The New Irish Lectionary

I was disappointed by this statement from the Irish Episcopal Conference this morning. The bishops seem to be moving towards the decision to adopt the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) for the production of a new lectionary for the Irish Church. Now, I'm not a biblical scholar, and I'm not really qualified to have an expert opinion on whether one translation is better than another. However, I am a priest with over a decade's experience in parish ministry, in addition to some time doing postgraduate studies in theology, and on this question of a new lectionary, I'm primarily drawing on my experience of the pastoral and adminstrative work of an ordinary priest in a parish. 

The key issue here is not the abstract question of what translation of the scriptures is the best, but rather the practical question of how the Irish hierarchy can best use their resources to deliver a suitable and usable lectionary that will meet the needs of parishes and parish clergy. With that in mind, it makes very little sense to go down the road of soliciting other English-speaking episcopal conferences who might want to join forces with the Irish in producing a lectionary based on the RNJB when our nearest neighbours (Scotland and England & Wales) are already well-advanced on producing their own lectionary based upon the English Standard Version: Catholic Edition (ESVCE). They're doing this piggybacking on the work of the Indian Episcopal Conference which has already received Vatican approval for their ESVCE. Why aren't we collaborating with our nearest neighbours in their lectionary project? Surely it would make sense to invest our financial and human resources into the development of a common lectionary with them rather than re-inventing the wheel with a speculative lectionary project using a translation of the bible that has no guarantee of receiving Vatican approval?

From my own pastoral experience, it is of great benefit to me that the Irish Church uses the same liturgical translation as the English, Welsh and Scots. It means that resources produced for parish use in Britain can also be used in Ireland, and vice-versa. In my own work with, for example, bereaved families in planning funeral Masses, I have found some of the most useful resources have been produced in England, but can be easily adapted for Irish use precisely because the lectionary we use for funeral Masses in both countries is identitical. This doesn't simply make life easier for me, it has implications for Irish publishers who produce common materials for use in this country and in Great Britain, and for those religious congregations who administer their work in Ireland and Britain as a single unit. 

I made a submission making this point as part of the consultation process, and I think that my main point is worth expressing in very simple terms - we need to have a good lectionary in Ireland, and unless the ESVCE is genuinely unsuitable, there seems to be no good reason to waste the limited monetary and human resources availible to the Irish Church at a time when she is facing huge challenges on a speculative lectionary project, when every practical reason points to collaboration with our neighbours as the obvious way forward.        

Bishop Dempsey's Reflection...

 I must confess to a certain unease with the recent reflection of Bishop Paul Dempsey of Achonry in the way it deals with the recent CDF statement regarding the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex. As a priest in ministry, I thought the CDF document a very useful and straighforward clarification on a live question that is attracting a lot of debate. I appreciate that not all my brother priests think the same way for a variety of reasons, and I don't feel especially well-qualified to enter into the nuances of the debate. However, I know enough about theology and about the way the Church works to know that when the Pope himself approves a decision of the CDF on a topic that is being widely discussed and that he knows will be considered controversial, then it's deserving of particular respect. There are important issues here and the Successor of Peter has made his voice heard. I don't buy into the whole narriative of this being the CDF hoodwinking the Pope or this simply being the voice of the Curia setting itself against some imaginary Church of the future. Cardinal Ladaria is a well-respected theologian, a man of great meekness and fidelity, and a Jesuit. I can think of few people less likely to try and deceive the Pope. Finally - and this is something I'm adding as a revision to this blogpost, Donum Veritatis clarifies that CDF documents approved by the Pope share explicity in his teaching authority. 

18. The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.(18)

I do appreciate that in many cultures bringing people to an understanding of the Church's moral teachings and vision of the family is a challenge. And there will be cases where what looks like harsh language may need to be explained in gentler terms, particularly when strong language can lead to aggression against individuals and groups. However, there is also a danger that we soften our language to such an extent that fundamental moral truths are overlooked. The Irish Church can hardly be accused of breathing fire over the past few decades. 

Anyway, I'll confine my commentary about Bishop Dempsey's reflection to two precise points which make me uneasy. I'm confused by the fact that he seems to say that the language used by the Church is more important than the realities to which the language refers. I can't quite believe that he can mean that, but he certainly seems to give that impression. He writes, "Some agree with what the Church proclaims as truth, others do not.  The deeper problem arises in the sphere of language, at best it is experienced as cold and distant, at worst hurtful and offensive." I can't wrap my head around how the question of language is "deeper" than the issue of whether the Church is believed or not. I'm not going to understate the significance of language - in some senses any use of language is inadequate to the expression of dogmatic truth, but making the eirenic use of language more important than the realities to which language refers strikes me as bad theology. The good use of language is essential to the teaching of moral truths, but it cannot be seen as more imporant than those truths itself.
I'm reminded of the words of St John Henry Newman when he reflected on the dangers of the Church being too slippery in her use of language: "If the Church would be vigorous and influential, it must be decided and plain-spoken in its doctrine, and must regard its faith rather as a character of mind than as a notion. To attempt comprehensions of opinion, amiable as the motive frequently is, is to mistake arrangements of words, which have no existence except on paper, for habits which are realities; and ingenious generalizations of discordant sentiments for that practical agreement which alone can lead to co-operation. We may indeed artificially classify light and darkness under one term or formula; but nature has her own fixed courses, and unites mankind by the sympathy of moral character, not by those forced resemblances which the imagination singles out at pleasure even in the most promiscuous collection of materials. However plausible may be the veil thus thrown over heterogeneous doctrines, the flimsy artifice is discomposed so soon as the principles beneath it are called upon to move and act." While the Church MUST be careful and kind in her language, I can't help thinking that on this hot-button issue, the issue of language is often exploited by those who dissent from the Church's teaching to pressurise those who are committed to it. If we accept Bishop Dempsey's apparent premise that language is the deeper question, then we run the risk of being able to say nothing at all!

The second issue that worries me is Bishop Dempsey's use of a statement by the Belgian Bishop Johann Bonny. He is reported as saying, with reference to the Synod on the Family: “there were frequent discussions about appropriate rituals and gestures to include homosexual couples, including in the liturgical sphere.  Naturally, this occurred with respect for the theologically and pastoral distinction between a sacramental marriage and the blessing of a relationship.  The majority of the synod fathers did not choose a black and white liturgical approach or an all-or-nothing model.” 
Now, Bonny is not the man I would have chosen to quote on this issue, given how outspoken he was in opposition to the statement. If one quotes part of what he says as having authority, then I think there's a responsibility to distance oneself from the more incendiary parts of his statement. Anyway, if I wanted to know what the Synod said, I would actually look at the documents of the Synod rather than the recollections of a participant who has his own idiosyncratic position. What did the Final Report of the Synod actually say?      

76. The Church’s attitude is like that of her Master, who offers his boundless love to every person without exception (cf. MV, 12). To families with homosexual members, the Church reiterates that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his/her dignity and received with respect, while carefully avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4). Specific attention is given to guiding families with homosexual members. Regarding proposals to place unions of homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family” (ibid). In every way, the Synod maintains as completely unacceptable that local Churches be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies link financial aid to poor countries to the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between people of the same sex.

When the Synod uses the words about these unions not being "even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family" - making the words of a previous CDF declaration her own - she sounds a lot more like Pope Francis and the CDF than Bishop Bonny. The Holy Father, incidentally, repeats the same language in Amoris Laetitiae 251. Let us not be gaslit into believing that there's an alternative Synodal or Papal Magisterium on this point. 

I'm sure this debate will go on - as all debates do. However, let them at least proceed in a manner that is theologically responsible and that reflects the reality of what the Church actually teaches. 

On the Case of Fr PJ Hughes

I must confess to mixed emotions around the ongoing saga of Fr PJ Hughes, particularly with regard to his being fined regarding a public Mass that seems to have been conducted in contravention of Ireland's current COVID restrictions. I don't like the idea of a priest being fined in these circumstances, and if he can make an argument that allows him to escape legal penalties, then fair play to him, as we say in Ireland.

However, even though I feel sorry for him, I'm not at all convinced that he's legally or morally in the right. Yes, freedom of religion is protected by our Constitution, but whether that justifies Fr Hughes legally or philosophically is not so easy to parse. The Constitution expresses the right as follows: "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen." Issues of "public order and morality" can lead to legal restrictions on religious practice. After all, not everything can be justified on the basis of it being religion.

Even the Second Vatican Council (in Dignitatis Humanae) which asserts in the strongest possible terms that religious freedom derives from "the very dignity of the human person", points out that "just public order" may lead to restrictions on religious practice. 

Given that the State has a legitimate interest in restricting public gatherings in a time of pandemic, it is ultimately a matter for the courts to decide the legal question of whether the current restrictions are fair and constitutional. The theological and moral issues of whether the State is justified in its current approach are a matter for experts in that area to discern, taking seriously the input of public health experts and scientists. 

My own instinct is that that both legally and morally the current restrictions are justifiable, although I am glad that the Irish Bishops are pushing back somewhat by arguing that when the current restictions are being lifted that the resumption of public worship be given priority. Maintaining the status quo indefinitely is not an option; both legally and morally, the timely restoration of religious worship in as safe a manner as possible is worth arguing for. I would also argue that it is not to the Irish Government's credit that they seemed to have chosen the path of imposing these restrictions on religious communities without the kind of consultation that would have better respected the position of religious freedom in our Constitution and perhaps allowed for a more collaborative approach in formulating and implementing restrictions.

All that being said, reasonable people will have different opinions about what regulations are most appropriate to deal with the pandemic, and what trade-offs need to be made. However, the sake of the common good and the recognition of the legitimate authority of government in protecting the public health will mean that the normal Catholic response will be to co-operate with the regulations when they are made rather than undermining them because they are not precisely what we want. The gravity of the issue - public health in a time of pandemic - means that extraordinary actions may be justified and extraordinary sacrifices may be asked of us. Now, there will be times when a Catholic, or indeed any citizen, will be justified in conscience to engage in civil disobedience. A refusal to participate in the unjust laws regarding the termination of pregnancy is one area where the issue is clear. An unjust law does not bind and an individual is deserving of every support when the coercive force of the state tries to force him to do evil. 

I'll go one step further - the question of the freedom to assemble for worship is the kind of serious issue where civil disobedience might be justified. We have plenty of examples in history where the Church has resisted the State precisely so as to be able to worship. However, that does not mean that Fr Hughes is in the right or that I can see myself supporting him. 

The fact is that the Bishops of Ireland have as a body - in accordance with the leadership given by Pope Francis - respected the State's approach to this matter. In a matter like this where the issues are serious - involving matters of public health and freedom of religion - their united leadership counts for a lot. A basic respect for their role in the governance of the Church means that the presumption is very much in favour of respecting the current COVID restrictions. People will perhaps agree or disagree with them to a greater or lesser extent, but the thing is that on a national issue like this, it is up to the Bishops to make the decision. Certainly clergy and faithful can make their disagreements known to their Bishops, but with the presumption that the Bishops are taking a global view of their responsibilities before Christ and would not agree to such a drastic change in the life of the Church without serious reasons.

More significantly, Fr Hughes freely admits that he is not "obeying his bishop" in what he is doing. This - for a Catholic - should be a huge red flag. When we Catholic priests are ordained, we promise obedience to our Bishops and their successors. When a priest takes up a new position as Pastor/Parish Priest he swears an oath to follow the "common discipline" of the Church. Now, that obedience isn't absolute. A Bishop can't demand obedience of a priest in matter that are beyond a Bishop's authority, or that would involve a priest violating the laws of the Church, or committing a sin or doing something impossible. A Bishop's authority is not tyrannical and there are well-established principles of what can and can't be reasonably asked of a priest. However, I can see no reason for arguing that the Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise has gone beyond his authority in regulating the celebration of Masses in his diocese. 

Cardinal Sarah (himself no shrinking violet or accommodationist!) and the Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed that Episcopal Conferences and individual Bishops are justified in going beyond what is normal as regards the regulation of the liturgy in the context of a pandemic. 

A sure principle in order not to err is obedience. Obedience to the norms of the Church, obedience to the Bishops. In times of difficulty (e.g. wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed. Obedience safeguards the treasure entrusted to the Church. The measures given by the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences expire when the situation returns to normal.

As I say, there might be times when a priest might be justified in going beyond the strict command of his Bishop or resisting unjust episcopal authority, but this is not one of those rare occasions and I see no reason to join in with those who are cheer-leading for Fr Hughes. Obedience to one's Bishop is about more than the efficient running of the Church or the kind of responsability that anyone might have to their employer. It touches on the very core of the life of faith.

One of the most interesting collections of letters to survive from the early Church are the Epistles of St Ignatius of Antioch. St Ignatius was Bishop of the city of Antioch and was said to have known St John the Apostle. So far as we can tell, he was arrested and taken to Rome for execution about the year 108 AD. In other words, he was within living memory of Christ's Apostles and the letters of encouragement and advice he wrote to various churches while he was being taken from Antioch to Rome contain within them some of the very basics of our Catholic faith. St John Henry Newman pointed to them as evidence of how well-developed the "Catholic system" of belief and authority was within a few decades of the death of the Apostles against those who would argue that primitive Christianity was unstructured and inchoate. Catholicism was not an invention of later Emperors or Churchmen - it flowered forth naturally and organically from the words and actions of Christ and the Apostles. One of the principles that St Ignatius insisted upon was the importance of obedience as being fundamentally to the individual Christian life and to the healthy life of the Church as a whole. Again and again he came back to the principle that Christ Himself sets the example in this regard. To the Church of Tralles, for example, he wrote: "For whenever you are subject to the bishop as unto Jesus Christ, you appear to me to be living not the ordinary life of men, but after the manner of the life of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sakes, that believing in His death you might escape death. It is necessary therefore that you should act, as indeed you do, in nothing without the bishop." Just as Christ was obedient to the Father, the life of faith calls us to obedience according to our particular station. For diocesan clergy, the normal way that obedience will be lived out is in obedience to our Bishop.

I remember my professor of Canon Law Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ talking about the vows made by religious and the promises made by Diocesan priests. He linked them directly to the life of Christ and our vocation within the Church. He argued that just as it was impossible to imagine Christ as not being poor, chaste and obedient, then we religious and clergy should see our own commitment to those principles as fundamental for our life in Christ. Lord knows we diocesan priests frequently fall short in so many ways, but there's something perverse when a failure of obedience is something that sincere Catholics are encouraged to recognise as heroism. 

I can't see into Fr Hughes's soul. He argues that his conscience led him to this drastic step, despite his duty of obedience to his Bishop and the promises he previously made in this regard. Indeed, I have a lot more sympathy for him than I do for clergy who compound disobedience with the teaching of false doctrine. However, I cannot see my way to supporting or encouraging him. His disobedience seems clear; his previous statements about COVID suggest that he has some very superstitious ideas about the relationship between faith and reason; the fact that he chose to do an interview with poor Gemma O'Doherty means that he's swimming in some very dubious political and philosophical waters. Catholics will feel sympathy for Fr Hughes, of course, but we would be well-advised not to take him as our standard-bearer in some kind of crusade against the State. His relationship with his bishop speaks volumes and his public statements do not bear close examination. We can do better than hitch our wagons to this particular campaign.