The Princess & the Cardinal...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priestly Vocations in Ireland - Quick & Dirty Calculations

The Catholic Communications Office issued a press release earlier this week with the news that 12 new seminarians were beginning their studies at St Patrick's College in Maynooth this year. Needless to say, our best wishes go to these new seminarians and we pray that the Lord will lead them to discern His will for them.  However, even though their entry into seminary is 'good news' for them, their families and their dioceses, I have to agree with the point made by both Fr Gerard Dunne OP and Shane of Lux Occulta that the Irish Church has little reason to be content with these figures. Whilst, as I say, it's good news for the individuals concerned, the figure of just 12 new seminarians for the Church in Ireland is pretty pathetic.

I've discussed the figures with people off-line and I know that some dioceses (my own included) have done proper projections of priest numbers over the next couple of decades and made their clergy aware of what's down the line.  However, in my experience, when the figures are put before members of the laity there tends to be a refusal to accept them - a sort of pious state of denial and the expectation that 'things will turn around again.'  In my experience, many people don't believe there is a problem until their own local area loses a priest in the diocesan changes and even then the attitude persists that the Bishop has some kind of 'priest factory' from whence he can produce men to plug the gaps, or that the developing Church (in Africa, etc.) should be asked to provide us with clergy or even that elderly and sick priests be taken out of their nursing homes and hospitals and shuttled around the diocese every Sunday morning.

Anyway, for the sake of contributing something to the discussion, these are the 'quick and dirty' figures I put before people to give them an idea of where we're headed.
Let's look at the numbers entering Maynooth over the past 6 years:

12 in 2012, 13 in 2011; 10 in 2010; 24 in 2009; 14 in 2008; 18 in 2007.

As I understand it, those numbers are the students beginning seminary studies in St Patrick's Maynooth and their colleagues from St Malachy's in Belfast ('The Wing') who join them for the 'spiritual month' at the start of their formation.  There might also be a seminarian or two beginning his studies at the Irish College in Rome, the Beda in Rome or (occasionally) some other foreign house of priestly formation.
If you average the figure for the past 6 years you get 15 entrants per annum - and to that we can add 1 to take account of those beginning studies in Rome or elsewhere. So, let us presume 16 men begin studying for the diocesan priesthood for Irish dioceses each year.

When I was in seminary, the prevailing wisdom was that that if a man began formation, there was an approximately 50% likelihood that he would be ordained.  That sounds more or less right to me - and I don't think it necessarily reflects badly on the seminary system. Men discover that they're not called to priesthood or that they're not suitable for priesthood. A good seminary system will allow the correct discernment to be made.  In any event, I'd be surprised - even if one had a Rolls Royce seminary set-up - if a significant proportion of entrants didn't discover their vocation was elsewhere. So, for the sake of these calculations, we assume that half of our entering seminarians are ordained.

Finally, we need to make a 'guesstimate' about how many years of active service each newly-ordained priest will give.  Most vocations these days in Ireland tend to be from men who have already done a primary degree and may have spent a few years working.  There will be a few that come directly from Secondary School or from the middle of their undergraduate studies.  There is also a significant proportion who enter seminary in middle-age.  Traditionally, most priests would have been ordained aged about 24 or 25.  Nowadays, I would say that it's more likely that a priest would be ordained in his early/mid-30s, with, as I said, a few men in their 40s and 50s being ordained as well.  Most dioceses have an official retirement age of 70, but priests can and do serve beyond that age.  That being said, by the time a man reaches 75 years or thereabouts it's usually not fair to expect him to continue in parish duties, even if he's in good health. Some priests will retire at a much younger age than that, of course due to ill-health or other reasons.  Inevitably there will also be those who leave the priesthood. So, whilst it's possible that a man might be ordained aged 25 and serve in parish ministry until he's 75 making for a total of 50 years of active service, when one takes into account the possibility of illness, death, and all the other factors and realise that most priests will be older than 25 when they are ordained, I think it's more reasonable to expect the 'average' priest to give 35 or 40 years of service before he retires from full-time ministry.  For the sake of these calculations, we'll take my upper estimate and assume that the average priest ordained these days will serve for 40 years before he retires from active ministry.

If you hold these figures to be constant over the next few decades, you will see that in 4 decades' time, the number of diocesan priests active in Ireland will be...

16 [seminary entrants] X  0.5 [probability of ordination] X 40 [average years of priestly service = 320

That's a quick and dirty calculation.  I don't pretend that it's scientifically accurate and if anyone wants to do the calculations based on other estimates, then that's fine.  I'm just putting that figure out there as an indication of where things are going if the numbers don't change.  Even if you want to be optimistic and assume a doubling of priestly vocations and a  lower 'seminary drop-out rate', you'd struggle to bring the estimated number of active diocesan priests in Ireland in 40 years time up to the 800 mark.

To the best of my knowledge, there are approximately 3,000 diocesan priests in Ireland at the moment, of whom about 75% I understand to be active - in other words, somewhere about the 2,200 mark.  So, if trends remain unchanged, you have to imagine a situation where for every seven active diocesan priests in Ireland today, there will be just one in 40 years' time.

Now, of course the future is not written in stone, and both Shane and Fr Gerard have their own assessment of why things are the way they are.  For myself, I'll just say that in my opinion the level of priestly vocations in Ireland is consistent with the lack of success we are experiencing in forming disciples of Jesus Christ who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about their faith.     

Maynooth Seminary to Close?

There's an interesting report on the Irish Catholic website suggesting that Ireland's largest seminary may be closed as a result of the recent visitation by Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York.

The national seminary, which has educated Irishmen for the priesthood since 1795, may be set for closure after the recent Apostolic Visitation by New York's Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan. It is expected the report will recommend that Pope Benedict XVI move all Irish seminarians to a reformed and restructured Pontifical Irish College in Rome.
The historic shift would bring an end to concerns about falling academic standards at Maynooth and claims by some that the college in no longer 'fit for mission'. One senior academic told The Irish Catholic that the Apostolic Visitors were ''appalled'' by some of the standards in Maynooth. Rome would give access to heavyweight universities under direct scrutiny from the Vatican.
It is understood the plan would include the Irish College in Rome dramatically reducing the number of non-Irish students enrolled in the seminary to make way for the seminarians from Maynooth.

I can imagine that this news won't go down well as many Maynooth graduates won't want to see their Alma Mater closed. It's interesting that the focus of the article is on the academic shortcomings of the Pontifical University. Whether Maynooth had sufficient weight to be considered a viable Pontifical University is something that I've heard quietly discussed for years.
One wonders what Archbishop Dolan's report will have to say regarding formation in Maynooth and the other Irish seminaries (Rome & Belfast).

Incidentally, speaking of Archbishop Dolan, his St Patrick's Day Letter this year is a very fine reflection on the Sacrament of Confession. I'm loath to quote selectively from it, so go and read the whole thing.

[Anyone want to lay a bet on how quickly the Association of 'Catholic' Priests will be in putting together a whine about Rome suppressing Maynooth?]

Edited to add: The President of Maynooth says the report is 'without foundation'.

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.

Michael Kelly on the Claudy Report

Some quarters of the media have been throwing around the word 'cover-up' to describe the Church's actions regarding the alleged involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing. However, as Michael Kelly's latest blog post shows, such mud-slinging is gravely misleading.

The report itself shows that the RUC were - for whatever reason - unwilling to investigate Fr Chesney fully. There's no evidence that this unwillingness to investigate came due to pressure from Church quarters and, indeed, it seems as though the whole situation was sprung on Cardinal Conway who was left in an awkward spot. This priest was suspected of involvement in a bombing and the Church co-operated fully with the civil authorities. Formal and informal questioning of Fr Chesney by other clergy turned up nothing but a denial and the police were unwilling to investigate further. The Cardinal was hardly in a position to dictate how the RUC investigate a terrorist crime and nor does it seem that he was in a position to carry out any kind of disciplinary action within the Church based on the evidence to hand. Going public with the suspicion would have served no good and would probably have led to priests being targeted by loyalist terrorist.

I'm sure some journalists get a kick out of putting an anti-Church spin on what happened, but the only accurate description of what happened here is Church co-operates with law enforcement authorities.

Pointers towards a response to James P Mackey

The Irish Times is running a series of 5 articles by James P Mackey which are supposed to reflect on the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Well, that's what the by-line says. Professor Mackey himself admits to a more polemic intention. Starting with the Papacy he says:

[I]n this and a further four columns, five features of church life and teaching that most loudly cry out for reform will be analysed.

Certainly not a case of 'accentuate the positive'... I won't deny the usefulness of non-Catholics presenting their critique of the Church and her constitution, but what I find offensive about this article is the way in which the author's criticisms are so detached from an accurate understanding of Church history and what the Church actually teaches about the Papacy. It's the kind of mud-slinging exercise which poisons the public discourse and upsets Catholics who haven't had the formation to see the blunders that Mackey makes.

Mackey's Reading of Scripture
Mackey begins with his reading of the Gospel scene where Christ appoints Peter as the Rock on which His Church would be built...

In the gospel scene in which the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, is thought to have instituted papacy, Jesus is pictured choosing a leader for his group of close companions in mission. He wants to make sure the leader will know who Jesus is and what he is about.
Cephas steps forward and confesses that Jesus is the Christ and is duly rewarded with the new name, Peter or Rock, and given the keys of the kingdom of God. But at this point promoters of a Petrine papacy seem to stop reading and fail to notice that Peter is quickly fired from the job just offered him.
When Jesus went on to say that he must go up to Jerusalem and die for his message and mission, as prophets often had to do, Peter corrected him.
Jesus suddenly realised that Peter’s idea of the Christ was modelled on King David, the paradigmatic Christ in Israel’s history, who would reign over the same kingdom, now won back from the Romans, and reign as absolute monarchs are wont to reign, by threat of force both armed and punitive.

Beneath that analysis is a picture of a Jesus Christ who doesn't really know what's going on. Mackey presents Him as a wobbly and indecisive personnel manager rather than the Incarnate Son of God. Christ's rebuke of Peter is severe - Get behind me Satan - but if you actually read the Gospels AND read the writings of the early Christians, there's no indication that Peter's commission was somehow withdrawn at that moment. When dealing with the Apostles, the consensus of the scriptural and non-scriptural early texts of Christianity consistently put Peter in the role of leader.

Now, theologians can and do argue about what that role means for the future of the Church and the development of the Papacy, but Mackey's suggestion that Christ somehow sacked Peter just after appointing him is a novel and bizarre reading.

Of course, the Gospels do show Peter making a mess of things. They don't paint a rosy picture of him. (And this is a point in favour of their accuracy!) He can be blustering and impetuous, and when the moment of trial comes, He denies Christ three times. That is a moment where Peter seems to undo himself. However, far from being a moment where Christ dismisses him, it's Peter's own weakness which sees him fall short of the role given to him. And Christ knew that would happen. If we have a look at the 22nd Chapter of Luke we find:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Even after his failure, the task of strengthening his brethren would fall to Simon Peter.

And when he does fall, what's Christ's response? After He rises from the dead, he takes Peter aside...

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me." (John 21:15-19)

The three-fold denial is undone with a three-fold declaration of love, and even though Peter is more aware than ever of his weakness, Christ commissions him to feed His flock.

Mackey seems to side-step the importance of that passage by saying, "There is no scene in the New Testament that describes Jesus reinstating Peter as pope before he died; indeed in one scene of the arrest of Jesus, Peter draws the sword to bring on the insurrection." Note the qualification before he died. Is Mackey unwilling to deal with the 21st chapter of John because he doubts the veracity of the resurrection appearances or is he sneakingly trying to dodge the issue with a little equivocation. Is he hoping that the readers won't notice the qualification he makes and will overlook what Christ has to say after He rose from the dead?

Constantine and the Pope?
The rest of Mackey's article is flawed as well. He brings up the old boogey-man of the Constantinian papacy - the idea that somehow the first three centuries of Christianity led to the generation of a Papal monarchy. Even a cursory reading of Church History shows that Mackey doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, things did change for the Church with Constantine. But, it didn't result in the immediate creation of some form of Papal Monarchy. Indeed, Mackey seems to be engaged in some hand-waving here... He points out:

The assimilation was consummated under Constantine, who himself as Pontifex Maximus was head of religion as well as state; just as Pope Benedict is absolute monarch of his Vatican statelet and simultaneously of the worldwide Catholic Church – and pretender to absolute rule over all other Christian churches.

Is he implying that Benedict XVI is - in some sense - a successor to Constantine? Well, he's glossing over the fact that Constantine wasn't Pope. Whatever was 'consummated' under Constantine wasn't some kind of Papal Imperium. Mackey seems just to want some kind of excuse to throw Benedict's name next to that of nasty ol' Constantine.
What Mackey is not saying is that from the time of Constantine onwards, one of the key battles of the Church has been to stop secular rulers from abusing the spiritual authority of the Church for their own advantage. Putting a limit on the claims to spiritual authority of Constantine and his successors - as well as preserving the Church's own independence from temporal interference - is one of the big themes of Church history for the millennium after Constantine. Scraps between Pope and Emperor pepper the following centuries.
The Papacy does develop over that span of time. Frequently some very unworthy men filled that office. Many of them could be accused of greed and veniality. However, the assertion of Papal authority which came under Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) is much more important in terms of defining the role of the papacy than anything that happened with Constantine. The Gregorian Reform, as it is known, was aimed at securing the freedom of the Church from the corruption of medieval nobles, a renewal of holiness and an affirmation of the spiritual mission of the Church. Now, the history of the Papacy is certainly painted in shades of grey and there's plenty there to criticise. However, the point I wish to make is that Mackey's historical picture is confusing and detached from the facts.
I'm also at a loss to charitably interpret Mackey's reference to the 'Vatican statelet'. Does he want us to imagine Benedict sitting on his sofa contemplating his absolute rule over a mighty empire of 110 acres? The Vatican City State could have been bigger, but during the negotiations with the Italian state in the 1920s Pope Pius XI refused to accept anything more than the current size of the Vatican to serve as place which guarantees the independence of the Papacy.

The Infallible Governor?
Finally, the sting in the tail, Mackay's assessment of Papal infallibility and his confusion between the Pope's teaching and governing functions:

The matter of papal infallibility is also relevant to the historical papal hunger for absolute power; as the promoters of that cause before Vatican II amply illustrate.
For even if an absolute monarch dictates to you, without need for your agreement, some harsh rule on what to believe, how to worship, how to live, you might still retain some slight hope that you could persuade him that this was a mistaken or at least a counter- productive move. If though he has decreed himself infallible, you are utterly helpless.

Speaking of the Pope as an 'absolute monarch' is a somewhat pejorative description of the Pope's role in the Church. Yes, he does have the 'last say', but to speak of him as an 'absolute monarch' without reference to the rights of the laity and clergy as set out in the Code of Canon Law, without reference to the governance exercised by bishops in their own diocese (something the Papacy is loath to interfere in) and without reference to how things actually work is a cheap shot. Additionally, the Pope's authority to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals is not something self-declared. It's something taught by the First Vatican Council and (horror of horrors!) Vatican II. Mackay's article would be a lot more useful if it explored what that infallibility consisted of. It's not about infallible governance as Mackay seems to imply, but rather a special charism and responsibility to formally and authoritatively teach in matters of faith and morals. It's something which has been used sparingly and within a narrow scope. And, it's also worth pointing out, when the world's bishop's teach together on matters of faith and morals - either when they gather together in a council or when they teach separately but in harmony in their own diocese - they too have the charism of infallibility.
The appeal to infallibility has - in theory and in practice - very little to do with how the Pope governs the Church from day-to-day. It's an easy word to bring up when you want to have a pot-shot at the Catholic Church, but Mackay's article doesn't even try to engage with actual Church teaching about the Papacy or infallibility. Nor does it go into specifics about how infallibility has been mis-used. One would expect better from someone claiming to be a theologian.

Why not an honest critique?
There are issues to be discussed here both within and outside the Church. The ongoing dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches will see the role of the Papacy debated and clarified. However, discussion cannot be based on the kind of caricature painted in Mackay's unworthy article. He presents us with a reading of scripture which has no support in the New Testament itself or in any early Christian reading of the scriptures that I'm familiar with. His reading of Church history is self-contradictory and doesn't even attempt to engage with the real (and sometimes murky, I admit) development of the Papacy's temporal and spiritual power. And, finally, his point about the Pope's role as 'absolute monarch' seems to based on a knee-jerk distaste for the term infallibility rather than an actual engagement with what, for example, Vatican II teaches about the governance of the Church or how things actually happen in real life.

Footnote:
A close reading of Vatican II's Lumen Gentium explains the make-up of the Church and the Pope's role. Likewise, the Catechism does a good job explaining the special mission of the Pope and the hierarchy.

Edited to add:
I drafted this post under the assumption that Professor Mackey was a non-Catholic. However, some Googling suggests that he might be Catholic. That's a puzzle, because I would expect a theologian with a Catholic background to understand things a little better.

That New Priests' Body...

The Evening Herald gives another interesting perspective on that proposed new association for priests. The headline - Priests want own union to stand up to bishops - is probably the responsability of the Herald's sub-editor, but seems to point to the fact that this association is being sold the the faithful as an anti-hierarchical movement. In fairness, the organisers themselves make it clear that a 'trade union is not being proposed:

[Fr Brendan Hoban] said they did not want to form a trade union but an association that would "articulate the views of priests" as well as taking on board their rights, both civil and ecumenical.

Ecumenical? One presumes that he means ecclesiastical...

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.

A reason not to abolish the Seanad...

Via the Irish Times:

Three Fianna Fáil senators today lost the party whip after John Hanafin, Labhras Ó Murchú and Jim Walsh relinquished it over the Civil Partnership Bill.
The three senators had have spoken out strongly against the proposed legislation. Mr Hanafin had said they hoped amendments they proposed would be accepted and would “move forward on that basis”.

At least some of our Senators have the guts to speak out for the rights of conscience and marriage.
I know that Independent Senator Rónán Mullen has also resisted the bill as it currently stands and I hope that some FG Senators will also vote against it.

Homily - 14th Week of Ordinary Time (Year C)

I sometimes wonder what the 72 must have thought when Jesus sent them out two-by-two, with none of the usual accoutrements you’d need for a journey – no money, no back-pack, no sandals. Just go out there, stick your neck out and preach my message.

They must have been dubious… They must have worried that they’d be left sleeping in the fields or laughed out of the towns they visited. And yet, with the power of Jesus’s name and the gospel they were spreading, they went out and did it, and they did great things despite having precious little in terms of the backing you would think they needed.

The Church here in Ireland needs to look at those 72 Disciples and draw a lesson from them and their courage, because if you read the signs of the times in today’s Ireland, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to live the life of a committed Christian and to openly preach the Gospel.

Last Thursday night the Civil Partnerships Bill made its way through Dáil Éireann without a vote. If it’s approved by the Seanad and signed by the President, it’ll become the law of the land. In essence, a new form of marriage is being created in Ireland without the sort of public debate and serious consideration such a momentous step calls for.

Our Catholic Bishops opposed the Bill on two main grounds. First of all, by creating this new institution of ‘Civil Partnership’ the government is not respecting the role of the family – and in particular marriage – as the basic foundation stone of our society.

Secondly, there is no provision in the Bill permitting people who don’t believe in ‘Civil Partnership’ for whatever reason to exercise their right of conscience to not participate in them. It seems as though if you have a hall or hotel which you’re willing to hire out for weddings or if you’re a photographer or a baker who normally does wedding work, you won’t be permitted to say I have no interest in facilitating Civil Partnerships. You could find yourself open to criminal prosecution. If you took on the job of a Civil Registrar thinking that you were going to be dealing with marriages, you’ll now be forced to deal with Civil Partnerships. The basic freedom of freedom of conscience is being undermined in our State. Our basic right to say I disapprove of that, I have no interest in that, therefore I’m not going to play a part in that is being taken away from us.

Now, I’m sure that there are people here who don’t have a huge problem with the Civil Partnership Bill. All I can do this evening is to ask you to read the Bishops’ Statement Why Marriage Matters which is available on the Irish Bishops’ website and encourage you to read some solid Catholic material about the meaning of marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage has not had many voices speaking up for it in the newspapers, on the radio or on TV for the past few decades. It’s not based on hatred, it’s not based on unjust discrimination – it’s a positive, live-giving understanding of marriage, but because it poses a challenge to people, it does not receive a fair hearing in the media.

Anyway, a number of things worry me about the passing of the Civil Partnership Bill. Minister Dermot Ahern described it as being one of the most important human rights pieces of legislation dealt with by the Dáil. And, yet there was precious little coverage of it in the media. If you were following the papers and the TV for the past couple of weeks, you’d think that the legislation about stag hunting was the big story of the week. Big, big news, but very much under-reported… You have to wonder if those who influence the media wanted this legislation about Civil Partnerships to slip through without people kicking up a fuss. Were they trying to slip it past conscientious Catholic, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and other people who would have reason to raise questions?

The second thing which worries me is the way the Bishop’s Statement Why Marriage Matters was received by our political class. It was initially released in March, and the Bishops issued a statement drawing people’s attention to it again a couple of weeks ago. When they did this, Minister John Gormley started complaining about the Church ‘interfering’. He tried to put it about that the Catholic Bishops had no democratic right to present the teaching of the Church. Every other group in society – trade unions, political parties, sporting organizations and so on, they all have a right to comment on the big issues which affect the life of our country, but when the Church says a few words on the value of marriage, then prominent politicians try to silence her. Why is that? What is it that makes some members of our political class behave so irrationally when we try to have our democratic say?

Incidentally, Archbishop Dermot Martin was speaking to the St Joseph’s Young Priests’ Society in Knock last week. He pointed out how the politicians were giving out to the Bishops last year for not telling people to vote ‘Yes’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Now, 12 months later, when the Church has something to say about marriage, there’s an attempt made by the politicians to shut the Bishops up.

Another politician who had something to say about the Bishops’ contribution was Minister Dermot Ahern. He said that he was of the opinion that politicians shouldn’t allow religion to cloud their judgement. I suspect that quite a number of politicians, public figures and journalists would say something very similar. And, yet, that kind of thought shows a huge misunderstanding of what religion is and what role it has to play in a democratic society. Now, let me be quite clear – there’s no justice in any politician trying to impose his religious beliefs or religious practice on the people he’s governing. Our Catholic faith insists that the State has no role in coercing anyone’s religious beliefs. It’s one of our fundamental human freedoms. However, this freedom which is recognised in our constitution does not mean that everyone who is elected to public office has to pretend to be a non-believer when making decisions. Religious believers can be objective and fair without being asked to switch off part of their brains or deny their fundamental values.

If you allow yourself to be formed and shaped and informed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that shouldn’t be a disadvantage to you in political life. If you love God and sincerely want to serve your neighbours in the political life then your religious faith is not clouding your judgement. If your faith gives you a strong understanding of what’s right and wrong and how the common good can best be served, then that’s not something you could or should lock away in a box when tough decisions have to be made. Dermot Ahern might just as well have said that politicians shouldn’t allow their conscience, their understanding of right and wrong to cloud their judgement.

The holy Capuchin priest Ven. Solanus Casey once referred to religion as the science of our happy relationship with God and our neighbours. That’s not something you’d ever want to set aside. However, it’s becoming clearer that many of our country’s leaders, most of whom claim to be Catholic, are tending towards an understanding of faith and religion as something totally private, something that offers a little personal consolation, a little bit of a spiritual high and some nice ceremonies, something one does in one’s spare time, but isn’t mentioned in polite society, and certainly doesn’t influence what one does with the rest of one’s life. That’s not healthy, that’s not true religion, and it ignores the great work done by literally millions of Christians in shaping society for the better because of their faith. Racial equality and an end to slavery was a proudly Christian cause in so many places. Many of our Irish missionaries fight for the dignity of the poor and downtrodden throughout the world. Would we say to them that they should set their religion aside, their strong sense of right and wrong to one side as they campaigned for the God-given rights of those who suffer? Would we dare tell them that their religion is clouding their judgement?

The third thing that worried me was that the legislation passed through the Dáil on Thursday night without a vote. One TD – a Presbyterian, by the way – did speak in favour of the sort of conscience clause which Catholic, Church of Ireland, Baptist and Presbyterian religious leaders had lobbied for. However, he got precious little support and I don’t think that one politician on Thursday night objected outright to the Bill. All the major political parties seem to have supported the Bill and I don’t think that any of the major political parties were willing to allow their TDs the right to reject the Bill. The whip was on. Does that seem right to you? That such important and controversial legislation made its final passage through the Dáil on a nod and a wink, that we didn’t see any significant opposition to it. It’s obvious that the membership of Dáil Éireann don’t adequately represent public opinion. Was there even one Catholic member of the Dáil willing to take a stand in favour of marriage and the Constitution?

Just before the last General Election in the UK, the Scottish Bishops issued a very strong statement. They said:

In urging you to let your faith count at the ballot box, we ask you to think carefully before you cast your vote. Which candidate displays values closest to yours? Which candidate will best respect and protect your religious freedom and your freedom of conscience? Which candidate do you trust most to do a good job for you and your community?
As your bishops, it is not our intention to tell you which party to vote for. It is our duty to encourage you to engage with the political process and to vote for the candidate who best represents the values we, like our parents and grandparents before us, hold dear.

Archbishop Conti of Glagow went further by pointing out that none of Britain’s mainstream political parties were willing to stand up for the right to life from conception to natural death, for the institution of marriage or for the rights of conscience.

One wonders if we could say the same about the Irish political parties. There are some members of the Seanad of various political parties and none who are lobbying for a free vote when the Civil Partnership Bill reaches them next week. Watch that space. See what kind of support marriage and the rights of conscience get from our politicians and our media.

I’m afraid I’ve gone on at some length. But I want you to be quite clear what situation faces us in Ireland at the moment. The values of those who run our newspapers, television and radio stations do not – in the main – seem friendly to our Catholic values. Amongst our political class there seems to be a huge amount of confusion or misunderstanding or hostility to our values. The law of the land is changing in ways which will certainly be actively hostile to our positive and life-giving understanding of human life, marriage and the importance of conscience. In many ways – in terms of our own understanding of these issues, our grasp of Church teaching, our use of the media, we as Catholics are ill-equipped to deal with the challenges which the changing nature of Irish society offers us. In the medium term I see a number of battles down the road for us – a defence of the right to life for the unborn and those who are ill; a defence of the right to palliative care; a defence of the rights of parents; a defence of the rights of our Catholic schools; a defence of the rights of doctors to practice according to their consciences; a defence of the rights of our own consciences to follow Catholic teaching and to preach it publicly.

If you are sincere in your faith – if what you celebrate in this Church means something to you, you have an obligation to be ready for these battles. An obligation to study your Catholic faith, to question your political leaders, to treat the opinions you read in the newspapers with scepticism. An obligation to pray, to spend time with Christ, to ask his help in deepening your faith and your understanding of the world around you.

And yet, we have the example of the 72 Disciples before us. They were sent out – materially under-equipped and with nothing but Christ’s name. They came back rejoicing having worked great deeds in Jesus’s name. The Gospel of Christ is still the one salvation offered to us. Let us never be afraid to listen to it and proclaim it with confidence.

Pope's Letter to the Catholics of Ireland

Full text available here.

To be quite honest, apart from welcoming it whole-heartedly and repeating the Pope's own request that Irish Catholics read it themselves, I think that too much comment is superfluous. Just let it be read prayerfully, seriously and repeatedly. It would be naive to think that the problems of the past and present can be sorted out within the space of a few short media cycles. However, that's not the impression one gets when watching the news or reading the papers. There seems to be an assumption that problems can be dealt with swiftly - a hurried resignation here, a statement of apology there, and then mission accomplished. Not so! Any meaningful kind of healing, purification or renewal is going to be a long and deliberate process, and if we claim to be Christians, then the healing process must involve a turning back to Christ and a willingness to offer penance.

Anglicanorum Coetibus

The Holy See has issued the Apostolic Constitution which sets up new structures enabling Anglicans to enter into full communion with Rome. My brief reading of it suggests that they're essentially getting mini-dioceses - personal Ordinariates - giving them quite an amount of autonomy to preserve their Anglican heritage.

IV. A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff.

V. The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is:

a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum;

b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;

c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;

This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms.

Interesting... and one wonders if this is a possible structure which could be used to reconcile the SSPX?

The spin, the spin...

I note with interest this report in the Irish Times which deals with a Church of Ireland group which is supportive of Civil Partnerships for homosexual couples. Now, I don't have the time or inclination to moderate a debate about that particular issue. However, I think that it's important that we look at what one preacher is supposed to have said.

In a sermon at the chapel yesterday Rev Sharon Ferguson, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and a minister at the Metropolitan Community Church in London, said “those who are called by God to be our religious leaders are exhorted to remember that they are no different from the rest of us and consequently deal gently with all people”.She said: “Jesus spent his whole ministry reaching out to those rejected by the Jewish faith – lepers, tax collectors, women, gentiles, the sick and disabled, prostitutes – and he showed God’s all encompassing love for all people.“He didn’t judge them and insist that they changed their ways before sharing God’s love with them, for he knew that none of these things matter.”

Now, I don't know whether that's an accurate account of what she said, or the context in which she said it, but taking it at face value, it's applying a huge amount of spin to the Gospel itself.

Certainly, religious leaders are called to be gentle and to remember that they're made of the same flesh as everyone else. And Christ certainly spent his ministry reaching out to those on the margins.

However, it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that lepers, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles and the disabled are somehow interchangeable. All received healing and forgiveness from Christ, but their situations were not identical. The woman caught in adultery was urged to go and sin no more, whilst I don't ever recall Christ telling anyone go and don't be a gentile or a woman any more.

Yes, Christ showed God's all encompassing love for everyone, regardless of what their situation was. I truly hope that the Church can continue to do that. However, He also called those He touched to a new and challenging way of life. Some took up the challenge; others, like the rich young man, turned away. Christ brought God's forgiveness and mercy because they are so needed. Whether one needs to turn to God and take up the challenge of conversion is not a matter of indifference. Christ was continually calling people to conversion - the pharisees, the tax collectors, those who hate, those who refuse to forgive, and, yes, adulterers and prostitutes. That's not a denial of God's all-encompassing love. It's a sign that God loves us too much to leave us in a state of slavery.

So, unless Rev Ferguson wants to suggest that ministers of religion should stop speaking out against financial corruption, war, thief, ingratitude and all those other ways in which we give evidence of our fallen nature, then she can't really argue that the example of Christ means that the Church shouldn't speak out against Civil Partnerships. If she wanted to argue that homosexual relations were holy and blessed, and that the Church should therefore support civil partnerships, well, I could respect her. I wouldn't agree with her, but I would respect her reasoning to a point, because it would not be denying the fact that Christianity has something to say about right and wrong.

However, the road she's taking at the moment suggests that God doesn't care about anything and that therefore the Church shouldn't take a position on any moral issue. Anyone who knows even a little about the Gospel and the history of Christianity will know that line of reasoning is bunkum.

Mathematical Ignorance

This is a good example of why I don't trust newspapers. The science editor of the Irish Times writes about the work of Nadia Baker who encourages mathematical literacy. However, he concludes with the following howler:

Ms Baker referred to something that, on the face of it, seemed a remarkable coincidence but in fact was only simple probability.

It would seem a long shot to meet someone with the same birthday date as you, but in fact in a random group of just 23 people, there is a greater than 50/50 chance of meeting someone with the same birthday as you.

You can bet on it.

No you can't! In a random group of 23 people, there is a greater than 50/50 chance that two people in that group will share a birthday. Dr Math explains it here.

HOWEVER, that's not what the article says. The article says that in a random group of 23 people, there's a 50/50 chance that I will find someone with the same birthday as myself. That's patently absurd. As a matter of fact, I would need to get a group of 183 other people together in order for the probability of one of them having the same birthday as myself be more than 50%.

Someone has seriously misunderstood the birthday problem...

Irish Priest Kidnapped

From the Irish Times:

An extensive military and army search is underway in the Philippines following the kidnapping of an Irish priest by a gang of armed men in the south of the country yesterday.

Michael Sinnott (79), a Columban Father originally from Barntown in Co Wexford, was taken away on a speedboat after six gunmen entered the Columban House in Pagadian city in the province of Zamboanga del Sur yesterday evening, and dragged him away, according to reports quoting local police.

Fr Sinnott was taking a stroll in the garden of the compound when a man knocked on the door asking for a priest. When a member of staff opened it, gunmen barged in and grabbed him.

The missionaries could not do anything “because the abductors had powerful weapons”, regional police commander Angelo Sunglao said.

The kidnappers took Fr Sinnott away by sea, Mr Sunglao said, citing fishermen in the area. The van used to take him from the house to shore was later found abandoned and burned near the Catholic mission.

Regional military commander Major General Benjamin Dolorfino said Fr Sinnott was kidnapped for ransom. Intelligence reports indicated he was taken by boat to a town in nearby Lanao del Norte province, where a large Muslim rebel group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, is active.

Maj Gen Dolorfino said it was not clear if the Moro group or smaller but more violent al-Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf extremists were involved.

(snip)

Fr O’Donoghue said people from all walks of life had contacted the order to express sadness at what had happened to Fr Sinnott. “Right across the divide people are outraged that this could happen to a 79 year-old-man who has given his life to poor and to justice in this country,” he said.

The kidnapping comes nine months after Abu Sayyaf abducted three Red Cross workers on the island of Jolo. They were released one by one in a hostage crisis that lasted for six months. The group was also blamed for kidnapping Italian priest Giancarlo Bossi, who was held for more than a month in 2007.

Good News!

The most excellent Sisters of the Gospel of Life (based in Glasgow) have welcomed a new Postulant. The sisters are very much in their infancy as a congregation, but from having met them and heard much about their apostolate, I'm convinced that they have a huge amount to offer to the Church and I pray that they will thrive. Congrats to Sisters Roseann, Andrea and Amanda.

Year of Priesthood

Via Northampton Seminarian:

It was announced this morning by the Holy Father that there will be a "Year of the Priesthood" from 19th June 2009 - 19th June 2010. The theme will be "Faithfulness of Christ, Faithfulness of the Priest." The year will be opened at Vespers on 19th June (Solemnity of the Sacred Heart) by Pope Benedict. The year coincides with the 150th anniversary of the death of the Curé d'Ars, St John Mary Vianney. At the end of the year, the saint will be declared patron of all the priests in the world.

What did he say?

I don't trust the Irish Times to adequately report what any bishop has to say, and find myself puzzled by some aspects of this report:

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Dublin Most Rev Diarmuid Martin said that, while he didn't feel any of his fellow bishops were opposed to what Cardinal Seán Brady said about the Bill at the recent Céifin conference in Ennis, they might have said it differently.
"We haven't expressed an opinion as an Episcopal Conference (on the Bill)," he said. "I don't think anyone in the conference is against what Cardinal Brady said, but they may have said it in different ways."
The Archbishop also said that while the Catholic Church favoured marriage, "it is not against other forms of intimacy".
Catholic teaching "is linked to the complementarity of the sexes", he said, "and this was not something it was possible for any individual to change. It is part of the order of things since Creation." He noted that while "the Catholic Church is in favour of marriage, it is not against other forms of intimacy". He added that "consistently, all Christian churches emphasise the uniqueness of marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes", but they addressed other forms of intimacy on other bases.

What did Archbishop Martin mean by 'other forms of intimacy'? He can hardly mean that Catholic teaching is okay with the cohabitation of hetrosexual or homosexual couples, but this reference to 'other forms of intimacy' leaves things vague. What's going on here? Inadequate reporting, an exceptionally poor use of language by the Archbishop of Dublin or a major capitulation by one of Ireland's senior churchmen?

God bless Cardinal Brady for his analysis of the situation:

In his address to the Céifin conference on November 4th, Cardinal Brady indicated that the Government could face a legal challenge if the Civil Partnership Bill became law. "Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution, to the moral integrity of the word of God and to the precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society may have to pursue all avenues of legal and democratic challenge to the published legislation if this is the case," he said.
The Bill was "perhaps the greatest revolution in the history of the Irish family" and the Government was obliged by the Constitution to guard the institution of marriage "with special care", he said.
The Civil Partnership Bill is expected to become law next year and will give greater protection to cohabiting and same-sex couples in areas such as pensions, inheritance and tax. Cardinal Brady said a complete assessment could not be made until the legislation was published, but that it appeared the Government was prepared to grant to cohabiting and same-sex couples the status of marriage in all but name. Apart from the restrictions on adoption by same-sex couples, "it is difficult to see how anything other than the introduction of de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples is envisaged", he said.
The cardinal said he found it "remarkable" that "Ireland looks set to repeat the mistakes of societies like Britain and the US by introducing legislation which will promote cohabitation, remove most incentives to marry and grant same-sex couples the same rights as marriage in all but adoption".

Unholy row?

Via the Irish Times:

A Minister of State was booed off the altar in St Andrew's Church on Westland Row this morning when he tried to address the Age Action meeting called to protest over the abolition of the automatic entitlement to medical cards for the over 70s.

More than 1,000 older people attended the meeting and there were angry shouts of protest every time the Government and Fianna Fáil were mentioned.

Minister of State for Health John Moloney was the Government's representative at the meeting, but when he stood up to speak, he was loudly heckled and he eventually left the microphone.

The meeting was due to be held in a room in a hotel with a capacity for 300, but when hundreds of older people began to turn up, the meeting was moved to the nearby church.

More than two dozen older people addressed the meeting before political leaders were given two minutes each to speak.

PD senator Fiona O'Malley was also heckled but addressed the crowd and said it was wrong that the minister was not allowed to speak. Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore and Sinn Féin's Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin all received a warm welcome.

I'm baffled by the fact that someone at the parish or diocesan level thought it fit to give permission for a political meeting of this sort in a church. It doesn't seem to respect the sacred nature of the building.

And may their first child be a masculine child.

I was delighted to learn yesterday of the betrothal of Lucy and Drew, both of them thoroughly good eggs whom I met in Rome.
Congratulations, guys! May you have a long and happy life together.