.  

But why get up after a week?
The bakers, man. The bakers would have to get up to bake more bread, an if wan is up, all has to be up. Do you know why? Because damn the bit of bread your men the bakers would make for you if the rest of us were in bed. Your men couldn't bear the idea of everybody else being in bed and them working away in the bakery. The brother says we have to make allowances for poor old human nature. That's what he called it. Poor old human nature. And begob he's not far wrong. 

Very interesting. He would do well to communicate this plan to responsible Government department.

You're not far wrong there yourself. Bye-bye, here's me bus!

(from Cruiskeen Lawn, in The Irish Times, during The Emergency. Available in Flann O'Brien's "The Best of Myles"

(Transcription found here)

I despair, I really do...

... about the inability of the press to accurately report religious matters.
The Daily Telegraph website has the following headline:

The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift

Do I need to say that the headline is totally misleading?
Anyway, the article opens as follows:

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.

So, what did the Pope actually say? The Curt Jester actually quotes chapter and verse from the Pope's interview with Peter Seewald:

From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119:

On the occasion of your trip to Africa in March 2009, the Vatican’s policy on AIDs once again became the target of media criticism.Twenty-five percent of all AIDs victims around the world today are treated in Catholic facilities. In some countries, such as Lesotho, for example, the statistic is 40 percent. In Africa you that the Church’s traditional teaching has proven to be the only sure way to stop the spread of HIV. Critics, including critics from the Church’s own ranks, object that it is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms.

The media coverage completely ignored the rest of the trip to Africa on account of a single statement. Someone had asked me why the Catholic Church adopts an unrealistic and ineffective position on AIDs. At that point, I really felt that I was being provoked, because the Church does more than anyone else. And I stand by that claim. Because she is the only institution that assists people up close and concretely, with prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment. And because she is second to none in treating so many AIDs victims, especially children with AIDs.
I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

Now, that's quite a lot to read by the standard of today's journalists, but it seems to me that the Pope is stating quite explicitly that condoms are not a moral solution. What's unclear about that?
Yes, the Pope does point out that in certain circumstances the decision to use a condom to prevent a sexual partner from contracting HIV may represent for that person a first step towards a healthier and more moral appreciation of their sexuality and their sexual behaviour. But, what he says is in no way an alteration of the Church's teaching.

(If I might suggest an analogous argument - a promiscuous young man who makes a decision to be faithful to his steady girlfriend may be a first step towards a healthier and more moral sexuality. I think any sensible confessor or moral theologian would see that. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that extra-marital sexual activity is something good or something to be approved of.)

Also, one would have thought that the Telegraph's Religious Affairs Correspondent would know that Popes aren't in the habit of promulgating major doctrinal rulings in book-length interviews. It's curious how journalists who, presumably don't believe in Papal infallibility, tend to attribute the greatest of weight to the Pope's obiter dicta.

Edited to add:
Of genuine interest are these snippets from the book in question.

For example,

And how does Pope Benedict pray?
As far as the Pope is concerned, he too is a simple beggar before God – even more than all other people. Naturally, I always pray first and foremost to our Lord, with whom I am united simply by old acquaintance, so to speak. But I also invoke the saints. I am friends with Augustine, with Bonaventure, with Thomas Aquinas. One says to such saints: “Help me!” In this sense, I commend myself to the communion of saints. With them, strengthened by them, I then talk with the dear Lord also, begging, for the most part, but also in thanksgiving – or quite simply being joyful. 

 That image of the beggar strikes me as very Augustinian

The Liberator

Newstalk's Talking History had a very interesting discussion of Daniel O'Connell and his legacy. (For Podcast see here.) Like Patrick Geoghegan, I was gobsmacked that the man who won Catholic Emancipation and politically mobilised the Irish like no one before him wasn't on the shortlist for Ireland's Greatest Person.

Keeping an eye on the ACP

Via RTE:

Catholic Church authorities need to distinguish between the paedophile priest and the cleric who committed a minor indiscretion with a teenager 30 or more years ago, according to a spokesman for the new Association of Catholic Priests.
Father Tony Flannery said many priests who attended a meeting in Co Mayo this afternoon sympathised with colleagues who had been excluded from ministry even though their behaviour since the transgression had been blameless.

That's where they're beginning? Some sex offenders need to be treated more leniently than others?

Fr Flannery was speaking to the media after his organisation's first regional meeting, and he decides to go with that line? That is not something that the priests of Ireland need at the moment.

Now, the handling of allegations against priests does need to be scrutinised. As with any system of justice, the rights and reputation of all parties concerned - including the accused - need to be handled carefully. However, I do not think that the best way of addressing that issue is launching a media debate and I do not think that it's a good idea to engage in special pleading for those who might have committed a minor indiscretion with a teenager thirty years ago. That kind of talk seems to downplay the seriousness of sexual expolitation.

To my mind, a different kind of renewal is needed - a spiritual renewal of our clergy and a more impassioned preaching of Christ and His Gospel.

Post scriptum: I wonder how this is going to play out in the media... Fr Flannery has the reputation of a media-darling, so I wouldn't be surprised if this statement were largely overlooked. Were a more theologically conservative priest or, God forbid, a bishop to make such a comment, he'd probably be flayed alive. However, it'll be interesting to see whether tomorrow's newspapers tear into Fr Flannery or give him an easy ride.

Iggy is at it again...

Can you believe that this letter to the Irish Times is from a Catholic priest?

Madam, – I read with interest the report of your correspondent Paddy Agnew on the Vatican’s opposition to the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Robert Edwards for his pioneering work in the field of in vitro fertilisation (World News, October 6th). It appears it opposes IVF because it separates conception from the “conjugal act”. I wonder what St Joseph and Mary would make of this controversy. – Yours, etc,

Fr IGGY O’DONOVAN,
Shop Street,
Drogheda, Co Louth.

I'm speechless.

RTE & the Boycott

From David Quinn's column in the Irish Independent:

If a single solitary person was to call on people to boycott RTE on a given day of the week in protest against, say, its perceived bias, how do you imagine RTE would react? I'd imagine they'd ignore the call completely and among themselves dismiss the person as a crank.
But when a single solitary person has the Catholic Church in his or her sights, it's a different matter entirely. Then the person gets all the publicity they can handle. This is exactly what happened to Jennifer Sleeman when she called on Catholics to boycott Masses last Sunday in protest against the male-only priesthood.
In the event, the call for the boycott was a total damp squib. There was no measurable effect on Mass attendance and some priests said that, if anything, attendance was up. Nonetheless, RTE covered the event as though it wasn't a total failure.
(snip)
We might ask how would RTE react if on 'Boycott RTE Day', there was no discernible drop in its viewership figures, but nevertheless TV3 went out of its way to give the impression that something of note had really taken place? Without doubt, RTE would see it is a piece of anti-RTE campaigning by TV3.

Something more upbeat...

A friend has taken to describing the Association of Catholic Priests as the Association of Grumpy Priests, so it behoves me to post something uplifting and positive.

Firstly, Don Marco reminds us that we have some wonderful saints to celebrate this week:

I have always experienced the last days of September and the first week of October (September 29 -- October 7) as a moment of spiritual enchantment within the Church Year. Is it the intoxicating effect of Saint Michael's Summer with the peculiar quality of its light? Is it the procession of saints that passes before our eyes, or should I say, through our hearts? These are days almost excessively rich in grace.
Saints Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael descend first on September 29th, in a cloud of incense and a blaze of light. Christ Himself is all their beauty: decus angelorum. Ask them to teach you to gaze with faith and with holy desire upon the Face of Christ, the Human Face of God.
Saint Jerome follows on the 30th, absorbed in the Scriptures, with his lion plodding sleepily along beside him, stopping only for those who need a word of encouragement in the labour of lectio divina. Ask him to obtain for you the grace to practice lectio divina as a Holy Communion with Christ.
On October 1st a young Carmelite smiles: Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face, Doctor of the Church. As she passes she lets roses fall; she says nothing, but in her eyes shines a message of confidence for the sinners whose company she has always preferred. Ask her for an increase of hope.
And there are more...

I've also added a new Irish Priest 'blog to my links: Fr John Hogan's Ex Umbris et Imaginibus.  (I almost wish I'd chosen that as the title for my 'blog...)

Over at The Preaching Life, Fr SC recounts a favourite anecdote of a mutual Dominican friend:

During one particular homily one of the preachers recounted a conversation he had with an old friend. This friend had been very successful in business, he was a real high flyer. And as things go, as he succeeded in his business life, he abandoned, or at least 'down graded' his spiritual life, and gave up on the Sacraments. One day the two friends were talking and religion came up. The priest's friend explained who he thought religion was a good idea, but that 'institutional' church was not something for him. He began to explain that he saw God as an energy, somewhere out there, a life force to be tapped into when you needed it. (A common enough idea, these days, by the way.) The learned Dominican retorted "How do you expect me to have a relationship with a battery?!"

I'm probably stealing that one for this Sunday's homily!

Finally, I can't wait to start using the corrected English translation of the Roman Missal which is due to come into effect in just over a year's time.  The current translation regretably obscures some of the more theologically powerful parts of our Mass.  I've often wanted to preach on a particular liturgical point but don't really fancy beginning a homily with the words If you look up the Latin text of this prayer... Anyway, the Church Music Association of America have produced Youtube videos of the new Mass texts chanted. Have a listen to get used to the new texts, and hopefully these videos will encourage those priests who can sing to use these melodies when the corrected translation comes into effect. 

I'm really having to bite my tongue...

...because I really want to use some very unpriestly language to describe the Association of Catholic Priests. The proposed women's boycott of Mass last Sunday was something of a non-event. My own observation, the anecdotal evidence given by priests and laity and press reporting of the event suggests that Mrs Sleeman's boycott didn't attract any noticable support.

The Catholic Communications Office issued a statment the day before the proposed boycott which rather uncontroversially said the following:

Catholic Communications Office statement on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
"Mass is a community sacramental celebration of the life, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus. We would encourage people not to absent themselves from the Eucharist where we re-enact the Last Supper and the Paschal mystery, following the command of Jesus ‘Do this is memory of me’.
The celebration of the Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation is essential to the practice of the Catholic faith as the Sunday Eucharist is a pivotal aspect of the spiritual lives of Catholics."
Separately, in relation to role of women in the Church: "Lay women and men contribute actively to all aspects of Church life and this involvement has increased significantly in recent years. Every day throughout Ireland lay people, priests and religious work together making decisions in parishes for the local community. Examples of this collaboration include Parish Pastoral Councils, liturgy groups, child protection, social justice initiatives, parish finance committees, communications and in administration posts."

This statement, however, upset the ACP. What's more, the fact that a spokesperson pointed out that the boycott didn't seem to have much of an effect was dismissed by the ACP as border[ing] on triumphalism.  Overstate things often?

Really, it would want you to make you sigh (or swear) because people will believe that the whinging statement of the ACP represents the views of a significant number of Irish priests. Indeed, it would be interesting to poll the (alleged) two or three hundred priests who attended the founding meeting would be able to fully subscribe to the statement which begins: We in the Association of Catholic Priests...
One wonders how the statement was drafted, what consultation there was amongst the members and who issued it. My cynical streak suggests that this Association of Catholic Priests will become a sort of soap-box for a small coterie of Irish priests of a certain ideological bent who - whilst claiming to be voiceless - seem never to be out of the newspapers. Now, however, they can put forward their frequently wrong-headed and stale opinions as somehow representative of the thought of Irish Clergy.

What's interesting as well is that this group says:

women are presently excluded from many ministries and from all forms of decision-making.

Now, it's quite true that women are not accepted as candidates for Holy Orders. Ordaining a woman to the priesthood is a power that the Church simply doesn't have. I know that upsets many people and I know that it's hard for many people to accept or understand.  It is imperative that people's concerns are heard in good faith. However, the Church has no power to do otherwise and people need to understand that it's not a question of policy which could change at the stroke of Papal pen. It's something that the Church is irrevocably bound to. It's counter-cultural... it's practically scandalous in some ways, but as Catholics we're called to strive to understand and accept those parts of the faith that challenge us.

However, saying that women are excluded from 'all forms of decision-making' is simply incorrect. You should try explaining that to the Chairwoman of our local branch of the St Vincent de Paul Society. You should try explaing that to the women who play a leading part on our various parish committees, on diocesan finance committees, pastoral councils and a myriad of other similar bodies on the local, national and international level. You should explain that to the superiors of female religious orders and women who occupy leadership positions in lay eccesial movements. You should try to convince female principals in our Catholic schools and chairwomen of Catholic school Boards of Management that they are 'excluded from all forms of decision-making'. Tell the legions of Catholic mothers and grandmothers that they have no decision-making power within the Domestic Church which is the family. I've always understood that my vocation as a diocesan priest working in a parish is in helping all my parishioners in realising their own vocations and assisting them to follow Christ in their lives. That necessarily involves collaboration with those same parishioners and encouraging them to play their part in the work of the parish.  However, this collaboration is not an end in itself and there's a clear danger that the future of the Church is seen as a clericalization of the laity rather than an encouragement of their discipleship of Christ in the world.

To my mind, the statement of the ACP devalues the work of Catholic laity, male and female.

Ironically, the Association of Catholic Priests seems to confuse worthwhile participation in the life of the Church with membership of the clergy. There is no appreciation for the different roles of the laity and clergy as set out in the Second Vatican Council.  There's no appreciation that the Christian vocation involves a sancification of everyday life. I'm not always sure what the word clericalism is, but the ACP statement reeks of it. I suspect that many of the more 'conservative' clergy have a much better appreciation of the need for a renewal of the lay apostolate rather than pushing a model of clericalising the laity and making the Church an inward-looking organisation. (Pope John Paul II's Christifidelis Laici and Vatican II's Apostolicam Actuositatem deserve to be read.)

The Letters Page of today's Irish Times contains a sensible antidote to the ACP statement:

Madam, – The strong turnout of women for Mass last Sunday in Clonakility, despite the widely promoted and widely publicised boycott, confirms something that I have suspected for a long time.

Despite what we are often told to believe, a substantial number of women do not feel discriminated against or “oppressed” by the absence of women’s ordination.

As a young Catholic woman I see plenty of opportunities to be involved in the mission of the church. Such opportunities are complementary to that of ordained ministers, certainly not supplementary.

Perhaps if others were less clerically minded they’d see these opportunities too. – Yours, etc,
ANNE-MAREE QUINN,
Newtown Avenue,
Blackrock, Co Dublin.

The Association of Catholic Priests

I've already explained my objections to the Association of Catholic Priests which has recently been founded here in Ireland. Well, they've just launched a website and nothing on it encourages me. The statement of objectives is the usual vague Spirit of Vatican II stuff. Now, I agree that there is an urgent need for "Full implementation of the vision and teaching of the Second Vatican Council". It's just that I don't recognise the vision and teaching of the Second Vatican Council in what this association proposes.

Let's get back to basics. What was the purpose of the Council? Bl John XXIII of happy memory described it as follows at the opening of the Council:

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.

The Council calls us to believe more firmly and profess our faith more clearly. The Association of Catholic Priests would rather have us wring our hands and re-shape the Church according to the mores of contemporary society rather than vigorously engage with life and culture drawing on the riches of the Christian tradition.

(I also note that they're not very keen on the corrected translation of the Roman Missal which will be issued next year.)

Tackling Mis-information...

Damien Thompson's latest post points to an article in a secular humanist magazine which debunks some of the outlandish statements made in supposedly respectable newspapers about clerical sex abuse.

Bishop Michael Smith tries to puncture Hans Küng's claim to be the authentic interpreter of the Spirit of Vatican II. (I agree 100% with Bishop Smith, but note that the headline put on this piece makes it seem much more of an ad hominem attack than it really is. Beware the power of the sub-editor! A positive article about what the Pope has to say is spun as a hatchet job!)

Seraphic gives a boozy assessment of Peter Tatchell's programme on Channel 4.

Strange Goings-On at the Birmingham Oratory.

Cardinal Newman, soon to be Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, was one of the finest satirists ever. There's a fine example of this in his Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England where he addresses the suspicions of local Protestants whose prejudice led them to suspect that when the Oratory was being built that the cellars were intended as prison cells.

Coaches, omnibuses, carriages, and cars, day after day drive up and down the Hagley Road; passengers lounge to and fro on the foot-path; and close alongside of it are discovered one day the nascent foundations and rudiments of a considerable building. On inquiring, it is found to be intended for a Catholic, nay, even for a monastic establishment. This leads to a good deal of talk, especially when the bricks begin to show above the surface. Meantime the unsuspecting architect is taking his measurements, and ascertains that the ground is far from lying level; and then, since there is a prejudice among Catholics in favour of horizontal floors, he comes to the conclusion that the bricks of the basement must rise above the surface higher at one end of the building than at the other; in fact, that whether he will or no, there must be some construction of the nature of a vault or cellar at the extremity in question, a circumstance not at all inconvenient, considering it also happens to be the kitchen end of the building. Accordingly, he turns his necessity into a gain, and by the excavation of a few feet of earth, he forms a number of chambers convenient for various purposes, partly beneath, partly above the line of the ground. While he is thus intent on his work, loungers, gossipers, alarmists are busy at theirs too. They go round the building, they peep into the underground brickwork, and are curious about the drains; they moralise about Popery and its spread; at length they trespass upon the enclosure, they dive into the half-finished shell, and they take their fill of seeing what is to be seen, and imagining what is not. Every house is built on an idea; you do not build a mansion like a public office, or a palace like a prison, or a factory like a shooting box, or a church like a barn. Religious houses, in like manner, have their own idea; they have certain indispensable peculiarities of form and internal arrangement. Doubtless, there was much in the very idea of an Oratory perplexing to the Protestant intellect, and inconsistent with Protestant notions of comfort and utility. Why should so large a room be here? why so small a room there? why a passage so long and wide? and why so long a wall without a window? the very size of the house needs explanation. Judgments which had employed themselves on the high subject of a Catholic hierarchy and its need, found no difficulty in dogmatising on bedrooms and closets. There was much to suggest matter of suspicion, and to predispose the trespasser to doubt whether he had yet got to the bottom of the subject. At length one question flashed upon his mind: what can such a house have to do with cellars? cellars and monks, what can be their mutual relation? monks—to what possible use can they put pits, and holes, and corners, and outhouses, and sheds? A sensation was created; it brought other visitors; it spread; it became an impression, a belief; the truth lay bare; a tradition was born; a fact was elicited which henceforth had many witnesses. Those cellars were cells. How obvious when once stated! and every one who entered the building, every one who passed by, became, I say, in some sort, ocular vouchers for what had often been read of in books, but for many generations had happily been unknown to England, for the incarcerations, the torturings, the starvings, the immurings, the murderings proper to a monastic establishment.

Kevin Myers: 'Our society must stop celebrating lives of reckless car-crash teens'

In today's Independent Kevin Myers writes a provocative article about our attitude to young people who die in road traffic accidents. It's strong stuff and liable to provoke some controversy. I might 'blog in more detail about what he says when I've had the chance to reflect on it a little more.

Mackey's Parting Shot...

I've been following the series of five weekly articles in the Irish Times by Professor James Mackey with a certain grim fascination. For a man who once had a reputation as one of the brightest theologians in the Irish Church, it's disturbing to see him slide into a sort of populist anti-clericalism. In today's article he writes:

[I] initially at least, the largest grouping of Catholics is likely to consist of those who remain unconvinced that any substantial reform is necessary; nothing more than a clearance of maverick clerical and religious abusers and dealing with other incidental occurrences of that regrettable ilk.
The welcome and willing leader of this grouping is the current pope, a mere mortal man convinced of his supreme infallible power to dictate what we, all “children of our holy father”, are to believe and practise in life liturgical and moral.

Seriously? That's meant to be the writing of a theology professor... one who, I understand, still claims to be Catholic?
And he goes on to say:

And there will always be a majority who prefer a judgmental God for whom punishment is the primary instrument of love (as the Archbishop of Dublin would put it) to the father of the prophet Jesus. Particularly as this majority sees itself as so especially God’s people, and he their special God, that they have privileged access to the sacramental means for escaping punishment both here and hereafter.

What can one say about about such a crude representation of the doctrine of the atonement? And does he really think that such an idea is held by a majority of practising Catholics?
It seems to me that Professor Mackey has moved from a hatred of the clergy to a contempt for ordinary Catholics.

So, what are Professor Mackey's recommendations for those who want to follow Christ? He concludes on an unlikely note:

There are yet other options for disenfranchised Catholics: decamping to other religions or to none at all; and many take this option.
It is a reasonable option, particularly in the case of Christianity’s two sibling religions, Judaism and Islam.
For Jesus was a prophet in and for Judaism and Muhammad received him as a prophet on a par with himself; and it can be seen and shown that both of these sibling religions retain some features more faithful to the faith of Jesus than are their current Roman Catholic counterparts.
The same can be true in varying degrees for other world religions, and primal religions, and for the personal spiritualities of people disenchanted with organised religion as such. For God has left no one ever without evidence of the utterly gracious and eternal presence; as the Masai woman introduced in earlier instalments quite amply illustrates.

One has to wonder what a 'liberal-minded' critic of the Church and an advocate of women priests is up to when he includes conversion to Islam as a favourable option for those seeking a certain sort of reform within the Church.

A Reason to Read the Irish Times

John Waters writes about the Rimini meeting of Communion & Liberation:

The other day, for example, I went for a second time to experience an exhibition on the life and work of the Irish-American writer Flannery O’Connor. Now there’s “conservatism” for you: a Catholic novelist whose characters seem to have been conceived at the very precipice of human possibility: strange, dark misfits torn between grace and meaninglessness, awaiting that moment of exceptionality when a choice will throw itself before them. Flannery O’Connor once said that if she had not been a Catholic, she would have had “no reason to write, no reason to see, no reason ever to feel horrified or even to enjoy anything”.
Is it possible for those of us who live in the nominally Catholic land from which her ancestors once hastened to gain any insight into such a judgment?

It never fails to astound me how hostile the reader comments are when John Waters dares to say something positive about his faith. Probably the most amusing hostile comment is from a 'Roger Quinlan' who suggests that Flannery O'Connor should widen her horizons. Given that she passed from this life in 1964, I would imagine that her horizons are, God willing, infinitely broad.

My Reservations about Irish Journalism

The Archbishop and the Serious Catholic Press
In his recent address in Rimini, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin noted that there is no 'serious Catholic press' in Ireland. I'm not sure that my friends at the 'Irish Catholic' newspaper would quite agree with him, but I think that the substance of Martin's remarks is generally accurate. The Irish Catholic makes a valuable contribution to the life of the Church in Ireland and is certainly a serious newspaper. But, in a broader sense, we don't have a 'serious Catholic press' because outside of the niche which that publication occupies, there is no serious newspaper which approaches the news of the day with a Catholic outlook. One weekly publication - no matter how good - does not constitute a serious Catholic press in a predominantly Catholic country. Likewise, I don't think that any of the religion correspondents who report in the Irish dailies are particularly well-informed or sympathetic. There are some columnists, of course, whose work is worth following, but believing Catholics with a basic sense of loyalty to the Church will find few friends in the Irish media.

Get Religion?
I recently came across the American GetReligion website. Based on the premise that the media 'doesn't get religion', it examines religious reportage and showing precisely how - through either spin or ignorance - much of what is published is inaccurate or misleading. If I didn't have the care of my parishioners and my own sanity on my conscience, I wouldn't mind doing something similar with the Irish press. Hardly a day goes by without my coming across an article in one of our broadsheets which misses the mark. I don't expect the secular media to confine themselves to printing only good things about the Church, clergy and the laity; I do wish that our Irish journalists would write a little more fairly and a lot more knowledgeably.

A Typical Example
Take, for example, this report in today's Irish Times about Ave Maria University Professor Colin Barr's latest book The European Culture Wars in Ireland – The Callan Schools Affair, 1868-81. (I've met Professor Barr and he's an expert on the life and times of the 19th Century Irish Cardinal Paul Cullen.)

The Context
The headline reads: Mental reservation used 'to lie to jury'. Now, non-Irish readers need to understand the context of this. As part of an investigation (the Murphy Report) into the abuse of minors by clergy in the Archdiocese of Dublin, Cardinal Connell (former Archbishop of Dublin) explained that he felt justified in making certain seemingly mis-leading statements by virtue of the doctrine of mental reservation. The Cardinal understood that he was telling the truth, but in such a way that it concealed knowledge from the person asking the question either because the person asking wasn't entitled to know the information at issue or in order to justifiably prevent harm.
One such example given in the Murphy Report was Cardinal Connell's telling journalists that diocesan funds are not used for the compensation of child abuse complainants. He believed himself justified in saying that because it was a true statement. However, he didn't volunteer that diocesan funds may have been used that way in the past. For whatever reason, he either thought that the journalists shouldn't be told that.
Now, one can argue about whether Cardinal Connell was justified or not in dealing with the journalists that way. The point, however, is that when the Cardinal explained that he was engaging in 'mental reservation', this was seized upon by commentators as an example of how dishonest the Catholic clergy are in that they could cook up such an idea as mental reservation so that they could lie to people at will.

Did anyone bother to find out what was meant?
I don't know of any Irish journalist that bothered seriously investigating what was meant by 'mental reservation'. If any of them had done so, they'd probably have discovered that mental reservation is something they almost certainly do themselves and which they find morally unobjectionable. One could imagine a journalist being put under pressure to reveal a source, saying that he didn't hear about such-and-such a secret from Mr Purple, when in fact he had learned about the secret from Mr Purple. Perhaps Mr Purple had sent the journalist a note, so technically the journalist didn't hear anything from Mr Purple. That would be an example of mental reservation. Whether and when it's a justifiable thing to do is as open to debate. Whether Cardinal Connell was as honest as he should have been with the media is a question worth asking. But it's intellectually sloppy and ethically careless to use the expression 'mental reservation' as a codeword to suggest that Catholic priests can't be relied upon to tell the truth.

Latent Anti-clericalism
Anyway, Michael Parsons of the Irish Times explains:

“Mental reservation” allows clerics knowingly to mislead people “without being guilty of lying”, and came to public attention last year in the Murphy Report (on clerical sexual abuse).

Note the suggestion that mental reservation is a devious clerical activity rather than something which is part and parcel of pretty much everyone's generally accepted standard of truthfulness. (It should be noted that the Murphy Report itself doesn't help because of its statement: Mental reservation is a concept developed and much discussed over the centuries, which permits a churchman knowingly to convey a misleading impression to another person without being guilty of lying. One might as well say that alcoholism is a disease which leads to journalists getting riotously drunk on a regular basis.) Indeed, I would argue that most people are much looser in their use of untruths, half-truths and equivocations than the Catholic idea of mental reservation would permit.

Why is this a story?
Well, that explains the headline and probably explains why the launch of Professor Barr's book made the Irish Times at all - it's another example of clerical perfidy to be brought to the public's attention. So, how did [Cardinal Cullen use] the concept of “mental reservation” to “lie to a jury and commit perjury in a civil court case”? (The quotations are, one presumes, from Professor Barr's book.) The article doesn't bother telling us! I've read and re-read the article, and there is nothing about any testimony given by Cardinal Cullen in court. The article doesn't explain what truth - if any - the Cardinal was trying to conceal and what form of words - if any - he used in court to conceal it. All we have is the term 'mental reservation' thrown out there to blacken Cardinal Cullen's name without bothering to explain what charge is being made against him.

Now, it could well be that Cardinal Cullen behaved dishonestly - I have no particular brief to defend his memory, even though I think he gets a pretty raw deal from our journalists. (Interestingly, Mary Kenny writes very well about Cardinal Cullen in today's Irish Catholic!) I don't think one needs to be particularly cynical to suggest the fact that reminding us all of the Murphy Report and of Cardinal Connell's mental reservation is the probable motivation for the story and headline as published rather than telling us anything substantial about Cardinal Cullen or Professor Barr's book.

Postscript
In 1864 Cardinal Newman wrote his famous Apologia pro vita sua, an explanation of the development of his own religious thought in response to Charles Kingsley's attack on Newman's own honesty and the integrity of Roman Catholic clergy in general. The passage which Newman found objectionable in a book review of Kingsley's was the following:

Truth, for its own sake, had never been a virtue with the Roman clergy. Father Newman informs us that it need not, and on the whole ought not to be; that cunning is the weapon which Heaven has given to the saints wherewith to withstand the brute male force of the wicked world which marries and is given in marriage. Whether his notion be doctrinally correct or not, it is at least historically so.

In the resulting exchange of letters and his publication of the Apologia, Newman roundly refutes Kingsley's charge and writes one of the finest spiritual autobiographies. Interested readers might like to read the correspondence between Newman and Kingsley.

Michael Kelly on the Claudy Report

Some quarters of the media have been throwing around the word 'cover-up' to describe the Church's actions regarding the alleged involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing. However, as Michael Kelly's latest blog post shows, such mud-slinging is gravely misleading.

The report itself shows that the RUC were - for whatever reason - unwilling to investigate Fr Chesney fully. There's no evidence that this unwillingness to investigate came due to pressure from Church quarters and, indeed, it seems as though the whole situation was sprung on Cardinal Conway who was left in an awkward spot. This priest was suspected of involvement in a bombing and the Church co-operated fully with the civil authorities. Formal and informal questioning of Fr Chesney by other clergy turned up nothing but a denial and the police were unwilling to investigate further. The Cardinal was hardly in a position to dictate how the RUC investigate a terrorist crime and nor does it seem that he was in a position to carry out any kind of disciplinary action within the Church based on the evidence to hand. Going public with the suspicion would have served no good and would probably have led to priests being targeted by loyalist terrorist.

I'm sure some journalists get a kick out of putting an anti-Church spin on what happened, but the only accurate description of what happened here is Church co-operates with law enforcement authorities.

Religious Journalism in Ireland...

The only National Daily paper I read with any regularity is the Irish Times. However, even the most-respected of the Irish dailies is very weak in terms of its religion coverage. Unfortunately the religion related content of today's paper seems to be dominated largely uncritical reporting of the speeches of the Church's critics - internal and external - during the various 'Summer Schools' which have been held in various Irish venues over the past few days.

However, what really caught my eye was this report:

PRESIDENT MARY McAleese and the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, are among the speakers due to address the annual “Meeting For Friendship Between Peoples” next week, held by the influential Italian Catholic lay movement Comunione e Liberazione in Rimini.
President McAleese, who delivers one of the opening speeches of the six-day meeting tomorrow evening, is expected to deal with the history of the conflict in Northern Ireland in an address entitled, “The Forces Which Change History Are Those Which Change The Hearts Of Men”.
Archbishop Martin will take part in a public debate on Tuesday, focused on the figure of John Henry Newman and entitled, “In Defence Of Reason”.

Very interesting...

However, a few paragraphs later, the paper's Roman correspondent goes on to say:

Generally perceived as right-wing, conservative and integrationalist, CL has often been politically active in Italy. In the 1970s, the movement played a prominent part in failed campaigns to prevent the legalisation of both abortion and divorce. CL has always counted important shakers and makers among its public supporters, including most notably the seven-times prime minister Giulio Andreotti.

One can debate the accuracy of that description of CL and the question of how one can accurately and fairly report on a 'general perception', but what strikes me is the use of the term integrationalist. What's that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure that Paddy Agnew meant to use the word integralist which makes at least some sense in context. (He may have intended to say integrist, but I doubt it...)
The point I'm making, however, is that someone - either Paddy Agnew or an Irish Times sub-editor - seems to have thrown that technical term out there, without taking the care to ensure that it was being used correctly and explained to the readership. I would wager that fewer than one reader of the Irish Times in fifty would be able to explain what was meant by the adjectives integrist and integralist, or would understand that the word integrationalist seems to be meaningless in context.

The Thorny Question of Child Protection...

The Irish Independent carries a report of how some parishioners have reacted following the stepping down of their Parish Priest in order to facilitate a child protection investigation:

SUPPORTERS of a priest who stepped down from his position over allegations regarding the safeguarding of children have said he will launch a robust defence against what they described as the "ludicrous" claims.
A groundswell of support has gathered in Blackrock, Co Louth, for Fr Oliver Brennan, who made the decision in order to allow the investigation to proceed.
Substantial anger has been aimed at Bishop Gerard Clifford, who made a statement telling parishioners of the development at a Mass over the weekend.
(snip)
Bishop Clifford was confronted by a number of irate parishioners after he read the statement. He was said to have been visibly affected by their angry reaction.

To be quite honest, I don't know whether the current protocols regarding how these issues are handled need to be reviewed in the interest of the 'natural justice' due to the priest. However, in terms of understanding the past and dealing with the present, it's well worth taking note of the pressure the Bishop is being put under for dealing with this case 'by the book'. You can be sure that similar pressures were at issue when these things were handled a lot differently in the past. People don't want to believe these things about their clergy. I hope and pray that Fr Brennan is totally innocent of any wrong-doing, but if, God forbid, he is found guilty of something, how do we interpret the actions of his parishioners. Would it be fair to call them facilitators in abuse?
I have no brief to defend the indefensible or to justify the actions of bishops whose actions perpetuated abuse, but the groundswell of support for Fr Brennan should make us think about why it was so easy for our bishops to make such bad decisions in the past.

The Preaching Life...

A priest-friend and fellow-soldier from our seminary days, Fr SC has started a new blog devoted to preaching called 'The Preaching Life' - do check it out.

Pointers towards a response to James P Mackey

The Irish Times is running a series of 5 articles by James P Mackey which are supposed to reflect on the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Well, that's what the by-line says. Professor Mackey himself admits to a more polemic intention. Starting with the Papacy he says:

[I]n this and a further four columns, five features of church life and teaching that most loudly cry out for reform will be analysed.

Certainly not a case of 'accentuate the positive'... I won't deny the usefulness of non-Catholics presenting their critique of the Church and her constitution, but what I find offensive about this article is the way in which the author's criticisms are so detached from an accurate understanding of Church history and what the Church actually teaches about the Papacy. It's the kind of mud-slinging exercise which poisons the public discourse and upsets Catholics who haven't had the formation to see the blunders that Mackey makes.

Mackey's Reading of Scripture
Mackey begins with his reading of the Gospel scene where Christ appoints Peter as the Rock on which His Church would be built...

In the gospel scene in which the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, is thought to have instituted papacy, Jesus is pictured choosing a leader for his group of close companions in mission. He wants to make sure the leader will know who Jesus is and what he is about.
Cephas steps forward and confesses that Jesus is the Christ and is duly rewarded with the new name, Peter or Rock, and given the keys of the kingdom of God. But at this point promoters of a Petrine papacy seem to stop reading and fail to notice that Peter is quickly fired from the job just offered him.
When Jesus went on to say that he must go up to Jerusalem and die for his message and mission, as prophets often had to do, Peter corrected him.
Jesus suddenly realised that Peter’s idea of the Christ was modelled on King David, the paradigmatic Christ in Israel’s history, who would reign over the same kingdom, now won back from the Romans, and reign as absolute monarchs are wont to reign, by threat of force both armed and punitive.

Beneath that analysis is a picture of a Jesus Christ who doesn't really know what's going on. Mackey presents Him as a wobbly and indecisive personnel manager rather than the Incarnate Son of God. Christ's rebuke of Peter is severe - Get behind me Satan - but if you actually read the Gospels AND read the writings of the early Christians, there's no indication that Peter's commission was somehow withdrawn at that moment. When dealing with the Apostles, the consensus of the scriptural and non-scriptural early texts of Christianity consistently put Peter in the role of leader.

Now, theologians can and do argue about what that role means for the future of the Church and the development of the Papacy, but Mackey's suggestion that Christ somehow sacked Peter just after appointing him is a novel and bizarre reading.

Of course, the Gospels do show Peter making a mess of things. They don't paint a rosy picture of him. (And this is a point in favour of their accuracy!) He can be blustering and impetuous, and when the moment of trial comes, He denies Christ three times. That is a moment where Peter seems to undo himself. However, far from being a moment where Christ dismisses him, it's Peter's own weakness which sees him fall short of the role given to him. And Christ knew that would happen. If we have a look at the 22nd Chapter of Luke we find:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Even after his failure, the task of strengthening his brethren would fall to Simon Peter.

And when he does fall, what's Christ's response? After He rises from the dead, he takes Peter aside...

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me." (John 21:15-19)

The three-fold denial is undone with a three-fold declaration of love, and even though Peter is more aware than ever of his weakness, Christ commissions him to feed His flock.

Mackey seems to side-step the importance of that passage by saying, "There is no scene in the New Testament that describes Jesus reinstating Peter as pope before he died; indeed in one scene of the arrest of Jesus, Peter draws the sword to bring on the insurrection." Note the qualification before he died. Is Mackey unwilling to deal with the 21st chapter of John because he doubts the veracity of the resurrection appearances or is he sneakingly trying to dodge the issue with a little equivocation. Is he hoping that the readers won't notice the qualification he makes and will overlook what Christ has to say after He rose from the dead?

Constantine and the Pope?
The rest of Mackey's article is flawed as well. He brings up the old boogey-man of the Constantinian papacy - the idea that somehow the first three centuries of Christianity led to the generation of a Papal monarchy. Even a cursory reading of Church History shows that Mackey doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, things did change for the Church with Constantine. But, it didn't result in the immediate creation of some form of Papal Monarchy. Indeed, Mackey seems to be engaged in some hand-waving here... He points out:

The assimilation was consummated under Constantine, who himself as Pontifex Maximus was head of religion as well as state; just as Pope Benedict is absolute monarch of his Vatican statelet and simultaneously of the worldwide Catholic Church – and pretender to absolute rule over all other Christian churches.

Is he implying that Benedict XVI is - in some sense - a successor to Constantine? Well, he's glossing over the fact that Constantine wasn't Pope. Whatever was 'consummated' under Constantine wasn't some kind of Papal Imperium. Mackey seems just to want some kind of excuse to throw Benedict's name next to that of nasty ol' Constantine.
What Mackey is not saying is that from the time of Constantine onwards, one of the key battles of the Church has been to stop secular rulers from abusing the spiritual authority of the Church for their own advantage. Putting a limit on the claims to spiritual authority of Constantine and his successors - as well as preserving the Church's own independence from temporal interference - is one of the big themes of Church history for the millennium after Constantine. Scraps between Pope and Emperor pepper the following centuries.
The Papacy does develop over that span of time. Frequently some very unworthy men filled that office. Many of them could be accused of greed and veniality. However, the assertion of Papal authority which came under Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) is much more important in terms of defining the role of the papacy than anything that happened with Constantine. The Gregorian Reform, as it is known, was aimed at securing the freedom of the Church from the corruption of medieval nobles, a renewal of holiness and an affirmation of the spiritual mission of the Church. Now, the history of the Papacy is certainly painted in shades of grey and there's plenty there to criticise. However, the point I wish to make is that Mackey's historical picture is confusing and detached from the facts.
I'm also at a loss to charitably interpret Mackey's reference to the 'Vatican statelet'. Does he want us to imagine Benedict sitting on his sofa contemplating his absolute rule over a mighty empire of 110 acres? The Vatican City State could have been bigger, but during the negotiations with the Italian state in the 1920s Pope Pius XI refused to accept anything more than the current size of the Vatican to serve as place which guarantees the independence of the Papacy.

The Infallible Governor?
Finally, the sting in the tail, Mackay's assessment of Papal infallibility and his confusion between the Pope's teaching and governing functions:

The matter of papal infallibility is also relevant to the historical papal hunger for absolute power; as the promoters of that cause before Vatican II amply illustrate.
For even if an absolute monarch dictates to you, without need for your agreement, some harsh rule on what to believe, how to worship, how to live, you might still retain some slight hope that you could persuade him that this was a mistaken or at least a counter- productive move. If though he has decreed himself infallible, you are utterly helpless.

Speaking of the Pope as an 'absolute monarch' is a somewhat pejorative description of the Pope's role in the Church. Yes, he does have the 'last say', but to speak of him as an 'absolute monarch' without reference to the rights of the laity and clergy as set out in the Code of Canon Law, without reference to the governance exercised by bishops in their own diocese (something the Papacy is loath to interfere in) and without reference to how things actually work is a cheap shot. Additionally, the Pope's authority to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals is not something self-declared. It's something taught by the First Vatican Council and (horror of horrors!) Vatican II. Mackay's article would be a lot more useful if it explored what that infallibility consisted of. It's not about infallible governance as Mackay seems to imply, but rather a special charism and responsibility to formally and authoritatively teach in matters of faith and morals. It's something which has been used sparingly and within a narrow scope. And, it's also worth pointing out, when the world's bishop's teach together on matters of faith and morals - either when they gather together in a council or when they teach separately but in harmony in their own diocese - they too have the charism of infallibility.
The appeal to infallibility has - in theory and in practice - very little to do with how the Pope governs the Church from day-to-day. It's an easy word to bring up when you want to have a pot-shot at the Catholic Church, but Mackay's article doesn't even try to engage with actual Church teaching about the Papacy or infallibility. Nor does it go into specifics about how infallibility has been mis-used. One would expect better from someone claiming to be a theologian.

Why not an honest critique?
There are issues to be discussed here both within and outside the Church. The ongoing dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches will see the role of the Papacy debated and clarified. However, discussion cannot be based on the kind of caricature painted in Mackay's unworthy article. He presents us with a reading of scripture which has no support in the New Testament itself or in any early Christian reading of the scriptures that I'm familiar with. His reading of Church history is self-contradictory and doesn't even attempt to engage with the real (and sometimes murky, I admit) development of the Papacy's temporal and spiritual power. And, finally, his point about the Pope's role as 'absolute monarch' seems to based on a knee-jerk distaste for the term infallibility rather than an actual engagement with what, for example, Vatican II teaches about the governance of the Church or how things actually happen in real life.

Footnote:
A close reading of Vatican II's Lumen Gentium explains the make-up of the Church and the Pope's role. Likewise, the Catechism does a good job explaining the special mission of the Pope and the hierarchy.

Edited to add:
I drafted this post under the assumption that Professor Mackey was a non-Catholic. However, some Googling suggests that he might be Catholic. That's a puzzle, because I would expect a theologian with a Catholic background to understand things a little better.

That New Priests' Body...

The Evening Herald gives another interesting perspective on that proposed new association for priests. The headline - Priests want own union to stand up to bishops - is probably the responsability of the Herald's sub-editor, but seems to point to the fact that this association is being sold the the faithful as an anti-hierarchical movement. In fairness, the organisers themselves make it clear that a 'trade union is not being proposed:

[Fr Brendan Hoban] said they did not want to form a trade union but an association that would "articulate the views of priests" as well as taking on board their rights, both civil and ecumenical.

Ecumenical? One presumes that he means ecclesiastical...

Well, I'll have none of it...

There's an interesting article in today's Irish Times. It says that efforts are afoot to establish a new association for priests in Ireland. A number of years ago, the National Council for Priests in Ireland collapsed due to a lack of interest. I can't say that I was surprised at the time. I've never had any direct contact with the NCPI, and that was part of the problem. During my period of seminary training - at a time when the NCPI was supposedly active and the various scandals were raging - the NCPI had no contact with my fellow seminarians or myself. None of its officers ever visited the seminary in a formal capacity or ever contacted us in order to explain what the NCPI was or how it might help or support us in our priesthood. All I ever heard about the NCPI was what I read in the newspapers about its annual conference or what one of its spokesmen had to say. Most of the time I was not favourably impressed by what was reported.

So, what's happening now?

A MEETING of Catholic priests to consider setting up an association of Irish priests is to take place in Portlaoise on September 15th next.
The initiative follows an informal gathering in Athlone recently of about nine Catholic priests representing those in dioceses, religious orders/ congregations and missionary societies.

Okay...
And now comes the interesting bit:

It was agreed there was a need for such a coherent voice “in light of the increasingly strained relationship between priests and their bishops” and what was described as “the debilitating reality that, without a platform to express their views, priests find themselves unable to represent their own perspective on issues pertinent to priesthood, church and society today”.
The consensus at the meeting was that, “due to the diversity of opinion among priests, it would be impossible to represent all clergy”.

Disillusionment with the hierarchy may be understandable, but I'd be wary of an organisation which seems to be based on a Bishop versus Priest dynamic. That's hardly consistent with the Second Vatican Council's vison of the filial attitude a priest should have for his Bishop.
It's also interesting that the proposed organisation foreswears a claim to represent clergy in general. This is starting to look like a lobby-group rather than a generally representative organisation for priests.
And what will be the outlook of this body?

Their draft proposals include “the importance of looking seriously at the ministry, government and sexual teaching of the church” and “a concern for social justice and God’s creation.”
Those interested may contact Fr Brendan Hoban at 086-6065055, Fr Tony Flannery at 087-6814699, and/or Fr Seán McDonagh at 087-2367612.

Those who know the Church in Ireland will recognise those names. Why do I suspect that looking seriously at the ministry, government and sexual teaching of the church should be understood as challenging the ministry, government and sexual teaching of the church. Am I alone in thinking that true renewal is only possible if we were more concerned with the promises we made prior to and during ordination, and actually took seriously the ministry, government and sexual teaching of the Church.

Bishop McKeown on the Pioneers & the Pope...

I've been a Pioneer (a member of the PTAA) for about 20 years - since just before my Confirmation. The Association's ethos of devotion to the Sacred Heart and reparative temperance has played a significant part in my spiritual life since then. So, when the Pope urged the Catholics of Ireland to devote their Friday penances as an act of reparation for the evils of child sex abuse, it immediately chimed with Pioneer spirituality and I tried to explain it to my parishioners in that context.

It's interesting that Bishop Donal McKeown does the same in a recent homily to the Pioneers:

One key element in your daily Heroic Offering is making reparation for sins of intemperance. Many criticised the Holy Father when, in his letter to the Catholics of Ireland, he spoke of the need to do penance and proposed that Friday should be kept as a weekly day of penance. Some commentators dismissed that as asking the ordinary people of Ireland to do penance for the sins of clergy and bishops – and they couldn’t understand that idea. But all Christians come from the strange belief that Jesus is the innocent One, the Lamb of God that took away the sin of the world. Our secular society – that so often likes to locate sin and repentance only in individuals rather than accepting the possibility of corporate responsibility – cannot easily comprehend the idea of doing penance and making reparation for others. But Pioneers and all Christians can. Making reparation for ourselves and for others is at the heart of being a Pioneer and a part of what all Christ’s followers are called to do. In fact St Paul takes up that theme in our second reading. He is, he says, happy to suffer for the Colossians, doing what he can in his body to make up for what still has to be undergone by Christ for the sake of his body, the Church. Of course, that should never be a smoke screen for a failure of church leaders to do penance for their own sins and the sinners of departed colleagues. It can never be an excuse for not instituting the necessary reforms. But in the Body of Christ, we share both a story and a hope.

The whole homily is worth a read. He paints the Irish problem with alcohol in stark colours:

Not surprisingly we have the highest percentage of heavy under age drinking in Europe. Figures I saw recently suggested that 25% of 15-16 years olds in this country get drunk at least three times a month. It is estimated that 50,000 children get drunk every weekend in Ireland. The actions of intoxicated adults and some young people’s own inability to have control of themselves would imply that many children are being physically, emotionally and sexually abused across this country on a daily basis – and especially at weekends. I am not scaremongering when I suggest that frightening numbers of children are being physically abused because of addiction and that many under 18s are being sexually exploited each weekend – often in the name of harmless freedom and craic. But an abused child is an abused child whether they are in care or in a pub. That is a national disgrace and we seem unable to acknowledge it. It affects not just people living somewhere else. It seeks to insinuate itself in to all families and all social strata. That is the dark underbelly of the image of the happy carefree Irish who enjoy socialising. Somebody pays the price and too often it is battered wives and abused children who pay the biggest toll. Too often it is our hospital and emergency staff, who have to pick up the pieces or defend themselves against intoxicated patients. Too often it is communities and key people like clergy, who have to try and deal with the effects and consequences of this dark secret that lurks in the corner of every part of this country.

Any readers not familiar with the Pioneers might be interested in the Heroic Offering - the prayer we recite twice-daily:

For thy greater Glory and consolation, O most Sacred Heart of Jesus, for Thy sake, to give good example, to practice self-denial, to make reparation to Thee for the sins of intemperance and for the conversion of excessive drinkers, I will abstain for life from all intoxicating drinks, Amen

Itchy Nissan

My friend 'Sakura E' describes herself as 'a newly-minted (US) Navy wife'. She and her husband have just been assigned to Japan and she's blogging about it here.

A reason not to abolish the Seanad...

Via the Irish Times:

Three Fianna Fáil senators today lost the party whip after John Hanafin, Labhras Ó Murchú and Jim Walsh relinquished it over the Civil Partnership Bill.
The three senators had have spoken out strongly against the proposed legislation. Mr Hanafin had said they hoped amendments they proposed would be accepted and would “move forward on that basis”.

At least some of our Senators have the guts to speak out for the rights of conscience and marriage.
I know that Independent Senator Rónán Mullen has also resisted the bill as it currently stands and I hope that some FG Senators will also vote against it.

Homily - 14th Week of Ordinary Time (Year C)

I sometimes wonder what the 72 must have thought when Jesus sent them out two-by-two, with none of the usual accoutrements you’d need for a journey – no money, no back-pack, no sandals. Just go out there, stick your neck out and preach my message.

They must have been dubious… They must have worried that they’d be left sleeping in the fields or laughed out of the towns they visited. And yet, with the power of Jesus’s name and the gospel they were spreading, they went out and did it, and they did great things despite having precious little in terms of the backing you would think they needed.

The Church here in Ireland needs to look at those 72 Disciples and draw a lesson from them and their courage, because if you read the signs of the times in today’s Ireland, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to live the life of a committed Christian and to openly preach the Gospel.

Last Thursday night the Civil Partnerships Bill made its way through Dáil Éireann without a vote. If it’s approved by the Seanad and signed by the President, it’ll become the law of the land. In essence, a new form of marriage is being created in Ireland without the sort of public debate and serious consideration such a momentous step calls for.

Our Catholic Bishops opposed the Bill on two main grounds. First of all, by creating this new institution of ‘Civil Partnership’ the government is not respecting the role of the family – and in particular marriage – as the basic foundation stone of our society.

Secondly, there is no provision in the Bill permitting people who don’t believe in ‘Civil Partnership’ for whatever reason to exercise their right of conscience to not participate in them. It seems as though if you have a hall or hotel which you’re willing to hire out for weddings or if you’re a photographer or a baker who normally does wedding work, you won’t be permitted to say I have no interest in facilitating Civil Partnerships. You could find yourself open to criminal prosecution. If you took on the job of a Civil Registrar thinking that you were going to be dealing with marriages, you’ll now be forced to deal with Civil Partnerships. The basic freedom of freedom of conscience is being undermined in our State. Our basic right to say I disapprove of that, I have no interest in that, therefore I’m not going to play a part in that is being taken away from us.

Now, I’m sure that there are people here who don’t have a huge problem with the Civil Partnership Bill. All I can do this evening is to ask you to read the Bishops’ Statement Why Marriage Matters which is available on the Irish Bishops’ website and encourage you to read some solid Catholic material about the meaning of marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage has not had many voices speaking up for it in the newspapers, on the radio or on TV for the past few decades. It’s not based on hatred, it’s not based on unjust discrimination – it’s a positive, live-giving understanding of marriage, but because it poses a challenge to people, it does not receive a fair hearing in the media.

Anyway, a number of things worry me about the passing of the Civil Partnership Bill. Minister Dermot Ahern described it as being one of the most important human rights pieces of legislation dealt with by the Dáil. And, yet there was precious little coverage of it in the media. If you were following the papers and the TV for the past couple of weeks, you’d think that the legislation about stag hunting was the big story of the week. Big, big news, but very much under-reported… You have to wonder if those who influence the media wanted this legislation about Civil Partnerships to slip through without people kicking up a fuss. Were they trying to slip it past conscientious Catholic, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and other people who would have reason to raise questions?

The second thing which worries me is the way the Bishop’s Statement Why Marriage Matters was received by our political class. It was initially released in March, and the Bishops issued a statement drawing people’s attention to it again a couple of weeks ago. When they did this, Minister John Gormley started complaining about the Church ‘interfering’. He tried to put it about that the Catholic Bishops had no democratic right to present the teaching of the Church. Every other group in society – trade unions, political parties, sporting organizations and so on, they all have a right to comment on the big issues which affect the life of our country, but when the Church says a few words on the value of marriage, then prominent politicians try to silence her. Why is that? What is it that makes some members of our political class behave so irrationally when we try to have our democratic say?

Incidentally, Archbishop Dermot Martin was speaking to the St Joseph’s Young Priests’ Society in Knock last week. He pointed out how the politicians were giving out to the Bishops last year for not telling people to vote ‘Yes’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Now, 12 months later, when the Church has something to say about marriage, there’s an attempt made by the politicians to shut the Bishops up.

Another politician who had something to say about the Bishops’ contribution was Minister Dermot Ahern. He said that he was of the opinion that politicians shouldn’t allow religion to cloud their judgement. I suspect that quite a number of politicians, public figures and journalists would say something very similar. And, yet, that kind of thought shows a huge misunderstanding of what religion is and what role it has to play in a democratic society. Now, let me be quite clear – there’s no justice in any politician trying to impose his religious beliefs or religious practice on the people he’s governing. Our Catholic faith insists that the State has no role in coercing anyone’s religious beliefs. It’s one of our fundamental human freedoms. However, this freedom which is recognised in our constitution does not mean that everyone who is elected to public office has to pretend to be a non-believer when making decisions. Religious believers can be objective and fair without being asked to switch off part of their brains or deny their fundamental values.

If you allow yourself to be formed and shaped and informed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that shouldn’t be a disadvantage to you in political life. If you love God and sincerely want to serve your neighbours in the political life then your religious faith is not clouding your judgement. If your faith gives you a strong understanding of what’s right and wrong and how the common good can best be served, then that’s not something you could or should lock away in a box when tough decisions have to be made. Dermot Ahern might just as well have said that politicians shouldn’t allow their conscience, their understanding of right and wrong to cloud their judgement.

The holy Capuchin priest Ven. Solanus Casey once referred to religion as the science of our happy relationship with God and our neighbours. That’s not something you’d ever want to set aside. However, it’s becoming clearer that many of our country’s leaders, most of whom claim to be Catholic, are tending towards an understanding of faith and religion as something totally private, something that offers a little personal consolation, a little bit of a spiritual high and some nice ceremonies, something one does in one’s spare time, but isn’t mentioned in polite society, and certainly doesn’t influence what one does with the rest of one’s life. That’s not healthy, that’s not true religion, and it ignores the great work done by literally millions of Christians in shaping society for the better because of their faith. Racial equality and an end to slavery was a proudly Christian cause in so many places. Many of our Irish missionaries fight for the dignity of the poor and downtrodden throughout the world. Would we say to them that they should set their religion aside, their strong sense of right and wrong to one side as they campaigned for the God-given rights of those who suffer? Would we dare tell them that their religion is clouding their judgement?

The third thing that worried me was that the legislation passed through the Dáil on Thursday night without a vote. One TD – a Presbyterian, by the way – did speak in favour of the sort of conscience clause which Catholic, Church of Ireland, Baptist and Presbyterian religious leaders had lobbied for. However, he got precious little support and I don’t think that one politician on Thursday night objected outright to the Bill. All the major political parties seem to have supported the Bill and I don’t think that any of the major political parties were willing to allow their TDs the right to reject the Bill. The whip was on. Does that seem right to you? That such important and controversial legislation made its final passage through the Dáil on a nod and a wink, that we didn’t see any significant opposition to it. It’s obvious that the membership of Dáil Éireann don’t adequately represent public opinion. Was there even one Catholic member of the Dáil willing to take a stand in favour of marriage and the Constitution?

Just before the last General Election in the UK, the Scottish Bishops issued a very strong statement. They said:

In urging you to let your faith count at the ballot box, we ask you to think carefully before you cast your vote. Which candidate displays values closest to yours? Which candidate will best respect and protect your religious freedom and your freedom of conscience? Which candidate do you trust most to do a good job for you and your community?
As your bishops, it is not our intention to tell you which party to vote for. It is our duty to encourage you to engage with the political process and to vote for the candidate who best represents the values we, like our parents and grandparents before us, hold dear.

Archbishop Conti of Glagow went further by pointing out that none of Britain’s mainstream political parties were willing to stand up for the right to life from conception to natural death, for the institution of marriage or for the rights of conscience.

One wonders if we could say the same about the Irish political parties. There are some members of the Seanad of various political parties and none who are lobbying for a free vote when the Civil Partnership Bill reaches them next week. Watch that space. See what kind of support marriage and the rights of conscience get from our politicians and our media.

I’m afraid I’ve gone on at some length. But I want you to be quite clear what situation faces us in Ireland at the moment. The values of those who run our newspapers, television and radio stations do not – in the main – seem friendly to our Catholic values. Amongst our political class there seems to be a huge amount of confusion or misunderstanding or hostility to our values. The law of the land is changing in ways which will certainly be actively hostile to our positive and life-giving understanding of human life, marriage and the importance of conscience. In many ways – in terms of our own understanding of these issues, our grasp of Church teaching, our use of the media, we as Catholics are ill-equipped to deal with the challenges which the changing nature of Irish society offers us. In the medium term I see a number of battles down the road for us – a defence of the right to life for the unborn and those who are ill; a defence of the right to palliative care; a defence of the rights of parents; a defence of the rights of our Catholic schools; a defence of the rights of doctors to practice according to their consciences; a defence of the rights of our own consciences to follow Catholic teaching and to preach it publicly.

If you are sincere in your faith – if what you celebrate in this Church means something to you, you have an obligation to be ready for these battles. An obligation to study your Catholic faith, to question your political leaders, to treat the opinions you read in the newspapers with scepticism. An obligation to pray, to spend time with Christ, to ask his help in deepening your faith and your understanding of the world around you.

And yet, we have the example of the 72 Disciples before us. They were sent out – materially under-equipped and with nothing but Christ’s name. They came back rejoicing having worked great deeds in Jesus’s name. The Gospel of Christ is still the one salvation offered to us. Let us never be afraid to listen to it and proclaim it with confidence.