Clergy Mortality in Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Case of Fr Flannery

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

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

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

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

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

(emphasis mine)

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

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

Fr Brendan Hoban & the Eucharistic Famine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Defined Teaching of the Catholic Church...

There is an interesting post up at the Blog of the Association of Catholic Priests.  It's penned by Fr Brendan Hoban who is keen to ditch the dissident label.  It's worthy of a thorough analysis - and it's probably worthwhile asking to what extent it represents the views of ACP members, but the first part of the statement is very telling.  Fr Hoban writes:

(i) Church teaching
The ACP does not seek to overturn the defined teaching of the Catholic Church. Confusion between what the teaching of the Church is and what some present as the teaching of the Church has led to unwarranted assumptions. Confusion between the teaching of the Church and Church governance has resulted in some people suggesting that we do not accept fundamental Church teaching. Like all true Catholics, we know and fully accept the Creed.

That might seem pretty clear, but it's worthy of close inspection.  Firstly, it doesn't say that the ACP accepts the teachings of the Church.  Rather, it speaks about not seeking to overturn the teachings of the Church.  Furthermore, it doesn't simply speak about the teachings of the Church, but rather the "defined teaching of the Catholic Church."  Are we to presume that that portion of the deposit of the faith which hasn't been codified into a Conciliar or Papal definition is - theoretically at least - open to ACP attack? Because not everything we believe as Catholics and not everything that is taught to us through scripture and tradition falls under the heading "defined teaching."
By way of contrast, we might have a look at the Profession of Faith which is sworn by those who are about to be ordained deacons, those who receive the care of a parish as a pastor (parish priest) and those who teach in seminaries.

I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith: namely:I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

It begins with a Profession of the Creed, followed by a statement of faith in "everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed."  That's not simply "defined teachings", but also the truths of the Christian faith as passed on by the ordinary and everyday teaching of the Catholic Church.
The next section of the Profession of Faith recognises that the Church occasionally formally makes definitive statements in order to protect the deposit of faith. These must be accepted and held to. One wonders if these are the "defined teachings" that the ACP proposes not to overturn.
Finally, the Profession of faith speaks about the teachings of the Pope and the College of Bishop which are explicitly and legitimately taught, but not as infallible or definitive teachings.  These should be adhered to "with religious submission of will and intellect."  In layman's terms, they might be subject to modification and development in the long run, but they are worthy of the greatest of respect and support. In other words, when the Pope writes an encyclical, if you've sworn this oath, you need to respect it as proper teaching, even if you think it might be improved on.


Switching back to the ACP statement, Fr Hoban talks about confusion between the teaching of the Church and Church governance.  He does have a point.  There is a huge difference between the discipline of the Latin Church regarding clerical celibacy and the teaching of the Church that only males may be ordained to the priesthood.  However, despite the clarity of Church teaching on this point, one often hears that the restriction of ordination to men is a matter of Church discipline and that the question is therefore open to discussion.  That's a form of argumentation that seems palatable to many within the ACP.
Likewise, I've seen it argued that the Church can't really teach definitively on moral matters - that she can only teach dogma (the Creed and the like) and moral teachings are a matter of discipline and therefore subject to repeated revision and erosion.
When Fr Hoban writes, "Like all true Catholics, we know and fully accept the Creed." it sounds as though one can argue what one likes, as long as you don't contradict the creed. I'm pretty sure that anyone who's debated women's ordination, Humanae vitae and the like on-line with people claiming to be Catholic has been met with the question, "Where does it say that in the Creed?"


It's disappointing, but not unexpected, that the ACP has such an impoverished understanding of Church teaching and the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church.


Incidentally, if one were to confine oneself to Fr Hoban's paragraph about Church teaching, one wouldn't be left with much of a reason to value the Second Vatican Council. It's singularly light on what Fr Hoban refers to as "defined teaching".

Draft of a Homily for Domenica in Albis

This Sunday is traditionally known as Domenica in Albis – the Sunday for the taking off of the white clothes.  In the Early Church, adults would have been welcomed into the Church at the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday night and would have worn their white baptismal robes to Church for the following eight days – the Octave of Easter - as a reminder to themselves and to others of the new life they had received in baptism.  However, this Sunday they would set their white robes and would be reminded that whilst their way of dress would no longer mark them out as new Christians, their way of life should continue to do so as they did their best to keep their baptismal promises and walk in the way Christ taught them.

Our First Reading gives us a picture of the Apostles and their followers living as a distinctive community whose teaching and way of life was different from the society around them.  If we look at the history books we see that their distinctive way of life led to both the admiration and the contempt of members of the broader society around them.  Because they recognised that Christ was the Lord and that there is only One God, they would not worship the Roman emperor as a god or take part in the pagan worship of the state.  The fact that Christians were equally accepting of slaves and the nobility as brothers and sisters in Christ led to them being mocked for their disregard of the social order.  Because of the Christian principles of respect for all life and the duty to care for the vulnerable, the first Christians would have nothing to do with the Roman custom of leaving sickly new-born babies to die on the rubbish heap – and indeed, often adopted such abandoned babies.  Those who would have no truck with the Christians dismissed this as weak-mindedness, but this Christian example of compassion gradually won many admirers.  Likewise, Christ’s teaching about marital fidelity was radically counter-cultural when men saw it as their right to cast off one wife and take up with another – but the Christian community stayed loyal to the teaching of Christ in recognising the importance and dignity of marriage as a path to holiness for husbands and wives alike.  In short, part and parcel of the Christian life is living a challenging sort of life, made possible by Christ’s gift of the Holy Spirit and the support of the Christian community.

The challenge to us today is to recognise that we too have received the same Holy Spirit – we have the same religious and spiritual DNA as the Christians of the Early Church, and whether we are a small minority or a majority of the population, the challenge to us is the same – to live lives in Communion with Christ and with one another and to bear witness to the Gospel values taught by Christ and passed on by the Church under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  If we have been baptised, we have been challenged to live a life of faith, basing what we say and do on the Gospel.  St John tells us, “this is what loving God is – keeping his commandants; and his commandments are not difficult because anyone who has been begotten by God has already overcome the world.”

Objectively speaking, God’s commandments are challenging, are difficult.  I don’t think we should understand St John to be telling us that the Christian life is a breeze.  Rather, He is reminding us that if we truly believe in the power of Him who has given us new life, we will have His help in living that Christian life.  And that Christian life, he reminds us, is something that is in opposition to the world.

There was an interesting survey published during the week – the point of it was to show up the differences between the thinking of Irish Catholics and the teaching of the Church.  I suspect the desired intention was to help make the case that the teachings of the Church don’t match up with what is happening in modern life or with the thoughts of Irish Catholics.  To be frank, I wasn’t at all very surprised at the results of the survey which showed Church teaching to be very much the minority opinion, especially where issues of sexual morality were at issue.  It’s not a surprise because our opinions are shaped by the society around us and the opinion makers – the newspaper editors, the advertisers, the writers of soap operas, TV celebrities and journalists and so on, they’re the ones who are talking to us and shaping our thoughts and influencing our opinions.  The question we must ask is whether they are doing so in order to help us follow Christ and live the kind of life He asks of us.  Is it progress if our beliefs and attitudes do not correspond to anything that previous generations of Christians would have recognised as Christianity?

The question we must ask of ourselves as Christians is whether we are making a genuine effort to understand the kind of life that Christ wants of us?  Or are we accepting the common assumptions of society without criticism.  If we are puzzled about something the Church teaches, or puzzled about something that the media tells that the Church teaches, do we make the effort to find out what the Church actually teaches and why?  Do we spend time with the scriptures and with the Catechism of the Catholic Church in order to discern the call of the Lord?  Do we ever balance the hours and hours of television, radio, newspapers and chat with time spent in prayer and the study of our faith?  Have we ever asked a priest we trust to explain something about Church teaching that puzzles us?  Do we believe enough in Christ and His victory over the world to believe that the way of life He calls us to might involve holding values that do not square with the common consensus of that same world?  Is it more important for us to accept the reasoning of the society around us, or to stay in communion with the followers of Jesus throughout the ages who were not afraid to choose a radical way of life above the values of their time?

When ‘doubting Thomas’ saw the Lord’s wounds and made His profession of faith, Jesus blessed all those who would accept the Apostles’ teaching and believe in Him:

You believe because you can see me.  Happy are those who have not seen, and yet believe.

That describes our situation – those of us who have not seen Christ in the flesh, but who know Him through the life of faith.  We know Him in prayer and in the sacraments, in the scriptures and in the life of the Church.  The prayers of this Mass ask that that knowledge and faith be kept alive and life-giving in our lives, in our minds, in our hearts.  We pray that we will have the courage to entrust ourselves to the Lord & the determination to seek His wisdom to sustain us in our Christian lives.

Addendum:  You need to read The Thirsty Gargoyle's take on the ACP survey.

On the Fr Flannery Case...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Including three women..."

There's a rather predictable whiiiiiiine from the Association of Catholic Priests in response to the shocking (SHOCKING!) news that the improved English Translation of the Roman Missal will come into force in Ireland. They seem to be throwing their toys out of the crib in protest.

Anyway, I think it's all rather absurd and am looking forward to using the new texts. Yes, there will be teething difficulties and they will take time to get used to, but I will not miss the current translation. So much of the theological meat and substance were drained out of the prayers when they were initially translated that I look forward to finally praying them as they were meant to be prayed.

The ACP statement is puzzling in one respect. It contains following:

At a meeting in Maynooth on Monday, February 28th a delegation from the ACP met the Episcopal Commission of Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development. There were five members of the Bishop’s Conference and a number of others, including three women, present.

I'm scratching my head at why the clause 'including three women' was included. Is something sinister implied? Are we to suppose that they are the bishops' concubines? Vatican spies, perhaps? Are these women to be considered class-traitors for their connivance with the male hierarchical hegemony in linguistic impression?
Or are we to suppose that they are included for theological reasons - that they weren't literally present, but have been added in by the person drafting the statement in order to symbolise the thousands of women written out of the Bible when it was re-written by the Emperor Constantine? Do they represent the Myrrhbearing women at the tomb of the old translation?
Or, is it just the case that the ACP - despite all its protestations about respecting women in the Church - has some kind of difficulty in seeing women involved in these issues, especially when they're on the wrong side of the desk?

Keeping an eye on the ACP

Via RTE:

Catholic Church authorities need to distinguish between the paedophile priest and the cleric who committed a minor indiscretion with a teenager 30 or more years ago, according to a spokesman for the new Association of Catholic Priests.
Father Tony Flannery said many priests who attended a meeting in Co Mayo this afternoon sympathised with colleagues who had been excluded from ministry even though their behaviour since the transgression had been blameless.

That's where they're beginning? Some sex offenders need to be treated more leniently than others?

Fr Flannery was speaking to the media after his organisation's first regional meeting, and he decides to go with that line? That is not something that the priests of Ireland need at the moment.

Now, the handling of allegations against priests does need to be scrutinised. As with any system of justice, the rights and reputation of all parties concerned - including the accused - need to be handled carefully. However, I do not think that the best way of addressing that issue is launching a media debate and I do not think that it's a good idea to engage in special pleading for those who might have committed a minor indiscretion with a teenager thirty years ago. That kind of talk seems to downplay the seriousness of sexual expolitation.

To my mind, a different kind of renewal is needed - a spiritual renewal of our clergy and a more impassioned preaching of Christ and His Gospel.

Post scriptum: I wonder how this is going to play out in the media... Fr Flannery has the reputation of a media-darling, so I wouldn't be surprised if this statement were largely overlooked. Were a more theologically conservative priest or, God forbid, a bishop to make such a comment, he'd probably be flayed alive. However, it'll be interesting to see whether tomorrow's newspapers tear into Fr Flannery or give him an easy ride.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Association of Catholic Priests

I've already explained my objections to the Association of Catholic Priests which has recently been founded here in Ireland. Well, they've just launched a website and nothing on it encourages me. The statement of objectives is the usual vague Spirit of Vatican II stuff. Now, I agree that there is an urgent need for "Full implementation of the vision and teaching of the Second Vatican Council". It's just that I don't recognise the vision and teaching of the Second Vatican Council in what this association proposes.

Let's get back to basics. What was the purpose of the Council? Bl John XXIII of happy memory described it as follows at the opening of the Council:

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously.

The Council calls us to believe more firmly and profess our faith more clearly. The Association of Catholic Priests would rather have us wring our hands and re-shape the Church according to the mores of contemporary society rather than vigorously engage with life and culture drawing on the riches of the Christian tradition.

(I also note that they're not very keen on the corrected translation of the Roman Missal which will be issued next year.)

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

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

So, what's happening now?

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

Okay...
And now comes the interesting bit:

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

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

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

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