Miserando atque Eligendo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Benedict XVI - some thoughts

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

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

The Case of Fr Flannery

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis mine)

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

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

In other news, Nuncio is a Catholic

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Princess & the Cardinal...

A few days ago, Seraphic mentioned that it was the Dianaversary - the anniversary of the late Princess Diana of Wales. The public response to her death was enormous and is popularly perceived as somehow changing the relationship between the British Monarchy and the people.  The popular narrative is that the official behaviour of the traditionalist Royals was deemed inadequate by the general public.  The press judged that the populace's grief at the loss of the 'People's Princess' was more authentic than that of the Royal family and put pressure on them to leave Scotland and come to Buckingham Palace where floral tributes were stacked high outside the railings.  Headlines such as Where is our Queen? Where is her flag? and Show us you care challenged the traditional protocol and in response, Queen Elizabeth gave orders for the Union Flag to be flown at half-mast on the day of the funeral - a break from the traditional protocol, but (more importantly) touted by press and politicians as a sign of some sort of seismic shift in relations between the Monarchy and People in Britain. It was taken to represent the public will overcoming the traditions of the Royal family and forcing the Monarchy to engage in a new way with its subjects.

Not being British, I'm not sure I can comment intelligently on the extent to which that narrative is true -  it certainly suited the newspapers to congratulate themselves as the influential and powerful mouthpieces of the British people capable of bending the will of the Queen herself and I suspect that the self-consciously modernising 'New Labour' government of Tony Blair found it a useful story as well. Regardless of whether it effected change within the Monarchy or not, that's the accepted story out there and I suspect that newspaper editors everywhere are looking to repeat the job again - to seize on something that strikes a chord with the public and seem to play an influential role bringing about change and progress.

I'm inclined to think that today's Leading Article in London's Independent newspaper is an attempt to stir up some of same emotions that swirled about at the time of Princess Diana's death.  The occasion is the death of the Archbishop Emeritus of Milan, Carlo Cardinal Martini SJ, and in particular the international attention given to his last interview (text here in Italian) where (a month before his death) he argued that the is Church behind the times and urged a re-thinking of some areas of Church life. Non-Italian speakers will find this automated translation a help in understanding what the Cardinal said.  The juicier parts of the interview have been widely reported and put out there as a challenge to Pope Benedict.  Shorn of their context, they seem to have become a rallying cry for people who had probably never heard of Cardinal Martini until last week.

The article in the Independent begins with a challenge, trying to set up its Diana-moment:

If Pope Benedict does attend the funeral in Milan of Cardinal Martini, whose body, robed and mitred, crosier at his side, was laid out for the veneration of the faithful at the weekend, it will surely be with mixed feelings. The danger of not attending the last obsequies of such a high-ranking prince of the Church is that it might appear cowardly, tantamount to a public admission that a rift had grown up between them.          

 A nice opening, but one totally detached from reality. The protocol - no matter how well-regarded or important a Cardinal might be - is that the Pope sends a delegate to funerals on his behalf.  In this case, Cardinal Comastri will attend on the Pope's behalf and read a message at the funeral. Cardinal Marini's successor, Cardinal Scola will celebrate the funeral Mass. The Independent would like to have us think that this might appear cowardly and a public admission of a rift between Pope and Cardinal - but that's only the case if you know nothing about the protocol surrounding these funerals and the absurdity of the idea that the Pope's attendance was ever a possibility.
If you look at this list of the Cardinals who have died during Pope Benedict's papacy, you'll see that between 5 and 10 Cardinals die each year. Some were close collaborators of the Pope in the Roman Curia. Others headed important dioceses throughout the world. Some were retired scholars or churchmen who were honoured by the Holy Father for their life's work. Some were men whose thought was close to that of Pope Benedict, others might called part of the 'loyal opposition' or have theological opinions which differ from the Popes.  All were - for one reason or another - significant in the life of the Church.  To the best of my knowledge, the Pope didn't attend the funerals of any of them - not even the funerals of those who worked in the Vatican and had their funeral Mass in St. Peter's with the exception of doing some of the prayers for Cardinals whose funerals were celebrated in St Peter's Basilica. The Pope was represented at all of them and he mourned their passing, but he doesn't celebrate their funeral Masses and doesn't attend them in person. I suspect that one of the reasons why he doesn't attend these funerals is precisely so as to avoid the kind of insinuation made by the Independent article - if one Cardinal is honoured by the Pope's presence at his funeral, then the Cardinal who does not have the Pope attend is immediately presumed to have been snubbed and dishonoured by the Pope. As it is not practical or possible for the Pope to honour all Cardinals with his personal presence at their funeral, then the protocol must be that he honours them all equally by sending a representative and by offering Mass himself each November for the Cardinals who died during the year.
There is also a practical point to consider - a Papal trip to Milan for Cardinal Martini's funeral would, in effect, be a pastoral visit of the Pope to that North Italian city with all the attendant diplomatic and security hullabaloo. Is it really to be expected that the necessary preparations could be accomplished in a couple of days? Or that it would even be appropriate for the Pope to take away from the funeral liturgy by the fuss which would inevitably accompany his own presence?
No, this whole false question of whether the Pope would attend Martini's funeral in Milan is either the ill-informed pondering of someone who knows next-to-nothing of Church affairs or a speculation dishonestly raised by someone who knew it was not a possibility, but wanted to fling some mud in Pope Benedict's direction with the expectation that it would stick.

The rest of the article is the usual boiler-plate criticism of the Church.

The rest of the Catholic hierarchy is afraid of its authoritarian leader, and seems unwilling even to question, let alone oppose, his hard-line views on contraception, homosexual relationships, the remarriage of divorced people in church, the admission of women to the priesthood, the abolition of clerical celibacy and a lot of other issues.

It's very easy to fulminate about Pope Benedict the 'hard-liner' and 'authoritarian leader' if you approach these issues with the presumption that the tradition of the Church has nothing to add to the discussion. It's easy to paint Pope Benedict as the big bad wolf if you set aside his evident humility and the fact that as a theologian and a Cardinal, he did indeed scrupulously and seriously question the Church's position on many of those issues. The trouble with Benedict from the Independent's point of view is that when Ratzinger/Benedict raises these questions and seriously discusses them, he doesn't come up with the answers the Independent was looking for. For example, just last June at the 'World Meeting of Families' in Milan, as part of a Q&A session, the Pope dealt with the question of Divorced and Re-married couples. Interestingly, both Cardinal Martini and Pope Benedict see engagement with and support of families in just that situation as being a key pastoral priority for the Church. In his final Cardinal Martini asked:

 The question of whether the divorced can take Communion should be reversed. How can the Church get to help with the power of the sacraments to those who have complex family situations?

 Speaking in Milan, Pope Benedict XVI dealt with precisely this problem and said:

 As regards these people - as you have said - the Church loves them, but it is important they should see and feel this love. I see here a great task for a parish, a Catholic community, to do whatever is possible to help them to feel loved and accepted, to feel that they are not “excluded” even though they cannot receive absolution or the Eucharist; they should see that, in this state too, they are fully a part of the Church.

Certainly Pope Benedict and Cardinal Martini were not in full agreement on this matter.  However, responsible journalism would do more to make clear that Pope Benedict is exercised by the same concerns for people's situations and their relationship with the Church that troubled Cardinal Martini. It is not fair to imply he is blind to these problems and that he hasn't encouraged Catholic thinkers and pastors to do their best to bring the love of Christ and His Church in seeking to respond to these pastoral situations.
I think too that the media has a responsibility to the memory of Cardinal Martini as well. Even though I profoundly disagree with some of the things said by the Cardinal and frankly believe some of them to be irresponsible and in error, it would be fairer to him and to those who hold him in high regard to report what he said fully and in context, rather than mining his interviews for stones to throw at the Pope.  At times I believe the Cardinal spoke out of line and spoke in error. I fear that in some ways he misled a great many people.  At other times, however, he raised genuine and serious questions to assist the Church in responding to the challenges of the world in a manner faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Accurate and nuanced reporting would enable us better to sift the wheat from the chaff in Martini's contribution to the debate. (Blog post corrected to take account of more accurate information received about Cardinals' funerals in St Peter's.)

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.