Choosing between 'Pro-life' & 'Pro-choice'

I must confess that I'm usually irked by complaints that the abortion debate in Ireland is divisive or polarising.  I do believe that we should strive for civility in our public discourse, but am profoundly uneasy with the idea that certain topics should somehow be resolved without discussion on the grounds that the debate itself is somehow destructive of society. Often, or so it seems to me, complaints about the divisiveness of the debate are aimed at closing down the discussion rather than improving the tone of public discourse. One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is the fact that our public discourse can (should?) be unsettling and forces us to think through things that we'd rather not have to deal with.

I was interested, therefore, to read today's article by Canon Stephen Neill, Church of Ireland Rector of Cloughjordan where he discusses the effect of the recent debate about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill on his own thinking around abortion. Interestingly, he argues that the debate to date has forced him out of his self-described 'middle ground' into a 'pro-choice' position.

Canon Neill's 'middle ground' position was that abortion should only "be available in cases of rape, unviable pregnancy and a threat to the health and/or life of the mother." He also adds: "I would not have been and am still not in favour of abortion on demand, abortion as a late contraceptive or abortion as a means of terminating Down syndrome or other special needs pregnancies. I say this as the parent of a child with special needs who has brought untold joy to my life." 
His overall position is not one that I could agree with, and indeed I'd argue forcefully that it's not entirely coherent - but I can certainly understand how someone could seriously and contentiously reach that position and consider it to be some sort of 'middle ground' between a pro-life and a pro-choice stance.

However, I find the next part of his article confusing. Rather than argue for this so-called middle ground and justify his position, something about the nature of the debate forces Canon Neill to choose a tribe. He says: [i]n absence of that middle ground I am forced to make a choice fully conscious of the potential for many of the things I do not want to see happen becoming a reality. This, I cannot understand. I can understand having one's mind changed by argument. I can understand lending some support to a group or movement whilst not fully agreeing with them on the grounds that their aims or intents are somehow compatible with my own. I can understand tactical and political alliances.
What I cannot understand is what Canon Neill purports to be doing. Because the "middle ground" in the debate has been "sidelined", he therefore feels as though he must cleave to one or other of the extremes as though being on the right side were more important than taking a stand for the side that is right. That, to me, makes little sense.

It's interesting to read Canon Neill's assessment of both sides of the debate. His impressions are, of course, his.  As I don't open his postbag in the morning or read what comes in on his e-mail and twitter feed, I can't really say that he is being inaccurate. I know that there is an unpleasant and vicious element in the pro-life camp who prefer to shock and intimidate rather than persuade. (Likewise, need I add, there are those on the pro-choice side who smear and belittle those who disagree with them.) I know too that because this literally is a life-and-death issue we are debating that even good-hearted people on both sides of the debate can speak unkindly out of frustration and fear.
Still, looking at the public contributions to the debate and my own engagement with the pro-life movement, I don't recognise the picture he paints of an unsympathetic movement that is eager to accuse women of murder.
I'm also puzzled by Canon Neill's argument that it is "bizarre about non-medical politicians, clergy (of any church) and others trying to argue medical technicalities with highly qualified medical specialists." I would challenge the impression given that somehow it is the pro-life camp that is at odds with the medical profession, when there are plenty of pro-life doctors who argue their case effectively and when the proposed government legislation has failed to attract the support of the professional bodies in the medical field. The core of the debate is not about arguing technicalities with doctors. Medical practice is informed by more than technicalities - it also demands an engagement with bio-ethical philosophy and the fields of legal and human rights. We rightly expect our legal system and our society to challenge medical practice, when (for example) we learn of doctors performing female genital mutilation. The demands of justice, law and social opinion all have their just place in setting down the boundaries of acceptable medical practice.

I'm afraid Canon Neill loses me when he makes a theological point as well. Invoking our role as 'co-creators' with God and suggests that the choice of Mary to co-operate with God's saving plan and become the mother of Jesus Christ somehow points to a theological justification for a pro-choice position. I find that most untenable. His statement that "[w]e have been given the ability to create life, but it is not forced upon us" sits uneasily with my experience of life, of the Gospel and my ministry as a priest. Whether a believer or non-believer wants to talk about providence, fate or chance, it seems evident that much about our lives - for good or for ill - is indeed forced upon us. The Christian tradition does indeed privilege the free and moral choice as being central to living the good and ethical life, but the idealization of choice in itself as distinct from the good freely chosen is alien to Christianity and most ethical systems. If we want to introduce an ethical principle from the Gospel that seems apt to the debate, I'd suggest looking at the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are invited to a radical solidarity with all of humankind, and in particular solidarity and responsibility for those whom circumstances have placed into our care.

Finally, Canon Neill makes a point about trust.  He argues, "[a]nd finally it comes down to trust. If we are to truly respect the role of women in childbearing then we have to trust them without subjecting them to the kind of overbearing oversight that is proposed in the new legislation."  If only we lived in such an ideal world that 'trust' could be used to do away with all sorts of positive law and that all rights would be respected on the basis of trust. I cannot think of any area of life or fundamental human right that can be protected purely on the basis of trust. We have laws against all kinds of offences and violations of human rights - not because we have some kind of prejudicial lack of trust but because we know from bitter experience that trust can be abused and the rights of innocents are not always respected.

Canon Neill has done us a favour in writing this article. Even though I don't recognise the picture he paints of the pro-life side, it's a pertinent reminder to us of how we must conduct the debate with clarity and in charity. It reminds us too that the pro-life cause isn't just about changing laws, but about effectively living and communicating a philosophy of life that respects both mother and child in a way that makes the deliberate termination of an unborn child's life unthinkable. Whilst we have a short-term objective before us in defeating a disastrous piece of legislation, our fundamental mission is cultural.
However, despite being thankful to Canon Neill for setting down the details of his philosophical journey from being someone who held the 'middle ground' to the adoption of a more radically pro-choice position that would go even further than the government's proposed legislation, I have to declare myself puzzled by some aspects of the journey. What is it Canon Neill sees in this debate that left him unable to defend his 'middle ground'? Why the seeming need to join a tribe (either pro-life or pro-choice) and why frame the decision in terms of seeking the less objectionable tribe rather than the rational pursuit of justice and the good?      

Draft of a letter to Professor John Crown

A response (in draft form) to this article.

Dear Professor Crown,

I write to you as a citizen and a Catholic Priest in order to take issue with a number of the points you make in your article in today’s Sunday Independent.  I find myself astonished that a respected parliamentarian could have penned an article that so profoundly misunderstands the nature of justice and democracy and that seems to be aimed at discrediting the participation of ordinary Catholics in the democratic process by branding their contribution as being at the service of a foreign power.

I’ll trust you not to simply dismiss this letter as being just the special pleading of an agent of a foreign state, but ask that you take me seriously when I say that your talk of coups and plots is profoundly insulting to Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholic people who have been lobbying their politicians on the abortion issue.  The depiction of Catholicism as being foreign and sinister was a familiar trope of English anti-Catholicism and it’s worrying to see an Irish parliamentarian try to imply something similar.  You may not agree with the position of the Irish Bishops, ordinary pro-life lobbyists or some of your parliamentary colleagues on the proposed abortion legislation, but on what basis can you seriously throw around accusations of sinister foreign influence and coup d’etat?
The people who lobby against this legislation and your fellow parliamentarians who oppose the legislation are Irishmen and women with a full stake in the past, present and future of Irish society and a concern for the common good.  It is this concern for the common good that causes them to express their concerns and participate in the democratic process articulating a vision of human rights and justice that encompasses a holistic concern for human life.  Yes, many (but by no means all) of those arguing against the legislation will have their views formed by Catholic teaching and the statements of the Holy See (not the same thing as the Vatican City State, by the way), but surely it’s absurd to suggest that the free diffusion of ideas between cultures is somehow antithetical to democracy or the progress of humankind.  I would not have thought you such a cultural isolationist.
Apart from suggesting that some Irish people and parliamentarians allow their thoughts and philosophy to be shaped by Catholic teaching – as is their right – I fail to see why you have reason to imply that the Vatican’s influence in the matter of abortion legislation is somehow sinister, unless it is your belief that no one should allow their thinking to be in any way informed by unIrish influences.

You were somewhat clearer in your explanation as to why you regard opposition to the proposed legislation as being contrary to our system of constitutional government.  However, I would argue that your understanding of the role of the legislator in a democratic society is fundamentally flawed.
You are unhappy with the fact that some of our parliamentarians see a huge injustice in the X-Case decision of the Supreme Court.  You point out that Article 34.4.6 states that “the decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and definitive.”  That means that there is no further recourse for any individual legal case in our domestic system beyond the Supreme Court.  However, what you fail to do is establish that the judgement of the Supreme Court in a particular case should somehow constrain legislators in their decision to vote for or against a particular Bill in the Dáil or Seanad.  That’s not in our Constitution and that doesn’t respect the separation of powers.  To suggest that an elected representative’s choice between the ‘Tá’ and Níl’ lobby can be controlled by the Supreme Court has no basis in our Constitution or our laws.
Legislators who hold that there is a grave injustice and faulty reasoning at the heart of the X-Case decision are perfectly entitled under the Constitution to propose and lobby for legislation – even though it does not seem to accord with the X Case – with the hope and expectation that the Supreme Court might re-visit its own reasoning should the new legislation come before it.  Our system of checks and balances works by allowing the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional legislation, not by tying the hands of our legislators.

Your understanding of the duties of legislators to the Constitution is belied by the fact that the Constitution itself is capable of amendment and such amendment always has its beginning in the Houses of the Oireachtas.  Loyalty to the Republic and the work of the legislator cannot be straitjacketed into a blind devotion to the Constitution.  Even though it expresses the basic principles according to which our State is run, making contentment with the Constitutional status quo a prerequisite to participation in the legislative branch closes the door to Constitutional reform and development.  I know that it is not your intent to exclude reforming voices and votes from the Dáil and Seanad, and yet it is unsettling that you seem to believe that some reforming voices should be excluded on the grounds of disloyalty to the Constitution.

The very fact that the Constitution is open to amendment should also make it clear that written law and court decisions are not the final determinants of what is just and good in our society.  Certainly they set the limits by which the machinery of State can operate in order to promote the common good and protect the rights of citizens, but the Constitution and court decisions are not irreformable and unchangeable.  The legislator, therefore, needs to have a broader understanding of rights and justice so that he or she might participate in the work of refining and improving our Constitutional system so that it better fulfils its role.  Of necessity, the legislator will take account of the representations his and her constituents, but will ultimately need to decide how to legislate, how to vote on particular matters, based on his or her understanding of justice and the common good.  Imposing some kind of litmus test that excludes particular understandings of justice and the common good from the Houses of the Oireachtas is a profoundly anti-democratic suggestion.

I would also take issue with a number of other points you raise in your article:

·         If you are able to discern the will of the Irish people from the failure of a Constitutional Referendum opposed by both Dana Rosemary Scallon and Ivana Bacik, then you have a greater gift of reading the intentions of the Irish people than DeValera claimed when he looked into his own heart.

·         The concerns of parliamentarians regarding the potential abuse of seemingly restrictive procedures in approving abortions are well-justified if one looks at the experience of the United Kingdom where supposedly restrictive criteria have become de facto abortion on demand.  Why should we suppose that things should go any differently in Ireland.

·         It is most unfair of you to throw mud at Cardinal O’Malley of Boston regarding child abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston, given the fact that he had no involvement in the Archdiocese until he was brought in to ‘clean out the stables’ after the disastrous tenure of Cardinal Law.

Professor Crown, I never thought that I’d have to write to an Irish parliamentarian to ask him to refrain from painting Catholicism as being a sinister, foreign influence in the country with designs on the integrity of our State.  I would have thought that a man of your intelligence would realise that such an absurd suggestion gives validation – inadvertently, I’m sure – to the crudest forms of religious bigotry.
Nor did I think I’d ever have to write to a man of your reputation in order to remind him that it is not an unhealthy thing for a legislator to develop an understanding of justice and the common good that is rooted in something other than blind devotion to the Constitutional status quo.  Indeed, it is to the credit of the legislator when he understands the extent of his responsibility to the common good and exercises himself or herself in seeking to understand the nature of justice and how our current system might serve us better.

Yours sincerely

Miserando atque Eligendo

Processing
I suppose I'm still trying to process the election of our new Pope Francis.  The transition from Blessed John Paul II to his trusted collaborator Cardinal Ratzinger was relatively straightforward. I was already well familiar with the gentle professor from Bavaria who grew into the man I revere as Pope Benedict XVI.  His resignation and retirement into a monastic life of prayer for the Church was a huge surprise, and it was only after the excitement of the announcement of Pope Francis and his charming 'Buona sera' to the world and the people of Rome died away, that I began to realise how strange it would be to adjust to a new Pope, and one who was only slightly known to me as a Cardinal before his election.

Francis is neither Benedict XVI nor John Paul II
I suppose the first (blindingly obvious) point to be made is that Francis is neither Benedict nor John Paul and it does a huge injustice to all concerned if we expect all Popes to be the same.
I know that parish clergy are familiar with the phenomenon that there there is no priest as good as the man who preceded him in his parish. I had the experience recently of talking to a woman from a parish where a very popular priest was being replaced by a younger successor. In conversation, she told me how upset she was that Fr Pat was going to another parish and how there would be no one ever like him. "Well," I said, "aren't you getting Fr Joe in his place, I know him well and he's a fine priest too." I don't know whether I was hoping to ease her disquiet or to wring from her some expression of positivity towards the new man. Whatever I had hoped she'd say, I must confess that I was disappointed when all she could reply was that there was no one like the man who was leaving.
In retrospect, I suppose it testifies to the fact that priests do make a positive impression in people's lives, and the (honest) conviction that no one could be as good as the priest is a by-product of that positive effect. And as things happen, when it's time for the little-regarded newcomer to move on, he'll have become the one that everyone misses and believes to irreplaceable.
The Church has been through an extraordinary period of almost three-and-a-half decades (half a biblical lifespan!) when the successor of St Peter has been a top-drawer intellectual. Blessed John Paul II was a fine philosopher, whilst his collaborator was one of the theological greats of the age. Blessed John Paul II's magisterium was particularly fruitful, whilst Benedict XVI came to the Petrine Ministry with a higher theological profile (in terms of books published, etc...) than any of his successors to date. We might have gotten used to what is, historically speaking, an anomaly. Certainly previous Popes were fine scholars and brilliant men.  However, very few were intellectuals in the way that John Paul and Benedict were. We forget that we have often had Popes in the past who were diplomats or pastors or canonists, who have successfully steered the Barque of Peter making use of the talents and charisms they themselves have had.  There is a saying, after a fat Pope, a lean Pope - a reminder that Popes differ in their talents and that it may well be the Church needs a Pope who differs from the man who came before him.
I suspect that we'll need a decade or two to properly digest the magisterial contributions of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  They have laid down the intellectual framework within which the Church has received the Second Vatican Council. The outlook of the priests formed under their influence will have its impact in the years to come. Now, however, that the intellectual foundation has been laid, perhaps it is time for Peter to do something else, whilst the Church as a whole draws on the teachings of his two predecessors.

The Jesuit Pope
 In the short time that I've come to see him, Pope Francis has reminded me of some of the best of the Jesuit who taught me in Rome.  We have heard much about the simplicity of his life - the apartment in Buenos Aires, his use of public transport, his nearness to the poor.  All that is typical of the best sort of Jesuit.  They live a simple life and are totally committed to the mission assigned to them.  It's interesting to note from his biography that he has had a very varied range of ministries - a man qualified in chemical engineering, he has also taught literature and psychology, been involved in the formation of religious, done parish work, served as Jesuit Provincial in his home country and has served as a Bishop. If the impression he has made as Archbishop of Buenos Aires is anything to go by, he has that Ignatian charism of giving oneself totally to one's mission in obedience to ones superiors.  I think that augers well for a Papacy that will be one of service, distinctive and innovative in style, perhaps, but above all obedient to the Lord who entrusts him with this ministry.

The Latin-American Background
It seems that to make sense of our new Pope, we need to take into account his Latin American background. Much has been made of the supposed contrast between his doctrinal conservatism and his care for the poor. It genuinely grieves me that it should be accepted as a commonplace that one can be either orthodox or compassionate, but rarely, if ever both.
From my rather crude understanding of things, the Church in Latin America has struggled with the attractions of both the political left and right.  On one hand, there exists the temptation of 'protecting' the Church by siding with the so-called right, turning a blind eye to corruption and oppression for the sake of preserving the status of the Church as an institution. On the other hand, one can opt for the so-called 'left' and buy into a kind of Marxism that sides with the poor, albeit at the cost of some basic Christian principles and the danger of flirting with revolutionary violence.  As I say, that's an exceptionally crude caricature of the lay of the land there, but the most authentic response of the Church is to reject such a devilish dilemma by remaining true to the Gospel in its fullness.
I thought that Pope Francis's first homily as Pope was very telling.
He preached Christ, the Cross and our inability to build anything as a Church if we do not build on Christ. He said:

we can walk as much we want, we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a pitiful NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Confession of Christ is at the core, and Francis has done that in his ministry to the poor in Buenos Aires. He insisted that more priests work in the barrios and frequently visited the poorest parts of his diocese in a spirit of service and solidarity with the poor.  And yet, he rejected the so-called liberation theology movement.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as head of the CDF, was hugely critical of this movement.  He saw that in reducing the work of the Church to political and economic liberation, there was an implicit rejection of Christ. In making the Church just another participant in class warfare, the image of God as Old Testament liberator was not 'filled out' by the fuller vision of God given to us through His beloved Son. The Cross was perceived purely as a sign of oppression, rather than as God's own instrument to bring about liberation.  Ratzinger feared that the theological analysis of some Liberation Theologians essentially excluded Christ, and in so doing, failed to respect the right of the poor to receive not only social and economic justice, but also the spiritual and intellectual liberation that is given to us in Christ Himself. To deny the poor that kind liberation and to make of the Church's mission something primarily economic or political was, Ratzinger argued, a denial of the full humanity of the poor.
I would read the homily of Pope Francis as being in continuity with Ratzinger on this Christological point.

My Hopes for Pope Francis
I must say that I was charmed and continue to be charmed by our new Pope. He is not the towering figure of John Paul II or a gentle professorial guide like Benedict XVI. He will build on their foundations, but he will not be exactly like either of them.
Having read some of his preaching as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, it's clear that his style is not as intellectual or refined as his two predecessors. I don't mean, of course, that he's not a thinker - he's a very accomplished and intelligent man. Even though Benedict spoke with great clarity, I suspect that he will challenge us more directly than Benedict did, and, whilst not as natural a man for crowds as John Paul II, I suspect Francis will hit us straight between the eyes with the Gospel and shame us into being better Christians.
Much has been laid on the shoulders of Pope Francis so far as Curial reform is concerned. I don't know enough about him to know what his background is in this.  He's definitely a Curial outsider, never having served in the Roman Curia, but has been on a number of important Vatican Congregations, so he's not totally naive either. Some reports say that his time as provincial of the Jesuits and as head of the Argentinian Bishops' Conference show him to have the capacity to administer and reform. I certainly hope so, and trust that the evident goodwill and affection of his fellow Cardinals and the Church as a whole will stand to him in this task.
Finally, I pray that the warmth and affection that the world has for Pope Francis will help him make Christ known, that he will, by his way of life and preaching win many hearts and souls for Christ and His Church, and help those of us within the fold to live our vocations more authentically.  

Pope Benedict XVI - some thoughts

I've not yet posted anything about the astonishing resignation of Pope Benedict. I was fortunate enough to be in Rome when he was elected and will greatly miss his thoughtful and reflective teaching. I very much regret the fact that most of the faithful in Ireland haven't really seen the real Benedict - a gentle and prayerful shepherd who proposes a vision of life and culture radically grounded in the life and person of Jesus Christ, an understanding of things shaped by the great thinkers of our Christian tradition.
I've had a number of conversations about recent events over the past couple of days and have surprised a number of people with my personal enthusiasm for Pope Benedict, both as a thinker and as a human being. I spent a number of years in Rome when he was head of the CDF and saw the start of his pontificate at close quarters as I finished my theological formation there and was ordained priest.     
For many, he will be dismissed as a 'conservative' thinker in a world where the word 'conservative' is a pejorative term. However, this 'conservative' is the one who set aside almost 6 centuries of precedent by resigning the Petrine ministry. More attentive commentators have described him as 'radical' - that is 'rooted' in the Christian tradition in a way that manifested itself in an extraordinary inventiveness. His use of the 'Ordinariate' structure to welcome Anglicans and the Anglican tradition into full Communion was innovative. His decision to write three popular books about Jesus of Nazareth as a private theologian whilst Pope was unprecedented.
And then there is his commitment to the 'New Evangelization'. In the early days of the Pontificate, I remember being told by a fairly knowledgeable priest that we'd see less talk about the 'New Evangelization'. That, he told me, was John Paul's pet project and Benedict would drop this particular piece of jargon. On this point, my friend was mistaken. Benedict himself established the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization - a new Vatican office with special responsibility for this project and proposed the 'Courtyard of the Gentiles' - a forum for friendly discussion between Christian and secular thinkers. None of this made headlines, of course, but it's significant nonetheless. Despite the fact that his distinctively Augustinian thought is caricatured as pessimistic, Pope Benedict has shown himself to be very committed to the idea of a shared rationality affording the space for profitable dialogue between believers and non-believers. (One need only look at Cardinal Ratzinger's public conversation with Jurgen Habermas as an example of this commitment.)
Theologically, Benedict is radically (I use that word for a reason) committed to the Second Vatican Council. The Council itself was inspired by the mid-20th century flourishing of biblical, patristic and liturgical scholarship that re-invigorated the Church's self-understanding. The reforms of the Council were to be rooted in a re-discovery of the riches of her own tradition and a creative engagement with modernity. One of the great tragedies of the post-conciliar era has been the neglect of these treasures of the Church - the scriptures, the Fathers, the liturgical tradition - in our engagement with the culture. Benedict - true to the intention of the Council - insists that we must be grounded in the scriptures, the Fathers and the liturgy, if we as Christians are to engage productively and creatively with modern and post-modern thought. Only those with a superficial knowledge (or with an axe to grind) of Benedict's thought will dismiss this as just being thoughtless conservatism. Indeed, it's often amusing/depressing to see some Lutheran & Jewish thinkers engage more enthusiastically with the thought of Ratzinger than his Catholic critics do.
I could write more - and I'm very aware of not having touched on many of the big issues that have dominated the public assessment of Pope Benedict. However, I will miss our professor-Pope and wish that the world knew him better.

On why the Vatican's hands are tied regarding Fr Tony Flannery

The Case of Fr Flannery

There has been a lot of media attention in Ireland & worldwide about the Redemptorist priest Fr Tony Flannery. He wrote a prominent op-ed for today's Irish Times entitled Vatican's demand for silence is too high a price in the same edition as this news report from Patsy McGarry (Priests support Flannery over challenging views). As both articles explain, Fr Flannery was removed from ministry due to opinions expressed by him in Reality magazine a couple of years ago. Fr Flannery himself - despite writing at length about contraception and Humanae Vitae - doesn't explain precisely what opinions landed him in hot water with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Patsy McGarry points to Fr Flannery's writings on women's ordination, contraception and homosexuality.

Where the real problem is
However, this is to overlook a huge point. If we look at the New York Times account of the situation (Priest is Planning to Defy the Vatican's Orders to Stay Quiet) we see that neither Fr Flannery nor Patsy McGarry is telling the full story. It states:

The Vatican’s doctrinal office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Father Flannery’s religious superior, the Rev. Michael Brehl, last year instructing him to remove Father Flannery from his ministry in County Galway, to ensure he did not publish any more articles in religious or other publications, and to tell him not to give interviews to the news media. In the letter, the Vatican objected in particular to an article published in 2010 in Reality, an Irish religious magazine. 

In the article, Father Flannery, a Redemptorist priest, wrote that he no longer believed that “the priesthood as we currently have it in the church originated with Jesus” or that he designated “a special group of his followers as priests.” Instead, he wrote, “It is more likely that some time after Jesus, a select and privileged group within the community who had abrogated power and authority to themselves, interpreted the occasion of the Last Supper in a manner that suited their own agenda.” 

Father Flannery said the Vatican wanted him specifically to recant the statement, and affirm that Christ instituted the church with a permanent hierarchical structure and that bishops are divinely established successors to the apostles.

(emphasis mine)

It's curious that the Irish Times and most of Fr Flannery's supporters don't bother to mention that he denies a basic truth of the faith that we learn as children (that Christ instituted the sacraments, including Holy Orders) and that he considers the priesthood itself to be some kind of illegitimate takeover of the Church dating back almost 2,000 years. Whatever their respect for Fr Flannery's pastoral gifts, his kindness to people or even their agreement with him on other points, I can't understand how any group of Catholic priests can seriously argue that it's okay to deny the very nature of priesthood itself and still present oneself as a loyal and dutiful member of the Church.

Whither Fr Flannery's conscience?
Additionally, I can't understand how Fr Flannery can square it with his own conscience that he's willing to fight for his ministry as a priest whilst painting the priesthood itself as a conspiratorial and oppressive perversion of the Gospel. That's trying to have your cake and eat it. I'm not familiar with the CDF's disciplinary procedures - I do know that in the case of members of religious orders like the Redemptorists that they prefer to use the 'line management' within the religious order rather than dealing directly with the priest involved. I don't have a huge issue with people discussing the procedures involves and whether they are the best way to handle a case such as Fr Flannery. However, I do not see how someone can still try to claim the right to exercise the ministry of priest while dissenting so radically from the teachings of the Church (as affirmed at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium & elsewhere.). If Fr Flannery is going to claim a 'pulpit' as a minister of the Church, hasn't the Church the right to insist that he teach in unity with the Church. If Fr Flannery chooses to do otherwise, then he's the one placing himself on the outside.
 
Final Note
It's interesting to note that at lunchtime yesterday the Irish Times website carried a report which quoted Fr Flannery's more outlandish statements about the priesthood. However, later in the day, the article had been redacted to exclude those controversial opinions in favour of more 'popular' forms of dissent.