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.

On Deacons, Female Deacons and Deaconesses...

This statement by Fr Lombardi is what is known as 'pouring cold water' on a story.

In fairness to the Pope, he was asked the question & he _didn't_ really seem enthusiastic about it. He said that he'd have to check whether there were studies done about it. (He obviously didn't recall the 2002 report of the International Theological Commission which stated quite clearly that the deaconesses of the early Church were not simply female versions of the ordained deacons.) He pointed out that in so far as he knew, the historical and theological evidence was that deaconesses were not simply 'female deacons', by reference to what he had been told by an expert in the field. And then, proceeding from that point of uncertainty he said that a commission on the matter "seems useful to me." To my mind, a fair reading of his words suggests that the establishment of a commission is something that he _might_ do, having looked into the matter further.

However, various media outlets ran with the story suggesting that the pope was _definitely_ going to establish a commission. Various Catholic commentators went into _overload_ throwing out scenarios about all the work that 'female deacons' would do in terms of preaching, baptising, etc, etc... and basically gave the impression that this was around the corner.

Now, speaking as someone who doesn't claim to be an expert, but who has studied the history of theology, it seems to me that the 'deaconesses' in Church history didn't have the same duties as the ordained deacons, and that their appointment/installation as deaconesses wasn't usually seen as being sacramental ordination. I cannot see _any_ plausible path whereby the present historical evidence can justify any other convincing conclusion.

The question of whether some kind of non-sacramental position within the Church carrying the title of deaconess might be useful in this day and age is another question, and is possibly more debatable. Given Pope Francis's consistent line about not clericalising the laity, I don't see that happening.

But whatever your understanding of the historical and theological position, I think there's a lesson here in the way that the media and certain Catholic commentators aren't content to give a balanced account of what the Pope _actually_ says, but decide to run with their own agenda. That's what leads to Fr Lombardi having to clarify these remarks. It's not the Pope being hopelessly obscure. It's people choosing not to listen to him honestly.

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.

Fr Brendan Hoban & the Eucharistic Famine

Fr Brendan Hoban wrote an article in the Irish Times a couple of days ago entitled 'We priests have earned right to say what needs to be said about state of church'. (I hadn't noticed that anyone was denying him that right...) Anyway, it's more of the same, throwing out buzz-words (as he says himself!) about the 2nd Vatican Council (a people’s church, co-responsibility, collegiality) rather than engaging with the actual intent and documents of the Council. Anyway, Fr Hoban claims the right to put out some of his suggestions about how the Church might. In particular, he suggests female Cardinals and female heads of Vatican Congregations in order, seemingly, to give women 'a lift'. (Is that really his best argument? Then he argues ordaining 'viri probati' (men of proven worth) as priests 'with minimal formation or instruction, as presently with ordained deacons' in order to solve the problem of their not being enough clergy to celebrate Mass in our parishes in the next few years.

Now, I don't want to dismiss Fr Hoban's suggestions out of hand entirely. Personally, I would argue that his idea of 'Female Cardinals' is a non-runner as the office of Cardinal carries with it the idea of being part of the clergy of Rome and, by virtue of that, one of the Pope's close collaborators. Even the so-called 'Lay Cardinals' of previous centuries had received tonsure and minor orders making them clergy - even if for all intents and purposes they lived as laity. As the office of Cardinal is not of apostolic origin, but rather arose in medieval times, one could certainly imagine an evolution of the Cardinalate in such a way that it was open to laypeople (male or female). However, given that the meaning and purpose of the office is rooted in the concept of being a member of the Roman clergy, I don't quite see whether such a development would be wise or natural.

Likewise, the question of women heading up Vatican Congregations is something that could well happen. The key issue is not whether women can be appointed to these posts, but whether laypeople in general can be. Without going into the canonical and theological side of things, some posts in the Vatican can only be held by clergy because they carry with them authority over areas of Church life that belong properly to those who have received ordination. (The clearest example is that of the Apostolic Penitentiary who deals with issues to do with the confessional, but there are plenty of other examples.) Other posts do not involve that authority and would be open to laypeople - male or female.
As a matter of historical fact, laypeople have been appointed Undersecretaries at a number of Vatican Congregations - that's the No.3 spot in the organizational chart. Whether a layperson could be appointed to a higher position is a matter of debate - particularly given what Vatican II has to say about the way in which the task of Church governance belongs to those in Holy Orders. This is an issue that commentators such as Fr Hoban don't seem to wish to address. Vatican II taught very clearly on the role of the clergy (and Bishops in particular) and their responsibility in governing the Church in such a way that the idea of assigning particular roles and offices to laypeople runs directly counter to the teaching of the Council.
Despite articulating the vision of the Church as People of God, the Council also clarified the respective roles and responsibilities of clergy and laity, whilst many of those claiming to speak according to the 'spirit of the council' seem to want to clericalize the laity and laicize the clergy. Additionally, Fr Hoban's suggestion of appointing women as Cardinals or Heads of Congregations to give women a life strikes me as tokenism. I'd much rather a serious engagement with the questions of how we clergy can empower our parishioners in fulfilling their Christian vocations in the world, exploring ways in which we can collaborate more effectively with our parishioners and draw on their expertise and insights in such a way that our own ministry is more effective.

Fr Hoban's suggestion that viri probati (laymen of proven worth) should be ordained priests in order to cope with the shortage of priests is also an idea which might be worth some consideration, but not in the manner suggested by him.
To be frank, I wonder what regard Fr Hoban holds his own priesthood in if he believes that in the future he should be replaced by someone suitable chosen from his parish who is given 'minimal formation or instruction'[!!!] and is then ordained.
(I should also point out that his suggestion that the 4 year training programme candidates for the permanent diaconate receive is 'minimal' strikes me as hugely offensive to the candidates and their formators.)
Anyway, regarding this question of viri probati, it should be recognised that in the first centuries of the Church, men of worth in the local Christian community were chosen and ordained for ministry. (St Ambrose wasn't even baptised when the people of Milan picked him as their bishop!)  This stands in contrast to the model whereby men discern a calling or attraction to the priestly life, spend years in training and formation, are ordained and then assigned by the Bishop to serve a particular local community. One can certainly see the attraction of communities being led by one of their own whose integrity of life and suitability for ordination is shown by a lifetime of Christian witness (perhaps as a husband and father) and a demonstrated commitment to the Church and the Church's mission as a layperson.
There is certainly food for thought there, and the advantages and disadvantages of such a model of priestly ministry should certainly be discussed. There are plenty of theological and practical reasons not to re-adopt that model as well.
The point I would made is that the particulars of Fr Hoban's suggestion are ill-founded. Fr Hoban makes the suggestion that the viri probati model be adopted in order to prevent a Eucharistic famine - the prospect of there not being enough priests to celebrate Mass. The fact that he believes that the ordination of these men can happen with 'minimal formation' suggests that he sees ordination in this context as being something that facilitates the valid celebration of sacraments and little more. The picture he's putting forward is of these men getting enough training to say Mass, whilst presumably the ministry of leadership and teaching in the parish is entrusted to someone else. One would have thought that Fr Hoban could offer a better picture of priesthood than that of 'sacramental dispenser'. I would challenge Fr Hoban to find anything in the Second Vatican Council's theology of Holy Orders to justify such a vision of priesthood.
If he looks, he'll find that our sacramental ordination is intended to conform us to Christ the Head and Shepherd of the Church and that our vocation is to assist in that ministry of teaching, governing and sanctifying that Christ entrusted to the Apostles, their successors the Bishops and, through them, to priests as co-workers with the Bishops. Fr Hoban's idea of ordaining minimally trained laymen as priests in order to keep the Mass schedule going reminds me of the worst caricature of medieval clergy who had just enough Latin to enable them to celebrate Mass after Mass in the chantry for the souls of the dead.

To my mind, if we want to tackle the vocations problem we need to tackle the faith problem first. I'm in my mid-30s - a pretty rare demographic for priests in today's Ireland. If things carry on as they do, in a couple of decades time, I'll have the pastoral responsibility for an area currently served by (probably) 3 or 4 priests at the moment. However, I do not see the Irish Church's problem as being primarily one of vocations - it's one of faith. I don't have the figures to prove it, but I would estimate that the number of vocations to the priesthood and religious life in the under-40 age group is proportionate and reasonable when you consider how few of that age-group are sincere, involved and practising Catholics.
 That's the first and primary problem - forming people to be followers of Jesus Christ who believe and worship with the Church. Certainly we still have a majority of people who engage occasionally with the Church - for First Communions, weddings, funerals and so on, but if we don't form genuine disciples, then we have no reason to expect that there will be priests. As Pope Benedict said to the American Bishops, "Let us be quite frank: the ability to cultivate vocations to the priesthood and the religious life is a sure sign of the health of a local Church." We need to deal with that problem first.

Looking positively 
Rather than just carp about what Fr Hoban wrote, I feel as though I should add something positive to the discussion. I don't have the same number of years of priesting under my belt as Fr Hoban does, but just as the young man Elihu 'has his spake' in the Book of Job after his elders have said their peace, I'll put forward a few observations as one of the younger priests in the country and someone whose faith was formed in the 1980s and 1990s and who discerned a vocation to the priesthood as some of the most shameful chapters of our history as a Church in Ireland came to light.
1. Time to Re-read Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae
We need to put the so-called 'Spirit of Vatican II' to bed. Pretty much every un-theological and counter-productive idea bubbling up these days is attributed to the Spirit of the Council rather than being rooted in the teachings of the Council itself. When Bl. John XXIII opened the council he put forward a vision of a historically aware, confident and informed Catholicism that was capable of both learning from and leavening the modern world so that people are brought to Christ. At the core of the Council was the idea of a re-discovery of scripture and the Church Fathers so that the treasure we have received from our ancestors might be passed on to the future. The Council did not ask us to develop amnesia about the teachings of the Church promulgated before 1962, but consolidated and developed them in a way which demands we understand them properly before facing into the future. In other words, we need to understand the Council according to the Hermeneutic of Continuity - the only possible & worthy hermeneutic if we believe in the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
2. Lessons to be Learned from the Eucharistic Congress
This year saw the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin. There has been criticism of the Congress from various viewpoints and there will be some truth in most criticisms. However, I would argue that on the whole, the Congress was a huge positive for the Church in Ireland and - if we choose to learn lessons from it - will bear much fruit.
Firstly, attendance at the Congress exceeded the figures expected by the prophets of doom. Talks and workshops were packed out and there was a great 'buzz' around the RDS during Congress week. There was a genuine desire amongst those present to learn more about their faith and to celebrate it. The lesson to be learned is as follows: If we put the effort in to it, our people do want to deepen their faith and celebrate it.
Secondly, I was quite involved in Congress preparations in my diocese. As a general pattern, in parishes where clergy and one or two interested laity were enthusiastic in promoting the Congress, people tended to make the journey to Dublin for it. In places where the clergy were cynical and didn't encourage and support their parishioners to take part, turn-out tended to be low. Probably the greatest tragedy of the Congress was meeting cynical clergy who showed up at the RDS to see what was happening, had a great time and were personally converted.
This 'conversion' happened much too late for them to be able to invite their parishioners to 'come and see' what was happening at the Congress. If those clergy of Ireland who were cynical or apathetic about the Congress had a change of heart 6 months before the Congress, the RDS wouldn't have been half big enough for the attendees. As we face into the Year of Faith, the clergy of Ireland cannot afford to be cynical about it or will will be complaining about it as a 'lost opportunity' at the end of 2013. We also need to make sure that our key lay collaborators are involved in planning and promoting activities for the year of Faith.
3. Share the Good News
Last year, the Episcopal Conference launched a National Directory for Catechesis called Share the Good News. I don't think it's made much of an impact yet, but I think it demands serious attention. It sets out a 10 year plan for parishes so that they can more effectively teach the faith. In my judgement, the content of the Directory is excellent and deals precisely with this problem of teaching the faith that is at the heart of so many of our current problems. Along similar lines, the Archdiocese of Dublin is taking steps in the right direction regarding the formation of children and parents for the sacraments. (I especially like the fact that they're encouraging parents to re-discover the sacrament of reconciliation.) More can and will need to be done, of course, but it's a positive move. Again, clergy need to 'pull together' and be supportive of these efforts to make the most of these pastoral opportunities.

I could write more about the opportunities that are out there, but I need to get an early start on my 'First Friday Calls.' If I could sum up what I want to say about the Church in Ireland in two sentences, it'd be as follows.  We need to understand that the problem we face is a problem of faith, and we won't bring people to faith unless we teach the faith. Our parishes and our pastoral activities need to have that mission of teaching as a priority these days, and Pope Benedict's calling of a Year of Faith comes at a providential time for the Church in our country.

Priestly Vocations in Ireland - Quick & Dirty Calculations

The Catholic Communications Office issued a press release earlier this week with the news that 12 new seminarians were beginning their studies at St Patrick's College in Maynooth this year. Needless to say, our best wishes go to these new seminarians and we pray that the Lord will lead them to discern His will for them.  However, even though their entry into seminary is 'good news' for them, their families and their dioceses, I have to agree with the point made by both Fr Gerard Dunne OP and Shane of Lux Occulta that the Irish Church has little reason to be content with these figures. Whilst, as I say, it's good news for the individuals concerned, the figure of just 12 new seminarians for the Church in Ireland is pretty pathetic.

I've discussed the figures with people off-line and I know that some dioceses (my own included) have done proper projections of priest numbers over the next couple of decades and made their clergy aware of what's down the line.  However, in my experience, when the figures are put before members of the laity there tends to be a refusal to accept them - a sort of pious state of denial and the expectation that 'things will turn around again.'  In my experience, many people don't believe there is a problem until their own local area loses a priest in the diocesan changes and even then the attitude persists that the Bishop has some kind of 'priest factory' from whence he can produce men to plug the gaps, or that the developing Church (in Africa, etc.) should be asked to provide us with clergy or even that elderly and sick priests be taken out of their nursing homes and hospitals and shuttled around the diocese every Sunday morning.

Anyway, for the sake of contributing something to the discussion, these are the 'quick and dirty' figures I put before people to give them an idea of where we're headed.
Let's look at the numbers entering Maynooth over the past 6 years:

12 in 2012, 13 in 2011; 10 in 2010; 24 in 2009; 14 in 2008; 18 in 2007.

As I understand it, those numbers are the students beginning seminary studies in St Patrick's Maynooth and their colleagues from St Malachy's in Belfast ('The Wing') who join them for the 'spiritual month' at the start of their formation.  There might also be a seminarian or two beginning his studies at the Irish College in Rome, the Beda in Rome or (occasionally) some other foreign house of priestly formation.
If you average the figure for the past 6 years you get 15 entrants per annum - and to that we can add 1 to take account of those beginning studies in Rome or elsewhere. So, let us presume 16 men begin studying for the diocesan priesthood for Irish dioceses each year.

When I was in seminary, the prevailing wisdom was that that if a man began formation, there was an approximately 50% likelihood that he would be ordained.  That sounds more or less right to me - and I don't think it necessarily reflects badly on the seminary system. Men discover that they're not called to priesthood or that they're not suitable for priesthood. A good seminary system will allow the correct discernment to be made.  In any event, I'd be surprised - even if one had a Rolls Royce seminary set-up - if a significant proportion of entrants didn't discover their vocation was elsewhere. So, for the sake of these calculations, we assume that half of our entering seminarians are ordained.

Finally, we need to make a 'guesstimate' about how many years of active service each newly-ordained priest will give.  Most vocations these days in Ireland tend to be from men who have already done a primary degree and may have spent a few years working.  There will be a few that come directly from Secondary School or from the middle of their undergraduate studies.  There is also a significant proportion who enter seminary in middle-age.  Traditionally, most priests would have been ordained aged about 24 or 25.  Nowadays, I would say that it's more likely that a priest would be ordained in his early/mid-30s, with, as I said, a few men in their 40s and 50s being ordained as well.  Most dioceses have an official retirement age of 70, but priests can and do serve beyond that age.  That being said, by the time a man reaches 75 years or thereabouts it's usually not fair to expect him to continue in parish duties, even if he's in good health. Some priests will retire at a much younger age than that, of course due to ill-health or other reasons.  Inevitably there will also be those who leave the priesthood. So, whilst it's possible that a man might be ordained aged 25 and serve in parish ministry until he's 75 making for a total of 50 years of active service, when one takes into account the possibility of illness, death, and all the other factors and realise that most priests will be older than 25 when they are ordained, I think it's more reasonable to expect the 'average' priest to give 35 or 40 years of service before he retires from full-time ministry.  For the sake of these calculations, we'll take my upper estimate and assume that the average priest ordained these days will serve for 40 years before he retires from active ministry.

If you hold these figures to be constant over the next few decades, you will see that in 4 decades' time, the number of diocesan priests active in Ireland will be...

16 [seminary entrants] X  0.5 [probability of ordination] X 40 [average years of priestly service = 320

That's a quick and dirty calculation.  I don't pretend that it's scientifically accurate and if anyone wants to do the calculations based on other estimates, then that's fine.  I'm just putting that figure out there as an indication of where things are going if the numbers don't change.  Even if you want to be optimistic and assume a doubling of priestly vocations and a  lower 'seminary drop-out rate', you'd struggle to bring the estimated number of active diocesan priests in Ireland in 40 years time up to the 800 mark.

To the best of my knowledge, there are approximately 3,000 diocesan priests in Ireland at the moment, of whom about 75% I understand to be active - in other words, somewhere about the 2,200 mark.  So, if trends remain unchanged, you have to imagine a situation where for every seven active diocesan priests in Ireland today, there will be just one in 40 years' time.

Now, of course the future is not written in stone, and both Shane and Fr Gerard have their own assessment of why things are the way they are.  For myself, I'll just say that in my opinion the level of priestly vocations in Ireland is consistent with the lack of success we are experiencing in forming disciples of Jesus Christ who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their faith.     

More postively

Tomorrow is Good Shepherd Sunday and Pope Benedict's message is well worth a read. He took Vocations, the Gift of the Love of God as his theme for this World Day of Prayer for Vocations.
I always give thanks to the Lord on Good Shepherd Sunday because I am genuinely grateful for the gift of priesthood.  I know I fall short of mark in so many ways, but it is a genuine gift to be a minister of God's presence through priestly ministry.  It's a wonderful thing to welcome a small baby into the Body of Christ through the sacrament of baptism and to comfort the dying with the last sacraments.  It's a delight to prepare young children for Confession and Communion and to share in the wedding celebrations of couples starting out on the journey of married life together.  I also enjoy being part of the life of a Diocese - I'm one of those odd eggs who doesn't mind sitting on a committee or two - and the fellowship of being part of a presbyterate.  Even in these days, the welcome and friendship of parishioners - even those I haven't gotten to know yet personally - is a great privilege.
The great frustration of priesthood today is the sense of having found something - or rather Someone - and realising that so many out there seem unwilling to welcome Him into their lives.  There's seems to be assumption out there that what the Church has to offer, what Christ Himself has to offer is surplus to requirements, something no longer needed, or even something that needs to be left behind in the past.  That's doubly true when it comes to the gift of priesthood itself - there seems precious little interest in faith or in vocation amongst the vast, vast majority of our young people. Having experienced both the joys and challenges of priestly ministry, I would love to see a younger generation of men follow the same path. That'll be the theme of my homily this evening - the challenge to foster a culture of faith and vocation in our parish so that we can hear the voice of the Good Shepherd speaking to us.  As the Holy Father himself puts it:

  It is my hope that the local Churches and all the various groups within them, will become places where vocations are carefully discerned and their authenticity tested, places where young men and women are offered wise and strong spiritual direction. In this way, the Christian community itself becomes a manifestation of the Love of God in which every calling is contained. 

A thought about the Association of Catholic Priests Survey...

There has been a fair amount of discussion today about the Association of Catholic Priests survey which shows the opinions of many Irish Catholics to be at odds the the doctrine of the Church. I suppose we're supposed to think that it's time for the "Institutional Church" to catch up with modern times and revise doctrine so as to fall in line with the opinions of "contemporary Catholics".  (Incidentally, the phrase "Institutional Church" makes me cringe - it almost always betrays a flawed ecclesiology.)
The thinking behind such a point of view is the idea that experience trumps Divine Revelation and a general lack of belief in revealed religion.  Only SOME of the challenges of the Gospel are viewed as politically correct nowadays, so it's acceptable to preach generosity to the less fortunate, but less so to affirm the value of chastity.  There seems to be a sense that Christ's message is take up your cross and follow me in a manner consistent with the values of your age.
I wish one or two other questions had been included in the survey - whether it's okay to work a few hours overtime for an under-the-counter cash wage or whether it's okay to tell a few white lies.  Would we be faced with the argument that the Church needs to change its teaching on honest in order to reflect the values of contemporary Catholics?

Rather than go through the whole survey, one question in particular caught my attention - the fact that only 5% of Catholics expressed the opinion that people who are divorced-and-in-a-second-relationship should not be allowed receive Holy Communion. Given that Christ Himself taught that divorcing and taking up with another partner was adultery and that it's clear from the scriptures that from the time of the Apostles grave sin excludes one from the Eucharist, we're being asked to swallow the proposition that the words of Christ and the teachings of the Apostles need to be reviewed based on the tolerance of the Irish people. [BTW, a study of Church discipline in the early centuries would be an eye-opening project for those people who imagine pre-Constantinian Christianity as some sort of let-it-all-hang-out hippy experiment.]
Any priest who has spent any time in parish ministry will know the pain caused by relationship breakdown and will want to be as sympathetic as possible to someone in such a situation.  However, parish life shows equally clearly that a culture which places little stock in the sacredness of marriage vows and the importance of marriage as the fundamental building block of the family is a society where children suffer from the fallout of this social change.  In modern Ireland the prophetic stance is to stand up for marriage.

The one thing that is clear from the survey is that those of us - clergy and lay - who have been charged with the task of teaching within the Church have done pretty poorly.  It shouldn't be a surprise to us that the cultural mores of those who produce our television programmes and write in our newspapers influence Irish Catholics more than the 10 minutes or so of preaching that church-goers hear every week.  There is very little sense in the Irish Church that one's faith is something that one should spend time in studying and that our religious convictions should lead us to have an understanding of life that is radically different from the culture around us.  Given that so far as social and moral issues were concerned, the values of society and the Church were in harmony until relatively recently, it's a new thing for Irish Catholicism to propose a vision that's at odds with the received morality.  Still, I think we priests should be courageous. Indeed, we must be courageous!  If our vocation means anything at all, it means being configured to Christ the Good Shepherd and there's a long tradition in the Patristic literature which pours contempt on the shepherd who remains silent.  As Pope St Gregory the Great put it:

When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.

On the Fr Flannery Case...

There has been a lot of fuss online and in the media about the Fr Flannery case. Fr Tony Flannery is a well-known Redemptorist preacher and writer who is said to have been under investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the past couple of months.  (Curiously the story only broke during Holy Week, allowing all kinds of comparisons to be drawn between Fr Flannery and Christ... Whoever brought this to the attention of the Irish Catholic knew what they were doing...) As Michael Kelly reports:

Fr Flannery, who is a well-known author and retreat-giver, has ceased writing his regularly monthly column in the Redemptorist Reality magazine. The Irish Catholic understands that this is as a direct consequence of the Vatican’s intervention. It is the first time in 14 years that Fr Flannery’s regular column has not appeared.

To be quite honest, whilst I was aware of Fr Flannery as a "liberal priest" (I'm not a huge fan of that particular euphemism), I don't think I've ever paid enough attention to anything he's written to say definitively whether this CDF investigation is warranted or not.  However, I do have the sneaking suspicion that it probably is and I'm glad that someone finally seems to be exercising reasonable oversight into what we as priests teach from our literal and metaphorical pulpits.
Needless to say, this investigation into Fr Flannery has occasioned some outrage - his superior in Limerick made some extraordinary comments about the Church engaging in FBI tactics.  (Apparently reading what's publicly published and listening to what's preached in church is an 'FBI tactic'.)
The ever-dependable Patsy McGarry in the Irish Times presents a wonderfully unbalanced piece which consists of quotes lifted from an article in Doctrine and Life and the Association of Catholic Priests' website.  Why go to the bother of tracking down someone who might have a different perspective to offer when you can put together a quick article by copying and pasting from the ACP's blog and comment box.
I'll be keeping Fr Flannery in my prayers.  To his credit, I know that he has in his kindness been of great help to a number of people of my acquaintance.  However, if he has been misleading people by his teaching, then it is to his benefit and the benefit of the Church that the situation be rectified.

As a counterpoint to the guff you'll find in so many other places, it's worth reading the actual text of what Pope Benedict said to the priests of Rome in his Chrism Mass last Thursday.  He poses the genuine question as to what Christ meant by telling us that we are "consecrated in the truth".

Two things, above all, are asked of us: there is a need for an interior bond, a configuration to Christ, and at the same time there has to be a transcending of ourselves, a renunciation of what is simply our own, of the much-vaunted self-fulfilment. We need, I need, not to claim my life as my own, but to place it at the disposal of another – of Christ.

Clerical discipline and that sense of self-renunciation is something that sits uneasily with an age that is precisely about self-fulfilment, about the assertion of my rights and my opinions.  It's easy for clergy to forget that whatever authority or regard we might have amongst the faithful, it only makes sense in as much as we are faithful to the Church, conformed to Christ and willing to set aside our own egotism.
When I was studying Canon Law in seminary, our professor used to tell us that whilst the promises or vows of celibacy or chastity that priests and religious make are counter-cultural and a personal challenge, it is in fact the obedience we promise to our bishops, our religious superiors and to the Church that is the most radical gift-of-self.  I think this is a point that is lost on the mainstream media (until cases like Fr Flannery's surface), but one that I never fail to make when discussing priesthood with seminarians.

Finally, on a semi-related note, so much of what the Church has being going through of late reminds me of Cardinal Newman's Biglietto Speech.  I get the sense that even within the Church the idea of religion as opinion has a greater hold on us than our belief in Divine Revelation.

Teaching children how to pray...

Fr Tim Finigan gives a lovely answer to a a mother who asks how she should teach her child how to pray.

The place to start is with your own prayers. There are many good prayer books that will help you to say some simple morning and night prayers so that you are used to spending a little time with Our Lord each day. You can also spend some quiet moments thinking about the truths of the faith (again there are some quite simple summaries available in many prayer books) and then asking Our Lord in your own words how to live well as a Catholic.

[snip]
As soon as your child is able to walk and talk a little, that would be the time to kneel down and say some simple prayers, especially at bedtime. You can say prayers at your own choice; there are many good children’s prayer books that can help. It is also good if you say some traditional prayers such as the Our Father and the Hail Mary, and perhaps the Act of Contrition and the Prayer to the Guardian Angel. It doesn’t matter that your child doesn’t understand them fully as yet – he will start at school knowing these familiar prayers and will understand them better as he gets older.

 It's quite a common - and heart-breaking - thing these days for children to arrive into primary school aged 4 or 5 unable to bless themselves or not knowing the basic prayers such as the Our Father or the Hail Mary. I'm fortunate that the Primary School teachers in my parish schools are excellent and pray with the children throughout the day, but unless the habit of prayer is learned in the home, I fear that it will be something ultimately foreign to these children.
I know that when I was growing up, bedtime prayers were the most natural thing in the world and a regular part of the daily routine.  Prayer was as much a part of life as eating or breathing or brushing one's teeth. And that's as it should be. However, that tradition or habit seems to have been broken in most households these days.  I sometimes wonder how that came to happen - how people who had learned to pray from their parents didn't pass on the same habits to their children.  I suppose the most obvious answer is that they themselves had stopped praying, and therefore it wasn't part of their home-life when they had children. However, parents also want their children to grow up knowing God and receiving the sacraments, so they're not totally disengaged from a life of faith either.
I like that Fr Tim is so encouraging in his answer.  Personally, I try to be encouraging as well when preparing couples for the baptism of their children. I remind them that one of the final blessings of the Baptism ceremony contains the prayer that they should be the first and the best of teachers of the faith in their children's lives. It's important for parents to realise that Church teaching and practice empowers parents and encourages them in their roles as parents. They are told clearly that they have an irreplaceable role and importance in their children's lives and that they themselves have the right and duty to pass on the best of values and a belief in God to their children. So many other influences in society seem to take away or minimise the parents' role. Children's television and the media in general do not affirm or encourage parenthood. The cult of youth puts out the message that the next generation should be free to make their own mistakes, and by the time children reach their early teens, I get the impression that most parents simply no longer know how or have the confidence to be parents to their own children. Maybe I'm naive, but I genuinely think that the Church can do some good by being more forthright in encouraging and supporting parents to be parents when children are young.
I also love the fact that Fr Finigan encourages this mother to pray with her unborn child. When I'm going through the baptism ceremony with parents in our preparatory class, I tell them that making the sign of the cross on their child's forehead should remind them as parents they can always bestow a blessing on their children. They can also make a point of praying with their children, even before the child knows what prayer is. I was chuffed to bits to discover that one of the first words learned by the first-born of a dear friend was "amen!"  Tús maith, leath na hoibre!

Homily for the 17th Week of Ordinary Time (Year A)

Readings here
A number of my parishioners said some kind things about my homily this morning and said it encouraged them. It's somewhat more 'personal' in tone than most of my homilies, but it seemed like an appropriate time to speak very personally about some of the challenges of priesthood these days.

It has been a tough week and a half to be a priest in Ireland. There is a storm raging around us at the moment, and it’s not always easy to know what to make of it. Because, some of what is happening these days is JUSTICE – hidden things being brought to light – evil, wrongdoing, incompetence, carelessness and neglect being dragged into the light of day. Sunlight is the best detergent – this kind of purification, even when it is painful, is something that we must accept, and even welcome.

Some of what is happening these days is INJUSTICE – some things have been said which are unfair. Hurtful and hate-filled things have been said. So much of the good work done by laity and clergy has been written off and ignored. Anger about Cloyne is justifiable. However, this same anger has blinded some people and led us to the day I never thought I’d never see – the day when the political leaders of our own country would be mounting an assault, trying to crack open the seal of confession. Priests have been willing to die for the sake of that seal.

Some of the criticism the Church has received has been justified. Some of it has not. But, I don’t think that a homily is the right time for me to work through in detail the rights and wrongs of the whole horrid situation. Good and sincere Catholics disagree about where these rights and wrongs and this is not the time for me address that particular controversy.

Because, I very much appreciate that all of you who have gathered here this morning have made your choice to come to Mass. Many of your friends and family, I am sure, take a different decision. Those of you who have come here have probably had a difficult week and a half as well. Some of you probably dread turning on the radio or looking at the newspaper.
Some of you have come to Mass with serious doubts about the Church, or about the clergy. Maybe your faith is battered and bruised. That is understandable. Some of you are here feeling that the Church is getting an unfair whipping and you’re angry with politicians or the media. Maybe you feel like digging in your heels in spite of them. That’s understandable as well. Some of you are probably somewhere between those two positions or don’t really know what to think. That’s understandable as well.

Whatever you feel about being here at Mass this morning, about being part of the Church, can I reassure you of one thing? The real reason that you are here this morning is because God wants you to be here. St Paul in our second reading assures us of this – God has a plan for us, and has chosen us to be the brothers and sisters of his Son. He wants to be at work in us so that we resemble ever more closely Jesus Christ. We must never lose sight of that. God has called us and continues to call us to know His mercy and his love; He invites us to know his friendship and His consolation and the healing power of Christ.

And it is because of that invitation, that call, that I am so upset about the situation in Ireland at the moment. I am upset, first of all at the damage and pain inflicted on victims of cruelty, abuse or neglect. That upsets me greatly.
And I am upset at the fact that this pain and damage and all the aftermath from it – both inside and outside the Church – is cutting people off from the healing power of Christ and His Gospel. Lord knows, we need that healing and that Gospel these days. As a priest, it’s the fact that Christ’s own healing and power is being blocked in so many ways that frustrates me.

I have been in this parish for the past X years and have been a priest for the past Y – I can’t really complain of ever being badly treated in any real way because I am a Catholic priest. I haven’t had to deal with people hassling me or insulting me because of my priesthood. I don’t feel threatened or put upon in the slightest in that way. Quite the opposite, in fact. People have been so good and supportive to me in my priesthood and have been keeping me in their prayers, so I don’t at all get the sense that people want to treat me badly. And I want to make it clear that I am as happy today to be a priest as I was the day I was ordained.

No, the thing that concerns me about the priesthood in the present day and about the future is that because of all the evil things that have happened in the past and because of the way we’re dealing with them today, it’s going to be more and more difficult to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people – and in a time when there is so much pain and confusion, that’s truly disheartening. There is so much out there blocking the Gospel and making it harder to hear the voice of Jesus Christ in our country. That, as I said, is truly disheartening.

Because, I genuinely believe in the ‘pearl of great price’. I believe in the Kingdom of God, I believe that knowing Jesus Christ and trying to do God’s will is worth more than anything else in the world. I believe that there is a greater beauty, a greater power, a greater healing, a greater wisdom and a greater consolation in the Gospel of Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father, than in all other philosophies.
I believe that NOTHING compares with the fact that the Son of God has come among us as a man, has suffered for us, and invites us to be part of His family, the Church. I believe that there is nothing greater than knowing that we are His brothers and sisters. There is nothing more life-giving than to know Him in Word and Sacrament.

The fact that you too have gathered here in this church for Mass this morning shows that you too know the attraction and power and healing of Christ – and you will understand me when I say that the only healthy and sure way out of our current morass is in turning to Christ with courage and trust asking Him to give us the words and the understanding and the healing that He alone can bring. We won’t find it in our upset, or our anger or our frustration or our disquiet, unless He alone shows it to us. But if He grants it to us, we will find Him despite the darkness we have to face.

Solomon, in our first reading, prospered because he discerned well. He knew what he needed from God in order to rule justly and he asked for it. God heard him, God granted His desire and gave him even more than He asked for because He asked wisely.

We need the spirit of Solomon today – in our weakness, we need to turn to the Lord and ask him to guide us, to give us his wisdom. We need a spirit of prayer. We need a spirit of discernment. We need a spirit of understanding and right judgement to make sense of difficult times. Above all, we need a faith that binds us ever more closely to Christ. In this faith, we need to find a deep compassion for all who are called to be Christ’s brothers and sisters and to be our brothers and sisters as well. The Lord alone can grant that, and the Lord alone can cause his will to be done, even in times of confusion and chaos.

St Paul points us in the right direction – he reassures us, “by turning everything to their good God co-operates with all those who love him.” We see that most clearly of all in the Cross – when Christ brought salvation out of unadulterated evil. All that Christ has to give us comes out of that darkness. We ask Him to do the same for our Church, for our people in Ireland today – to bring His salvation and light out of the darkness and confusion of these days.

Maynooth Seminary to Close?

There's an interesting report on the Irish Catholic website suggesting that Ireland's largest seminary may be closed as a result of the recent visitation by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York.

The national seminary, which has educated Irishmen for the priesthood since 1795, may be set for closure after the recent Apostolic Visitation by New York's Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan. It is expected the report will recommend that Pope Benedict XVI move all Irish seminarians to a reformed and restructured Pontifical Irish College in Rome.
The historic shift would bring an end to concerns about falling academic standards at Maynooth and claims by some that the college in no longer 'fit for mission'. One senior academic told The Irish Catholic that the Apostolic Visitors were ''appalled'' by some of the standards in Maynooth. Rome would give access to heavyweight universities under direct scrutiny from the Vatican.
It is understood the plan would include the Irish College in Rome dramatically reducing the number of non-Irish students enrolled in the seminary to make way for the seminarians from Maynooth.

I can imagine that this news won't go down well as many Maynooth graduates won't want to see their Alma Mater closed. It's interesting that the focus of the article is on the academic shortcomings of the Pontifical University. Whether Maynooth had sufficient weight to be considered a viable Pontifical University is something that I've heard quietly discussed for years.
One wonders what Archbishop Dolan's report will have to say regarding formation in Maynooth and the other Irish seminaries (Rome & Belfast).

Incidentally, speaking of Archbishop Dolan, his St Patrick's Day Letter this year is a very fine reflection on the Sacrament of Confession. I'm loath to quote selectively from it, so go and read the whole thing.

[Anyone want to lay a bet on how quickly the Association of 'Catholic' Priests will be in putting together a whine about Rome suppressing Maynooth?]

Edited to add: The President of Maynooth says the report is 'without foundation'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Thorny Question of Child Protection...

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

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

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

The Preaching Life...

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

That New Priests' Body...

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

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

Ecumenical? One presumes that he means ecclesiastical...

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

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

So, what's happening now?

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

Okay...
And now comes the interesting bit:

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

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

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

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

The Wedding of Tommy Tiernan

I was interested to read about the wedding of Irish Comedian Tommy Tiernan in today's Irish Times. Back in 2006 he created some controversy by performing on the Late Late show. I don't recall the details, but he generated quite a lot of ill-feeling by being very offensive about Christ and the Catholic Church. More recently, he fell afoul of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission for mimicking a man disabled in a motor accident.

A Church Wedding?
Still, I must say that I wasn't tremendously surprised that he was married in the Catholic church at Corracrin in Co. Monaghan. The right of the baptised Catholic to be married in the Church is very strongly upheld by the Code of Canon Law, and whilst Tiernan seems to have displayed little respect for the Church in the past, I'm not in a position to speculate about the current religious attitudes of himself or his bride.

Waiting for the Bride
However, the newspaper report's description of the wedding annoys me for a whole variety of reasons. Firstly, the wedding was supposed to take place at 2.30pm. Any priest will tell you that the bride being a little late is traditional, and that it's rare enough for her to be ridiculously late. In my own experience, I find that couples are usually quite good, and on those rare occasions when I've been kept waiting due to unforeseen circumstances, the bride has usually been most apologetic. However, in this case, the groom didn't arrive until 5 to 3, and the bride was a full hour and a half late, eventually showing up at 4pm. Now, one of the challenges that I have with weddings is trying to preserve an air of recollection in church beforehand. Folk are excited, and maybe some aren't frequent church-goers, so I don't run around slapping their palms with a ruler for talking in church. However, I always preface a wedding with a few words of welcome for friends and family and a reminder that they're all gathered to prayerfully accompany the couple on their big day. That, I think, helps bring things under control in the 5 or 10 minutes we spend waiting for the bride.
Now, let's be honest. I find it hard to believe that the great and the good of Irish showbiz society were quietly prayerful during the 90 minutes wait for the future Mrs Tiernan. When a wedding runs that late, it seems as though respect isn't being shown to the Church, the priest, the guests or Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Security Guards?
I was also disturbed by the fact that security guards were hired to keep the riff-raff (i.e. local parishioners) out of the church for the duration of the wedding. Marriage is a public act, and in Canon Law should only be performed secretly for a grave and urgent cause. (Canon 1130) Personally, I wouldn't dream of allowing any church in my parish to be closed to my parishioners in such a manner.
I'm also puzzled as to how this fits in with the provisions of the Civil Registration Act of 2004 which states:

51.—(1) A marriage may be solemnised by, and only by, a registered solemniser.
(2) A registered solemniser shall not solemnise a marriage
unless—
[...]
(c) the place where the solemnisation takes place is open to the
public,

The Cleric as Tight-rope walker
My attitude to this is pretty much the same as my attitude to the controversy surrounding the late Ronnie Drew's funeral. The Church has rules to guarantee the rights of the faithful and to assist the Christian people grow in holiness. They're often administered with a light hand for the sake of the salvation of souls. However, when it seems as though the usual procedures are set aside for the rich and famous, the Church is made to seem as though she favours those who have been successful in the eyes of the world. Preferential option for the poor, where are you? Sometimes it's a case of priests caving to pressure applied to them, at other times it's a case of an unfortunate cleric having his head turned by fame or celebrity. Sometimes my brother priests can be disloyal in having little time for the basic rules and regulations which the rest of us try to compassionately uphold. Sometimes the laity take the initiative and arrange for things to be done 'their own way' whether the clergy like it or not, and we're left in the situation of making the best of a bad situation without causing too much scandal.

I'm not in a position to make accusations or point fingers at anyone - lay or cleric - in the case of Tommy Tiernan's wedding. I don't have the inside story on how things were arranged by anyone involved in the celebration. Perhaps everything was done 'by the book' and in good faith. However, the media report of the wedding seems to raise several questions about the way in which the marriage was conducted, and seems to me to be an example of how scandal can be caused when special allowances are made for people who are only special because of worldly success. What can I do, but echo the bewilderment of the parishioners who were locked out of their own church?

Divorced and Re-Married - An Internal Forum Solution?

Fr John Boyle posts a very interesting article about whether an 'internal forum' solution exists for divorced and re-married Catholics who wish to receive Holy Communion.

Holy Communion Services without a Priest

One of the vexing questions facing us here in Ireland is how we should cope with the increasingly severe shortage of priests. Of course, relative to much of the world, there's still an abundance of priests in Ireland - and maybe the past has spoiled us in terms of our expectations, but what is clear is that many Irish parishes will be losing priests at a very rapid rate over the next few years.
One consequence of this is that communities will find the number of Masses celebrated on weekdays and on Sundays cut back. Should these simply be dropped or should they be replaced by lay- or deacon-led services? If they are replaced, what form should these services take and should they include distribution of Holy Communion?

There's been a lot of muddled thinking about this issue, and I think that there are a number of points which should be made clear. Firstly, the absence of the celebration of Mass in one's local church doesn't necessarily dispense one from one's serious obligation to attend Mass on a Sunday or Holyday of Obligation. If one can travel to another nearby church for Mass, one should, and it would be a very worthwhile thing for people to assist their elderly neighbours and all others who have difficulty making it to Mass. Consequently, we should be extremely cautious about replacing our Sunday Masses with other forms of service when it is practicable for the faithful to travel to nearby churches. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear that this is the preferred way of dealing with this situation:

Therefore when it is difficult to have the celebration of Mass on a Sunday in a parish church or in another community of Christ’s faithful, the diocesan Bishop together with his Priests should consider appropriate remedies. Among such solutions will be that other Priests be called upon for this purpose, or that the faithful transfer to a church in a nearby place so as to participate in the Eucharistic mystery there.

However, circumstances may arise where Sunday celebrations in the absence of a priest may be appropriate. It should be noted that the distribution of Holy Communion need not be part of such a celebration. Obviously one would have to take into account how long the community would be deprived of Holy Communion in such a case.
It's worth noting that the guidance of Redemptionis Sacramentum very much frowns on weekday services where Holy Communion is distributed outside the context of the Mass:

Likewise, especially if Holy Communion is distributed during such celebrations, the diocesan Bishop, to whose exclusive competence this matter pertains, must not easily grant permission for such celebrations to be held on weekdays, especially in places where it was possible or would be possible to have the celebration of Mass on the preceding or the following Sunday.

I note that there has been a certain amount of press coverage given to a priest who, whilst on holidays, arranged for a lay-led service with the distribution of Holy Communion. That would seem to be contrary to the liturgical guidelines, and in my opinion, a bad idea.

One of the sad things one encounters pastorally is the lack of understanding of the Holy Mass. The separation of the distribution of Holy Communion from the Mass inevitably increases this confusion. Anecdotally, I've heard of situations on the Continent where parish communities have refused the offer of holidaying priests to celebrate a Sunday Mass for them because they like the 'Mass' (sic) celebrated by their local lay pastoral worker. To my mind, it's incredibly sad that a community deprived of the Mass due to a shortage of priests would refuse the opportunity to participate in the Eucharist when it is offered to them. The personality of the lay pastoral worker or the community's own self-regard has displaced Christ as the focus of their worship.

One of the central advances in liturgical and sacramental theology of the past century or so is the re-connection of the participation in the Mass with the reception of Holy Communion. It might surprise modern readers to learn that until the early 20th century Masses were frequently celebrated without the distribution of communion to the lay faithful, and the reception of communion often happened in a ceremony separate from the Mass. One of my professors in Rome told me of a convent which had the following custom on the eve of the Second Vatican Council. The nuns would receive Holy Communion outside the context of the Mass, and then attend Mass as their thanksgiving for Holy Communion. This, of course, ran totally contrary to the teaching of the Popes from St Pius X onwards who encouraged frequent communion in the context of attending and participating in the Mass.
Now it seems we have another problem - people equate going to Mass with the right to receive Holy Communion. It's becoming increasingly difficult to explain to people why they might attend Mass when they are not in a situation where they could receive Holy Communion. The celebration of the Mass seems to have become subordinated to the reception of communion. Divorcing the distribution of Communion from the Mass would only increase this confusion.
I was recently re-reading Dom Ansgar Vonier's 1925 classic A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist and found that the following passage inadvertently prescient:

There ought not to be in classical Christianity a real division of spiritual attitude between Mass and Communion. Suppose per impossible, that there were an extreme multiplicity of private communions by the faithful on the one hand, and an ever-dwindling attendance at the sacrifice of the Mass on the other hand, it would indeed be the gravest spiritual disorder; it would falsify the Eucharistic setting; it would lower the sacrament through a misconception of its true role.