Bishop Dempsey's Reflection...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Case of Fr PJ Hughes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Cardinal Ladaria on the Amazon Synod

There's an interesting Vatican News Interview with Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the CDF. I have prepared a rough translation. The transcript shortens the Cardinal's answers somewhat, so I have elaborated in a few places based on the recording present on the website.

Ladaria: In the immense Amazon territories where there are few priests there is the need to develop other forms of ministeriality, according to the necessities of the time. This is just good sense. One must encourage the growth of something which is already present in the Church, which already exists in these territories, but which must be better developed for the pastoral good of all the community.

Q. Are you thinking of some ministry in particular?

A. Yes, for example the ministry of catechesis which has been explicitly cited. Also the Ministry of the electorate, of lay ministries. The Synod does not make decisions but there are questions which can be considered and which the Holy Father can evidently consider.

Q. A theme of discussion in the minor circles was that of the inculturation of theology and liturgy. Do you think it is possible to accomplish that in Amazonia?

A. I have never been in Amazonia and therefore I do not know that concrete reality. Inculturation is a desire which is not only a problem specific to this region.
In substance, it is a desire that the message of the Church, which is always and everywhere the same, is expressed in a mode adapted to the culture of the people.
How to accomplish this inculturation in Amazonia is beyond the competence of those who are not in Amazonia.
We can lay out the general principles: there must of course be an inculturation which keeps present the content and the tradition of the faith, and this is clear.

Q. A proposal of many Synod Fathers is that of improving seminary teaching so that the missionary desire can flourish more abundantly. Is this doable?

A. It is always possible. Thinking that priests should have a missionary spirit seems to me a fundamental principle. This is clear.
There is something lacking in the Church when it is not missionary. And therefore something is lacking in the priesthood when this missionary spirit is lacking.

Q. The Synod has also emphasised the exploitation of Amazonian resources and the aggression undergone by a land devastated by avarice and cupidity. In what way can the church better aid indigenous peoples in the defence of their own environment?

A. Certainly through a collective action of all the Church, with appropriate declarations by local episcopates. But also with ethical investment, not directed towards companies that exploit these regions.

Q. There has also been talk of the creation of an international organisation for the defence of local populations...

A. Yes. But these are concrete decisions that the Synod cannot take.

Pope Emeritus Benedict weighs in on Abuse Crisis

This article by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, prepared for a Bavarian clergy magazine is well worth the read.

Now, in an ideal world, I'd like a Pope Benedict essay with my breakfast every morning, but when he resigned from the Papacy I thought that it would be better for the sake of his potential successor & the unity of the Church if he didn't publish anything new for the rest of his lifetime. Given a tendency to set him up as a counter-weight to the magisterial and moral authority of our actual Holy Father, I haven't changed my mind on this point. However, Benedict felt a calling to write something and seems to have prepared this article before the international meeting of Bishops in Rome this past February, and is publishing it with the agreement of the Pope & the Secretary of State.

A Testimony Rather than a Magisterial Document

Despite my reservations, it's a joy to read Ratzinger again, despite the tragic circumstances that provoked his intervention. Contrary to what some people are saying, it is not written like an encyclical or a papal document - it's more in the manner of a personal reflection on the past and a theological reflection on the context and ecclesial dimensions of the current situation. It's also very much a testimony - an account of what Benedict himself witnessed.

Limited Scope of the Essay

Because of this - and I think this point cannot be made too strongly - it deals with part of a larger issue. It doesn't really deal with abuse in itself - but rather the situation of the Church. There are a lot of essential topics that he doesn't address in this essay, and, in fairness, he couldn't be expected to do so in such a short reflection. So, the fact that he doesn't mention, (for example) clericalism, shouldn't be an excuse to suggest either that those who do mention it are wrong or that Benedict is at fault because he doesn't. As American columnist Ross Douthat observes, “There is plenty of interest in the letter! But it still answers one partial analysis with another when the church needs synthesis.”

The Possible Criticisms

Even though I fundamentally agree with BXVI, I think that one could make some reasonable criticisms about how the historical events he chooses to describe fit together and how they relate to each other and the Church's current situation. I don't think this essay will change many minds - however, I think it may be invaluable in terms of deepening reflection within the Church. His exegesis regarding the 'little ones' and regarding Job is valuable and worth pondering.

An Important Historical Point

Benedict's 'political' analysis regarding why abuse cases were moved to the CDF and what was going wrong inside the Congregation for Clergy is hugely significant. It confirms - from the horse's mouth - what was certainly guessed at (with good reason) in Roman circles that the dominant ethos at the Congregation for Clergy was simply incapable of handling abuse cases rigorously. I remember hearing an official from that Congregation address a group of priests in about the year 2010 and I was shocked at how he failed to grasp the seriousness of the crisis and the damage it was doing to so many people. The fact that an official of the Congregation was so slow to catch on was a huge disappointment.

Some Interesting Points

The point about God taking Franz Böckle to Himself as an act of mercy before he could launch an  assault on St John Paul II's document, Veritatis Splendor also says a lot about what was happening in the Church & Benedict's own understanding of Divine Providence. It's also interesting how he does strike a balance by acknowledging that the Church's magisterial role in matters of morals isn't quite identical to that exercised in matters of faith. Benedict writes, "There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussion." Also of interest is the following: " I think that even today something like catechumenal communities are necessary so that Christian life can assert itself in its own way."

The Question of Seminaries and Priestly Formation

There's some worthwhile stuff in there about seminary formation too - and I don't think what he says sits easily with the proposals floated by +Fintan Monahan in the Irish Catholic recently. For example, whilst abolishing a so-called 'monastic' model is treated by some as a panacea, Benedict is less sure:

In one seminary in southern Germany, candidates for the priesthood and candidates for the lay ministry of the pastoral specialist [Pastoralreferent] lived together. At the common meals, seminarians and pastoral specialists ate together, the married among the laymen sometimes accompanied by their wives and children, and on occasion by their girlfriends. The climate in this seminary could not provide support for preparation to the priestly vocation. 

How do we understand our Problems?

I also like that how Benedict is critical of treating Church problems as political problems - an attitude that is fundamentally pelagian and implicitly denies the source of Christian hope.

Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus. One speaks of it almost exclusively in political categories, and this applies even to bishops, who formulate their conception of the church of tomorrow almost exclusively in political terms. The crisis, caused by the many cases of clerical abuse, urges us to regard the Church as something almost unacceptable, which we must now take into our own hands and redesign. But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope. 

He makes it quite clear that the issues are theological and spiritual, within the context of an apocalyptic horizon. To understand what the Church is, we must remember the call to witness and the faith of the martyrs and everyday Christian witness:

 Today there are many people who humbly believe, suffer and love, in whom the real God, the loving God, shows Himself to us. Today God also has His witnesses (martyres) in the world. We just have to be vigilant in order to see and hear them.

Concluding Thoughts

Anyway, please read the whole thing & take it on board. I fear that Benedict is going to get a lot of flak from within & without the Church because he's pointing in a different direction than many commentators & ideologues. I'm sure as well that he'd much rather what he wrote be used to support the ministry of Pope Francis rather than foment attitudes of suspicion and schism. And I doubt that he'd want anyone saying that he had the full answer. The whole thrust of his writing is to point us towards the One who provides the answers that we cannot humanly manufacture ourselves!  Benedict is contributing what he can as one of the great theologians of our day. Let us welcome that contribution with attention and care.

The Society of St Vincent de Paul & the Abortion Referendum

I've been thinking a bit about this news item about how the Society of St Vincent de Paul responded to a query about how it stood in relation to the upcoming referendum that seeks to remove protection for the unborn from the Irish Constitution:

The Society of St Vincent de Paul has announced it will not be taking a stance in the upcoming referendum on abortion, and will not be issuing any advice to its members on what choice to make on polling day.

Contacted by The Irish Catholic this week the Church-founded organisation said in a statement that it is a “personal decision for each member, based on their own views, on how they wish to vote”.

However, the statement backed away from an earlier draft obtained by this newspaper which said the stance was based on the fact that SVP is a “member-led organisation”. The statement issued by the spokesman does not contain this line.

Now, I have huge respect for the Society of St Vincent de Paul. Over the past decade of parish ministry I've seen how much they do in tackling poverty in both urban and rural Ireland. I'm happy to support them, and I'm happy to encourage my parishioners to support them. However, I'm unhappy about their response to the referendum question.

Now, I don't think that the SVP should be a campaigning organisation in this referendum. That's not what it receives money for, and I have concerns about the way that the activities of various charities sometimes drift into a form of activism that's removed from their key mission. (There are various legal issue to consider here as well, of course.)

What concerns me is that whilst the SVP might not be active in the current referendum, I do think it should do a better job at articulating an ethos that is supportive of life. In Pope Francis's recent document Gaudete et exsultete, he poses the following challenge:

Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

It seems to me that Pope Francis is challenging us to root our Christian activism in a philosophy that values and cherishes the dignity of human life. It is, in part, a challenge aimed at those involved in pro-life activism to ensure that they are supportive of all just efforts to uphold the sacredness of human life. However, I think that challenge also cuts the other way - if our Christian vocation calls us to be active in the fight against, say, poverty, we need to understand that calling in the context of the unique value and dignity of every human life.

Even though the Society of St Vincent de Paul has as its mission the fight against poverty, one would not expect a statement of bland neutrality were the society asked about, say, the problems of racism or human-trafficking. Therefore, I do not understand why the Society could not see its way towards making some kind of statement affirming the value of human life.

As part of the Catholic community I certainly see the Society of St Vincent de Paul as being part of our Pro-Life activities. I know the Society is at the coalface in terms of supporting families in meeting the financial challenges that parenthood brings. I know that the Society works to create an society where human life flourishes and is welcomed. I just wish that it was better at joining the dots in terms of supporting those values which affirm the dignity of those it cares for.

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.

Choosing between 'Pro-life' & 'Pro-choice'

I must confess that I'm usually irked by complaints that the abortion debate in Ireland is divisive or polarising.  I do believe that we should strive for civility in our public discourse, but am profoundly uneasy with the idea that certain topics should somehow be resolved without discussion on the grounds that the debate itself is somehow destructive of society. Often, or so it seems to me, complaints about the divisiveness of the debate are aimed at closing down the discussion rather than improving the tone of public discourse. One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is the fact that our public discourse can (should?) be unsettling and forces us to think through things that we'd rather not have to deal with.

I was interested, therefore, to read today's article by Canon Stephen Neill, Church of Ireland Rector of Cloughjordan where he discusses the effect of the recent debate about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill on his own thinking around abortion. Interestingly, he argues that the debate to date has forced him out of his self-described 'middle ground' into a 'pro-choice' position.

Canon Neill's 'middle ground' position was that abortion should only "be available in cases of rape, unviable pregnancy and a threat to the health and/or life of the mother." He also adds: "I would not have been and am still not in favour of abortion on demand, abortion as a late contraceptive or abortion as a means of terminating Down syndrome or other special needs pregnancies. I say this as the parent of a child with special needs who has brought untold joy to my life." 
His overall position is not one that I could agree with, and indeed I'd argue forcefully that it's not entirely coherent - but I can certainly understand how someone could seriously and contentiously reach that position and consider it to be some sort of 'middle ground' between a pro-life and a pro-choice stance.

However, I find the next part of his article confusing. Rather than argue for this so-called middle ground and justify his position, something about the nature of the debate forces Canon Neill to choose a tribe. He says: [i]n absence of that middle ground I am forced to make a choice fully conscious of the potential for many of the things I do not want to see happen becoming a reality. This, I cannot understand. I can understand having one's mind changed by argument. I can understand lending some support to a group or movement whilst not fully agreeing with them on the grounds that their aims or intents are somehow compatible with my own. I can understand tactical and political alliances.
What I cannot understand is what Canon Neill purports to be doing. Because the "middle ground" in the debate has been "sidelined", he therefore feels as though he must cleave to one or other of the extremes as though being on the right side were more important than taking a stand for the side that is right. That, to me, makes little sense.

It's interesting to read Canon Neill's assessment of both sides of the debate. His impressions are, of course, his.  As I don't open his postbag in the morning or read what comes in on his e-mail and twitter feed, I can't really say that he is being inaccurate. I know that there is an unpleasant and vicious element in the pro-life camp who prefer to shock and intimidate rather than persuade. (Likewise, need I add, there are those on the pro-choice side who smear and belittle those who disagree with them.) I know too that because this literally is a life-and-death issue we are debating that even good-hearted people on both sides of the debate can speak unkindly out of frustration and fear.
Still, looking at the public contributions to the debate and my own engagement with the pro-life movement, I don't recognise the picture he paints of an unsympathetic movement that is eager to accuse women of murder.
I'm also puzzled by Canon Neill's argument that it is "bizarre about non-medical politicians, clergy (of any church) and others trying to argue medical technicalities with highly qualified medical specialists." I would challenge the impression given that somehow it is the pro-life camp that is at odds with the medical profession, when there are plenty of pro-life doctors who argue their case effectively and when the proposed government legislation has failed to attract the support of the professional bodies in the medical field. The core of the debate is not about arguing technicalities with doctors. Medical practice is informed by more than technicalities - it also demands an engagement with bio-ethical philosophy and the fields of legal and human rights. We rightly expect our legal system and our society to challenge medical practice, when (for example) we learn of doctors performing female genital mutilation. The demands of justice, law and social opinion all have their just place in setting down the boundaries of acceptable medical practice.

I'm afraid Canon Neill loses me when he makes a theological point as well. Invoking our role as 'co-creators' with God and suggests that the choice of Mary to co-operate with God's saving plan and become the mother of Jesus Christ somehow points to a theological justification for a pro-choice position. I find that most untenable. His statement that "[w]e have been given the ability to create life, but it is not forced upon us" sits uneasily with my experience of life, of the Gospel and my ministry as a priest. Whether a believer or non-believer wants to talk about providence, fate or chance, it seems evident that much about our lives - for good or for ill - is indeed forced upon us. The Christian tradition does indeed privilege the free and moral choice as being central to living the good and ethical life, but the idealization of choice in itself as distinct from the good freely chosen is alien to Christianity and most ethical systems. If we want to introduce an ethical principle from the Gospel that seems apt to the debate, I'd suggest looking at the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are invited to a radical solidarity with all of humankind, and in particular solidarity and responsibility for those whom circumstances have placed into our care.

Finally, Canon Neill makes a point about trust.  He argues, "[a]nd finally it comes down to trust. If we are to truly respect the role of women in childbearing then we have to trust them without subjecting them to the kind of overbearing oversight that is proposed in the new legislation."  If only we lived in such an ideal world that 'trust' could be used to do away with all sorts of positive law and that all rights would be respected on the basis of trust. I cannot think of any area of life or fundamental human right that can be protected purely on the basis of trust. We have laws against all kinds of offences and violations of human rights - not because we have some kind of prejudicial lack of trust but because we know from bitter experience that trust can be abused and the rights of innocents are not always respected.

Canon Neill has done us a favour in writing this article. Even though I don't recognise the picture he paints of the pro-life side, it's a pertinent reminder to us of how we must conduct the debate with clarity and in charity. It reminds us too that the pro-life cause isn't just about changing laws, but about effectively living and communicating a philosophy of life that respects both mother and child in a way that makes the deliberate termination of an unborn child's life unthinkable. Whilst we have a short-term objective before us in defeating a disastrous piece of legislation, our fundamental mission is cultural.
However, despite being thankful to Canon Neill for setting down the details of his philosophical journey from being someone who held the 'middle ground' to the adoption of a more radically pro-choice position that would go even further than the government's proposed legislation, I have to declare myself puzzled by some aspects of the journey. What is it Canon Neill sees in this debate that left him unable to defend his 'middle ground'? Why the seeming need to join a tribe (either pro-life or pro-choice) and why frame the decision in terms of seeking the less objectionable tribe rather than the rational pursuit of justice and the good?