Clergy Mortality in Ireland

More than 20% of priests and brothers have died in past three years? I was interested to read this in the Irish Examiner. My first reaction was to doubt the headline figure as being implausible - or at the very least giving a misleading picture of the situation in Ireland. That being said - and I have been saying this for years - most people both inside and outside the Church don't have a good grasp of how quickly the cohort of clergy in Ireland is aging and how quickly the numbers of serving priests in our dioceses will decline over the next 5 to 10 years. 

However, it seems to me that the article is playing fast and loose with the numbers. It speaks about a total number of deaths from amongst priests and brothers of 556 over the calendar years 2019-2021 inclusive. It says this represents "more than 21%" of "priests and brothers". If 556 represents 21%, then the total number of "priests and brothers" is 2,648. If it represents 22% of "priests and brothers", then the total number is 2,527. The figures given in the article say that between "working priests" and "retired priests", the total number of priests in Ireland in Ireland at the end of 2018 was a little over 2,500. The article is very vague about the details, but this seems to be a count of diocesan priests, whereas the count of deaths seems to include not just diocesan priests, but also religious priests and religious brothers. It's a basic rule of statistics that the numerator and the denominator for a percentage must be counting the same thing. You can't take the number of deaths from a larger population and then express it as a percentage of a smaller population, and then claim to be making a meaningful statement. Granted, the article suggests that the 556 is an undercount of the total deaths between priests and brothers, but without a good argument, you can't just assume that the undercount of deaths justifies using the wrong denomnator.

I decided to try and come up with a more accurate picture of what might be going on. Online I found what purport to be the latest statistics reported by Irish dioceses to the Vatican regarding clergy numbers. Most of the statistics are from 2019, with some dioceses reporting figures from 2018 or 2020. Anyway, according to THOSE figures the number of diocesan priests (with no distinction between active and retired) is just shy of 2,400, and the number of religious priests is just over 1,200. I wasn't able to find good figures for religious brothers, but they are relatively few in number. Consequently, the total number of priests in the country should be in or around 3,600. That would make a death toll of about 550 represent 15.5% of priests over the past 3 years. However, that figure is unsatisfactory. I'm not totally sure how reliable the figures reported to the Vatican are. I know that the numbers listed online for my own diocese seem to undercount the number of religious priests in the diocese. Plus, the number of deaths does have a question mark over it. 

I'll add one more data point in terms of national figures - I had a look at the list of authorised solemnisers of marriage in the Republic of Ireland as of this month. I counted those nominated by the Catholic Church. The number is over 4,000. Given that the number of permanent deacons in the country is numbered in the dozens, and given that many clergy whose ministry is primarily in Northern Ireland won't be included in this list, unless there are a huge number of deceased clergy on the list of solemnisers, it could well be that the 'official' 3,600 priests is an undercount. 

I might add that it is profoundly disappointing that basic statistics about the number of clergy and clergy mortality doesn't seem to be readily availible from official sources. 

I will add one other observation - the number of clergy deaths in Ireland expressed as a percentage of total clergy will probably give a misleadingly pessimistic picture of what is happening. It is not uncommon for Irish priests serving abroad - either for foreign dioceses or with missionary orders - to return to Ireland due to age or ill-health. Their deaths will therefore make skew the figures as they will be included in Irish clergy deaths even though they might not have ministered in Ireland. 

Finally, over lunch, my colleagues and I decided to see what the numbers for the past 3 years look like in our own diocese. By our count, 7 of our diocesan priests died over the past 3 calendar years. This is from out of a population of just under 80 priests, counting both active and retired. This gives a mortality rate of just under 10%. Neither the sample size nor the length of time is enough to produce statisitically significant results, but the loss of those priests - some of them unexpected - has been a challenge for us as a diocese & is indicative of what the future has in store for us. Even though I take issue with the numbers produced by the ACP and the Irish Examiner, and argue that any numbers we come up with must come with a 'health warning', the challenge for the Irish Church is very real.

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.   

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?      

In other news, Nuncio is a Catholic

Or, when is news not news? I note with bemusement this article from the Irish Independent that tells us There will never be any women priests, insists Papal Nuncio. If you take the bother to read the story, you'll see that the actual news part of the article doesn't appear until the 9th paragraph of the story when we learn that the Archbishop Charles Brown (Papal Nuncio to Ireland) was in Killarney for celebrations commemorating Msgr Hugh O'Flaherty's 'escape line' in war-time Rome. So much for the WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN and WHY being given to us promptly. We're eventually given a short quote about the nuncio's assessment of the Church in Ireland, but that just squeaks in at the very end. We're never even given a hint that the nuncio might have said anything about Msgr O'Flaherty. And we're never told why and in what context the nuncio made his statement about women priests. Was it a question fired to him by a journalist? Was it in the context of a speech or homily? Did the nuncio raise the question or did someone else. Now, the article as it stands is certainly factual - I have no doubt but that the nuncio's words are being recorded correctly. But is it news? It's not news in the sense that any half-informed reader will already know that the Pope's man in Ireland is almost certain to follow the orthodox line on things. If the nuncio were to say other than he did, THAT would be news. Now, I would imagine that most readers who have an interest in the Church in Ireland would actually rather learn what assessment the nuncio has of his 9 months in the country. They might or might not agree with it, but it'd certainly be more worthy of the word 'news' than the non-news the Indo prefers to serve up. Personally, I'd also like to know what Archbishop Brown had to say to the people at the celebrations about Msgr O'Flaherty and his wartime exploits. Both O'Flaherty and the nuncio both worked in the same Vatican department. Perhaps that'd be an interesting angle to interview the nuncio about.

I suppose the question I would have is what purpose the article has. I really don't think it's supposed to inform us. Consciously or unconsciously, the editorial team at the Independent seem more interested in reinforcing the picture of a hierarchy who have little to say about a limited range of issues rather than giving a full and accurate picture of what's going on and what church leaders actually say. Is it that the journalistic and editorial staff lack the knowledge to report on the real news here, or is it that they just don't want to?

I came across this lovely story today - an account of the Pope visiting some senior citizens at a home for the elderly in Rome. He speaks to those present as 'an elderly man visiting his peers' and gives a beautiful reflection on old age. If you were to only read the Irish secular press, you'd get the idea that pretty much all the Pope does is talk about 'sex', and when he does, it's usually to 'condemn' something. I'm sure that if this story IS picked up by the secular press, it'll probably be spun as the Pope 'slamming euthanasia'. I guess the 'love one another' angle doesn't sell papers.

It's important that we be aware how our news is filtered for us by media organizations and how one of the great benefits of the internet is the opportunity it gives us to circumvent the concious or unconscious ideological filters of the mainstream media. We need to question why particular stories are presented for our attention and why others are not. And we need to realise that in Ireland the vast majority of practising Catholics rely on the mainstream media to let them know what's happening in the church beyond the bounds of their own parish.

A final comment - I feel obliged in justice to the reporter whose byline appears in the Independent to point out that I've noticed her report reasonably well on religious and regional news before. One can never be sure whether a news article reflects the work of the journalist or the editorial staff.