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.

That Patronage Report...

I was interested to read the report produced by the Forum on School Patronage. It's an engaging read and there's much of value in it.  I get the sense that most clergy are in favour of facilitating broader parent choice in terms of school patronage and ethos, in a way that respects the rights of local communities and of the Church.

However, in as much as it addressed the question of what denominational schools might look like I got the distinct sense that the report was written from a perspective that simply doesn't "get" the idea of religious faith.  Whilst our Catholic schools have a long tradition of educating and respecting the children of non-Catholic families, the suggestion that Catholic schools should display the emblems and symbols of other faiths alongside the crucifix or image of Our Lady crosses a line.  That's not the kind of concession that a religious person can in conscience make of someone of another faith.

Were I to receive hospital treatment in a Jewish hospital, I wouldn't be asking for crucifixes on the wall or a statue of the Madonna in the foyer. As long as I could pray my breviary and was treated with respect, I would be very grateful for the care received.

I was interested, therefore, to read today's article by Fr Eamonn Conway and Rik Van Nieuwenhove in the Examiner newspaper. As they succinctly put it, the report subscribes to a truncated understanding of what faith is.  By subscribing to a relativist rather than a pluralist view, the report essentially compromises the ability of any school - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim - to maintain a religious ethos whilst admitting pupils of other faiths. 

The forum’s recommendation that the Catholic Church divest itself of some schools is welcome; this facilitates greater parental choice. What it recommends for schools that remain denominational, however, will effectively eradicate the rights of parents who want their children to have a faith-based education. 
The threat takes a number of forms. It calls for an end to rule 68 for national schools, which recognises religious instruction as a fundamental part of the school course and permits a religious spirit to "inform and vivify the whole work of the school". 
The forum is effectively requesting, even for faith-based schools, that no such spirit should characterise a denominational school. It specifically requests that religion be singled out to be taught as a discrete subject apart from the rest of the curriculum although all other subjects are to be taught in an integrated manner. 
Hymns and prayers are to be inclusive of the religious beliefs (and none) of all children. This recommendation would prohibit specific Christian prayer in a Christian school if there was even one atheist or, say, Muslim, enrolled. Similarly, the emblems of various religions are to be displayed and the feasts of different religions are to be celebrated without any allowance for a religious patron’s responsibility to uphold and foster its own specific ethos.

This question of Rule 68 is key.  The Catholic Bishops recognize that the rule could do with re-writing to take into account the existence of multidenominational  or non-religious schools and the like.  However, the deletion of rule 68 fails to recognise that for Catholics, our understanding of who Jesus Christ is lies at the heart of our educational efforts as we provide a rounded education to our co-religionists and to children of other faiths in our schools.  The ethos of our Catholic schools is established by law and reads as follows:

      A Roman Catholic School (which is established in connection with the Minister) aims at promoting the full and harmonious development of all aspects of the person of the pupil: intellectual, physical, cultural, moral and spiritual, including a living relationship with God and with other people. The school models and promotes a philosophy of life inspired by belief in God and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school provides Religious education for the pupils in accordance with the doctrines, practices and tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and promotes the formation of the pupils in the Catholic Faith. 

With the removal of Rule 68, the education given is forcibly detached from this core vision and one has to ask in what sense a Catholic school can claim to be Catholic. The spirit or ethos of the school is truncated and the holistic vision of the human person and of education can no longer, of right, motivate the work of the school.  I have no doubt that other religious patronage bodies have similar concerns.

This seems to fly in the face of the principle of religious freedom and mistakes relativism for a healthy and genuine pluralism. Religious bodies can no longer direct their schools according to their own core beliefs.  This is not about the protection of or respect for minority faiths - rather, it's about putting forward the idea that it's no longer to actually believe or have real religious convictions.  It insults religious people and assumes that without the relativization of our own beliefs, we are unable to respect the beliefs of other believers.   

Do read all of the the article in the Examiner.  Beware also of the headlines surrounding this report - some of them give the misleading impression that the content of the report has met with an uncritical welcome from the Irish Bishops.  The Irish Independent makes clear that Fr Michael Drumm of the Catholic Schools Partnership has his reservations about the deletion of Rule 68 and the Iona Institute also make some valuable points.

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.

That Apostolic Visitation

I've been kept busy with parish work for the past few days, so I've not had the time to write down my thoughts on the findings of the Apostolic Visitation to Ireland.  In the main, I agree with Fr John Hogan's take on the report, and in particular his suggestion that it be read carefully. I'm sure that some friends of my own are disappointed that the report didn't suggest such drastic actions as widespread sackings in the theology faculties and the closure of Maynooth. Plenty of other commentators are bemoaning the fact that the report didn't suggest the introduction of married clergy.  Of course, many of these latter commentators aren't too keen on the Catholic Church teaching actual Catholic Doctrine, so it's not likely that they'd be happy in any case. It should also be noted that this visitation was not primarily about Child Protection or an analysis of Child Protection failures - it was intended on giving a general picture of the Irish Church so that it might be effective in its mission.

If the Church in Ireland actually takes the recommendations of the report seriously, there is more than enough there for us to get working on for the renewal of our Church.

Lazarus and Dives

We had the parable of Lazarus & Dives for the Gospel at Mass today.  Quite apart from the very pertinent Lenten reminder of our responsibility for those in need, the end of the parable made me think a little about the nature of revelation:

'The rich man replied, "Father, I beg you then to send Lazarus to my father's house, since I have five brothers, to give them warning so that they do not come to this place of torment too". "They have Moses and the prophets," said Abraham "let them listen to them.". "Ah no, father Abraham," said the rich man "but if someone comes to them from the dead, they will repent." Then Abraham said to him, "If they will not listen either to Moses or to the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead".'

At a recent confirmation dinner, a group of us clergy were discussing various discredited or dubious visionaries and the way so many people (even priests & bishops) who should know better are taken in by them. It's natural to look for extraordinary signs to confirm or strengthen our faith, and indeed, the Church has a long enough list of authentic visionaries and mystics that we can't just assume that these phenomena are always fraudulent or inauthentic. However, I think the parable of Lazarus and Dives serves to warn us that God's Revelation is essentially public.
Abraham insists on the sufficiency of the Law and Prophets - the scriptures known and revered by the Chosen People teach God's commandments with sufficient clarity to let Dives's brothers know their obligations. If their hearts are hardened against God's Word, then even the wonder of a risen Lazarus won't change things.
Implicit in that, is, I think, the idea that God had made known all that was necessary in a very public way and there would be something deficient about a faith based on the terrifying wonder of the ghostly warning of one who was dead.
One of the earliest challenges faced by the Church was the rise of Gnosticism - a mystical sort of teaching which claimed that there was a deeper and higher knowledge beyond the Gospels that could only be understood as one progressed spiritually.  In facing down this teaching, the 2nd century bishop, St Irenaeus of Lyons insisted on the public nature of revelation - Christ taught openly, the Apostles taught openly and the truth of the Church's proclamation is seen in the way in which the different Apostolic Churches openly proclaim the one and the same Gospel in harmony with each other, whereas the furtive and elaborate teachings of the differing gnostic sects are in contradiction with each other and in contrast to the manner in which Christ and His Apostles taught.
Bringing things up to the present day, with the different schisms and disagreements in Christianity, the whole idea of the harmonious and public proclamation of the Gospel might not be as convincing an argument as to the truth or credibility of the faith.  One has to do a bit of spadework to see how the Catholic Church preserves the Apostolic Faith in a way that the Orthodox Churches and protestant denominations don't.  However, the principle of the essential nature of Revelation being Public casts an interesting light on a number of areas of Church life.
As a Church, we should be very clear that we have no hidden agenda or secret motive in what we do. All our aims and intentions are to be found in what we teach. Our only task is to live according to the Gospel we have received and to bring others to that same saving knowledge and lifestyle. What is more, NOTHING about that knowledge or lifestyle is secret.  There's no secret technique for nirvana, there's no hidden knowledge about Christ or the Church that is only revealed to an inner elite.  All that we believe is public knowledge, and any claim by anyone within the Church to have secret knowledge is a denial of the public teaching of Christ, the Apostles and their successors.
Certainly, one doesn't deny that as one grows in the knowledge of the faith, one receives new insights.  Likewise, a life of prayer brings a deepening knowledge and intimacy with God. However, none of this, strictly speaking, is truly a secret knowledge in the sense of being an understanding or teaching that is different from that publicly professed by the Church.
I think that also puts a certain duty and responsibility on Christian teachers, lay and ordained.  We need to be upfront about what the Church teaches and diligent in passing on a full and thorough understanding of the faith. Certainly we need to have 'pastoral instincts' in our manner of teaching - but when these 'pastoral instincts' lead us to obfuscate or obscure the teaching of the Church, then we're failing in that duty to pass on what we have received and we're being fundamentally untrue to that same Gospel.
We need also to be aware that we should be seen to be people of integrity. If we fudge things or act evasively, then we're not being faithful to the One who is Truth Himself. Our behaviour needs to reflect His charity and His integrity.
When I meet the parents of children who are being prepared for the sacraments, I like to make a point of explaining that their children come into contact with so many different competing world views - what they see on TV, what's pushed at them by advertisers, what they pick up from other youngsters and the adults they come into contact with them. The Church has an agenda for their children as well, but almost uniquely, we're totally upfront about what it is.  We want to help children and parents alike to come to know Jesus Christ and His Gospel and to live their lives in following Him as best they can. And there's nothing hidden or concealed about that agenda.  It's perfectly public, there's no ulterior motive and we're totally transparent about our intentions.
Finally, it's important to remember this public nature of Revelation when dealing with the plethora of visionaries, messages and private revelations that are out there. I won't deny that some of them have been found to be genuine and that God's grace can and does work through them for many people. However, no matter how personally helpful or authentic they may be, they are essentially secondary when compared to the public proclamation of Christ's Gospel by the Church. Christ wants to speak to all nations through His Church, and we should be especially sceptical about any small group or clique that claims to have an 'ínside track' in terms of our salvation. Putting too much interest on a particular devotion as being the way to be saved or constantly chasing after signs, wonders and special messages run the distinct danger of distracting us from the utterly sufficient and complete Revelation given to the world by Christ through His Church. 

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!

A post to prove that I'm still alive...

Taps microphone
Is thing thing still on?

Apologies to the couple of people who still follow me.  I've not been very diligent about keeping it up to date.  A mixture of genuine busy-ness and a wretched dose of sloth has kept me away from my blog.  Anyway, I wanted to add a few links to my blogroll and draw my readers' attention to a few articles.

The Irish Blogosphere
Since my last post, I've added links to a couple of Catholic blogs which concern themselves with Irish issues.  First of all, the Lux Occulta blog has a mainly historical focus, with a wealth of articles and pamphlets painting a picture of the Irish Church in the first half of the 20th Century.  Need one say that this picture doesn't always square with the dominant narrative?
Even though he's based in England, The Thirsty Gargoyle seems to be the go-to blog for commentary on the media's treatment of Irish Church matters. When he takes Patsy McGarry to task like this, he does the Church and the truth a great service.  I wish that the Bishops' Conference were more pro-active in doing likewise.  There seems to be this assumption that it's unpastoral or counter-productive to challenge the mainstream media in this way or that because of the genuine failings of the Church that we must therefore sit in silence.  However, renewal and justice can only be served by truth, and a failure to challenge untruths does no service to the faithful.  When I read The Thirsty Gargoyle's blog-posts about the Irish Church, I usually wish that I had the time (and intellect) to write them first.

Further Afield
Amy Welborn is one of Catholic America's best known bloggers.  In her latest book, Wish You Were Here she writes about her experience of losing her husband (the late Michael Dubriel) and her path through grief as she takes her family on a trip to Sicily a few months after his death.  It's a very honest and faith-filled account of grief and healing, and is permeated with a sense of the sacramentality of this world for the believer - grace and healing by God's power gradually make themselves known to her, often through the most mundane and everyday of things.  This book is well worth a read and Amy's latest blog Booked is worth following.

To my mind, John Allen is one of the best religion reporters out there.  I'm not a fan of his newspaper, the National Catholic Reporter, but his work is rightly noted for its fairness and insight.  One of the reasons I like his work is the way in which he's able to school other journalists (and indeed many Catholics) with articles such as Three things about the church to give up for Lent.