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.

That Patronage Report...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School Patronage - The Answer Already Decided?

This report from the Irish Times is of interest - it describes how a group is being established to examine how the patronage of some Irish primary schools might be transferred away from the Catholic Church (or more precisely, the local bishop) in order to better represent the religious make-up of Ireland and in order to afford choice to parents who may wish to have their children educated in a school with a non-Catholic ethos.

A word of explanation may be needed for non-Irish readers - the Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland says the following about education:

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."

It should be noted that the State is not charged directly with providing primary (elementary) education, but rather should 'provide for' - in other words, co-operation with religious and other groups in terms of the provision of education is explicitly foreseen.
So it is that most Irish primary schools - 90% or so - come under the patronage of the local Catholic Bishop or a religious order. The other 10% are mostly Protestant schools, interdeminational/nondenominational schools or schools established for the promotion of the Irish language.
Now, it should be noted that the State funds all these different sorts of schools in an even-handed manner. Our primary education system is almost entirely state-funded. Likewise, the curriculum and most of the regulations to do with running the schools come from the Department of Education and not the patron. So, it would be a mistake to suggest that these schools are CONTROLLED by one religious group or another. [The last line of the news report is a nonsense - the Department of Education has much more 'control' in the schools than the Church.] However, the Patrons (religious and otherwise) are key to the management and ethos of the schools. So, a school under Catholic patronage would have daily Catholic religious education and prayers. The school would play an active part in the life of the parish and should be expected to have a Catholic spirit. Non-Catholic pupils are welcome in our Catholic schools, of course, and parents may opt their children out of Catechism classes and so on. In general, I would argue that our schools are very accommodating and Christian in the welcome they give to non-Catholic students and the way in which the reasonable rights and expectations of parents are respected. This is especially important in areas where there is no alternative to the local Catholic primary schools.
I mentioned management earlier - whilst a Catholic primary school is funded by the State and is subject to a state curriculum and regulations, it is actually managed by a Board of Management on behalf of the Patron (local Bishop). It is an 8-member board. The Chairperson and one other board member are directly nominated by the Patron. (Normally the local priest and a local layperson are the bishop's nominees.) The school principal and a teacher also sit on the board. Parents nominate two members and these six members select the final two members from the local community. The management of the school, therefore, is very representative of the various parties who have a strong and genuine interest in the school itself - an excellent example of subsidiarity and local involvement.

Anyway, it has been clear for a number of years that the de facto monopoly of Catholic primary schools wasn't meeting the needs of parents in some parts of the country. The idea of parental choice in these matters is something that co-incides nicely with Catholic thought, so the Irish Bishops have said that they are open to transferring the patronage of some schools. I think that it's probably fair to say as well that some schools have found it difficult to maintain their Catholic identity/ethos when a large proportion of the students attending are non-Catholic, so this transfer of patronage could also be seen as facilitating the strengthening the ethos of those schools which remain under Catholic patronage. Parents would have to chose to send their children to a Catholic primary school, rather than sending their children to a local Catholic school because the only schools out there are Catholic. Similarly, teachers would be choosing to teach at a Catholic primary school rather than just accepting at job at a Catholic school because there are no other teaching posts available.

However, this report from the Irish Times is worrying in that it states that the Minister for Education wants to see 'at least half' of the schools currently under Catholic patronage to be move to some other form of patronage. In other words, less than 45% of Irish primary schools would remain in Catholic patronage. One wonders how he came up with that figure and why he thinks that it is fitting that he should announce the answer before the body investigating the question has even met. When you consider the fact that most small rural primary schools are very embedded in the life of their local parish, it doesn't make sense to suggest that their patronage should be transferred. In the main, parents, teachers and community are happy with the status quo. So, does the Minister have his figures wrong or is there something more ideological behind his statement?

Catholic Schools Week

Catholic Schools Week Resources
The resources prepared by the Bishops' Conference for Catholic Schools Week (this week!) deserve a plug. Not all the prayers and resources chosen are quite to my taste, but it's important that we affirm our commitment to Catholic education.
Incidentally, it's a shame that this hasn't been better promoted on the ground. I only received news of these resources during the week. A little more notice would have enabled me to prepare a lot more work.

A Recent Debate
There's been a lot of nonsense in the media about the Church's control of schools, but thankfully, there've also been some solid refutations of those opinions.
In particular, there's been quite a debate recently about a recent opinion poll suggesting that a majority of Irish adults think that the Catholic Church should give up 'control' of primary schools. When the question is asked like that, the answer is bound to be somewhat skewed. However, no one seemed to bother checking whether we did in fact control the schools at all! I certainly don't 'control' the schools I'm involved in. They are Catholic schools, yes, and have a Catholic ethos, but to suggest that the Church or clergy 'control' the schools is misleading.

Church Control?
Most primary schools in Ireland are under the patronage of the Diocesan Bishop and are run by their Boards of Management. The Bishop nominates two members (including the Chairperson), two members represent the school staff, two represent the parents (normally elected by the Parents' Council) and two represent the local community. Whilst they operate with a Catholic ethos, I think you'll find that most Boards of Management are controlled more by the State than by the local Bishop. After all, it is the Department of Education who lay down the curricula, who pay the teachers, who set down the regulations under which schools run on a day-to-day basis, etc, etc...
Within that framework, however, it's important to cultivate our Catholic ethos. That is something which goes beyond the assigned periods of religious instruction (from which parents are entitled to withdraw their children). Catholicism teaches some fundamental truths about the value of the human beings, the purpose of education and a holistic understanding what growth is. As De Lubac affirms, true Christianity must be a humanism - a philosophy which contains within it a strong and affirmative vision of humanity which is committed to its development. Within that context, it should be clear that our Catholic schools can respectfully welcome those of other faiths.
Part of what we need to do as a nation is to recognise how much of our humanism - the value we place on family and community, our commitment to the physical, moral, spiritual and educational growth of our children - is rooted in our Catholic ethos. We need to recognise that a purely secular vision of education operates from a different ethos, and we need to ask whether such an ethos sustains similar or conflicting values.

Incidentally
Did you know that there's actually a legal definition of the Catholic ethos agreed between the State and the Patrons of Ireland's Catholic Schools? It's called the 'Schedule of a Catholic School' and is a useful thing to know about when questions arise about 'Catholic Ethos' and 'Church Control'. It reads as follows and should (by law) be displayed in all our Catholic primary schools.

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

This PDF document provides some useful addenda:

The Schedule indicates that a Catholic Primary School:
o is one established in connection with the Minister and therefore recognised as a national school for public funding
o is a denominational school under the patronage of the local Catholic bishop
o strives to be a good school committed to the ‘full and harmonious development of all aspects of the person of the pupil’
o sees full human development as including a living relationship with God and other people
o provides Religious Education for the pupils in accordance with the doctrines, practices and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church
o promotes the faith formation of the pupils in the Catholic faith including the reception of the Sacraments of Penance, First Communion and Confirmation
o seeks to let pupils experience a religious way of life by being part of a faith community, the values and practices of which model a living relationship with God in Jesus Christ.
The Schedule does not state that a Catholic school is a school only for Catholic pupils.
Neither does it state that the Catholic school provides what may be called a ‘common’ or ‘multi-denominational’ religious education programme open to pupils of all religious faiths and none. The Catholic school is a welcoming and inclusive school.

Feast of the Holy Family

Whilst preaching today, I reminded the congregation that the Church is a great advocate of the natural rights of the family, and that parents in particular should familiarise themselves about what the Church has to say about their role. Ironically, on the radio this morning I heard a commentator complain about the Church's role in education. He didn't think it was fitting that the vast majority of Irish primary schools should have the local bishop as patron in 'Post-Catholic Ireland' and thought that the Constitutional provision in this regard needed revision because it was drafted by Archbishop McQuaid of Dublin. What precisely did he regard as needing to be changed? The following which he referenced explicitly:

Article 42.1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

Part of this commentator's 'solution' to the 'problem' of most educational provision was a revision of that section of the Constitution which guarantees the rights of parents.