IRISH TIMES: AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

WHY MEDIA APPARATCHIKS ARE HOSTILE TO POPE BENEDICT


JOHN WATERS

THIS WEEK, Pope Benedict XVI turned 85; yesterday marked the start of the eighth year of his pontificate, the most extraordinary and brilliant of recent times. In Ireland this statement reads as unexpected, “counter-intuitive” – perhaps even perverse.

This arises, however, not because of objective circumstances, but because of those who stand between the pope and his people. In other societies, Pope Benedict has shown himself to be adept at reaching out to the educated generations of young people seeking to overcome the lassitude invoked in them by a globalised culture selling sensation and freedom but not the peace they crave.

Elsewhere, the initial prejudices which greeted this pope’s election in 2005 have long evaporated; here – doggedly maintained by a determined cadre of embittered media ideologues standing between the people and the light – they remain.

Were it not such a serious matter, it might become increasingly comical to observe the illogicality of Irish media positions towards the Catholic Church. Although there are no more than three or four print journalists working in our media who are other than relentlessly hostile to the very idea of Catholicism (I can think only of one radio presenter and no one on television), the only content of media coverage is an incessant clamouring for “reform”.

Pope Benedict makes written and spoken contributions on almost a daily basis about matters as diverse as the condition of modernity, the meaning of eternity, the conundrum of reason, and the quality of beauty, and yet we are only enabled to hear what he says when this is deemed to provide an appropriate – selective – backdrop for discussion of the favourite topics of media apparatchiks and their pet contributors.

Personally, I do not play golf, know almost nothing about it, do not belong to a golf club and find the rules of the game pointless. For me, golf is a ludicrous way of spoiling good fields. But I do not write articles here every week about what should happen when pine needles piled for removal interfere with the line of play. Nor am I afforded space on the sports pages to issue persistent demands that the golfing authorities change the rules to make them seem less ridiculous to me. I assume that those who wish to play golf are happy to abide by the rules of the game and to accept the logic behind its regulation.

Last week, on the publication of an opinion poll conducted on behalf of the Association of Catholic Priests, commentators who had never written a sentence indicating genuine interest in, or affection for, Catholicism – who never miss an opportunity to attack the church and its leadership – struck up demands for “democracy”, purportedly on behalf of what they depict as the downtrodden and ignored “faithful”. Why? Why do they care whether the Catholic Church is democratic or not? What is it to them?

And is it not odd that the first recourse of many who cannot live up to the demands of Christianity is to demand the adaptation of those teachings to their personal needs rather than ask themselves whether they have misunderstood something about the church, reality or themselves? To adopt another sporting metaphor: a striker who fails to score enough goals does not get a platform for claims that the goals should be enlarged, but a Catholic who says he cannot live up to the church’s expectation of its members is regarded as a worthy victim, if not a hero.

Let us pause very briefly to contemplate the silliness of the idea that an opinion poll can decide anything to do with Christ’s church.

To say that the Catholic Church is not a democracy is to state its very nature: for Catholic believers, it is the institution founded by God to implement His will on earth. For those who believe this, it is the end of the discussion. If you do not believe this, why be interested in what the church thinks or says about anything?

An interesting aspect of these discussions is the way selective interpretations of the Second Vatican Council – which the Association of Catholic Priests, for example, claims as its principal inspiration and motivation – are employed to consider matters relating to the church as though to a political party.

Such interventions, the pope has frequently observed, are based on a refusal to read the text of Vatican II, or its division into two parts: an “acceptable” progressive part and an “unacceptable old-fashioned” part. Vatican II must be read, he insisted, in the context of what came before, and in particular of Vatican I. Yes, there was a Vatican I too.

One of the greatest threats to the church, the pope reminds Catholics, is public pressure for a watered-down, appeasing Christianity. Because the church is “not our institution but is the breakthrough of something different”, he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger in Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith (2002), it follows that “we cannot ever simply constitute her ourselves”.

And we certainly cannot consider the nature of the church under the guidance of forces seeking her destruction.

Vatican Strategies Questioned

Once again I dip into recent writings in the Irish Times and ask readers of this blog if they think there is anything there for us.

The writer is Patsy McGarry, it's religious affairs correspondent

 

OPINION: TOMORROW is the seventh anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI on April 19th, 2005. The scenes on St Peter’s Square that afternoon illustrated what this divisive figure has meant for his church.

Middle-aged and older people were crestfallen. A man sat at one of the great fountains in the square and wept openly. Around him danced seminarians from the North American College.

Well-scrubbed and in cassocks, they could not contain their glee. “Benedicto, Benedicto, Benedicto,” they shouted. “It’s a regular party,” a seminarian from Pittsburg told this reporter.

For them, the election of John Paul II’s enforcer as pope represented the final defeat of that liberal Catholicism ushered in following Vatican II which they and their mentors see as at the root of all that is wrong in the church today. The rigid certainties enforced by the new pope had so much more appeal for them than the porous, inclusive Catholicism of the previous generation.

Pope Benedict’s views were well-known, as were his attitudes to dissent. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger helped to force closed many windows thrown open by Pope John XXIII and Vatican II.

For instance, where ecumenism was concerned and in his infamous Dominus Iesus document of 2000, he dismissed all reformed churches as not churches “in the proper sense”. They were merely “ecclesial communities”. All other faiths were “gravely deficient”. In 1997, he described Buddhism as an “auto-erotic spirituality”. Hinduism was based on a concept of reincarnation resembling “a continuous circle of hell”.

On celibacy, women priests or women in the diaconate, he was immovable. Similarly on the use of condoms even to combat Aids. On homosexuality he was virulent. In 1986, he described it as a “strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.

Where dissent was concerned he brooked no hostages. It extended to former colleagues such as Hans Küng. In 1966, at Küng’s instigation, the Catholic faculty at Germany’s Tübingen university appointed Fr Ratzinger professor of dogmatics. In 1979, Küng was stripped of his licence to teach because he challenged papal infallibility. In 1981, when Ratzinger became dean of the CDF, he upheld that decision.

In 1986, he stopped US priest Fr Charles Curran from teaching because of his views on sexuality and ethics. A Brazilian, Fr Leonardo Boff, was silenced twice by him, in 1985 and in 1991. Fr Robert Nugent and Sr Jeannine Gramick, who worked with gay people in the US, were sanctioned in 1999. In 1995, Sri Lankan theologian Fr Tissa Belasuriya was excommunicated by him over writings on Mary, original sin and the divinity of Christ. He was later reconciled with the church.

There were so many more.

There is also something deeply insidious about the methods he and Rome use to silence those who disagree, as we have seen in Ireland. You might say Rome has ways of making you “think with the mind of the church” (sentire com ecclesia), in that memorable phrase directed by Rome at Fr Tony Flannery last month as he was told “ . . . to a monastery go!”

The Irish Times has, for instance, been aware for years of the curt silencing of three other Irish priests/theologians as they sought their way to a more compassionate, Christian understanding of human life. All three belong to different religious congregations.

In all instances, the head of their congregation was summoned to the CDF in Rome after anonymous complaint. The congregation head was advised to bring the “dissident” into line. He in turn contacted the congregation head in Ireland. The “dissident” was summoned and confronted with his aberration.

Usually, at local level, the relevant head has been kind. The priest/theologian in each case has been torn between a need to articulate his convictions for the benefit of the distressed and the consequences this for his congregation. Each priest felt he had to accept silence.

In each case too, those of us in the media aware of it were asked not to write about this lest the sky fall and bring further misery on the already crushed. So Rome has had its way and through exploiting finer human emotions such as loyalty and respect. Clever? Yes, but hardly Christian.

RECENT EDITORIAL IN THE IRISH TIMES

 What, if anything, have we got in common with the situation in Ireland?

 The Vatican and the faithful

IRELAND REMAINS overwhelmingly Catholic in identity but has become alienated from church teaching on sexual matters. The 2011 census found that 84 per cent of people in this State regarded themselves as Catholics. However, the great majority of Catholics in a more recent survey rejected papal teaching on who should be priests, on divorce, homosexuality and contraception. The emergence of such an a la carte approach reflects a loss of authority within the church caused by sex abuse scandals and extensive cover-ups, along with the emphasis placed on personal conscience by Vatican II.

The fact that a controversial survey involving religious beliefs was commissioned and published by the Association of Catholic Priests is, perhaps, the most significant development. It follows the silencing of Tony Flannery, one of the association’s four leaders, by Rome and the release of an edited version of a “path of renewal” for the Irish church, drawn up by Vatican churchmen who visited here last year. Brendan Hoban may protest they are not dissenting priests and that the association is merely reflecting the views of parishioners. Rome may not regard their behaviour in that light.

There has been an increasing emphasis in recent years on centralised Vatican discipline and religious orthodoxy. An integral part of that process has involved the selection and promotion of suitably compliant bishops in “local churches” throughout the world. Renewed control by Rome and a crackdown on liberal theological discourse has generated resistance in some European countries, but with little effect.

A similar outcome may be expected here. There is no evidence of a willingness to lift the prohibition on the ordination of women or married men, or to alter church teaching on sexual or other issues. On the contrary, the imposition of stricter controls within seminaries; a careful review of training for teachers of religion in schools and improved theological formation for wayward thinkers have been identified as necessary responses to current church difficulties on the road to renewal.

The alacrity with which members of the hierarchy quoted from this heavily edited report, following the implicit challenge from the Association of Catholic Priests, suggests that battle lines have been drawn. Rome may not be listening to the views of ordinary Irish Catholics. But there is nothing new in that. Control, orthodoxy and discipline are the issues at hand. While praising the vitality of the people’s faith in their report, Vatican representatives found “a widespread tendency amongst priests, religious and laity” to hold theological opinions at variance with “the teachings of the Magisterium”. This was a serious situation requiring “improved theological formation”. Dissent from fundamental teachings of the church was not, they declared, an authentic path towards renewal. Fr Hoban and his colleagues may wish for open dialogue and for liberal reforms. Instead, they are being asked to listen humbly to God’s word, as relayed by Rome.

NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET

Or as my Grandad used to say, "don't ask me, son, I was never any good at Irish" And funnily enough, as the old man knew perfectly well, my Grandad's reply neatly expressed what the Latin phrase is meant to convey; "no one gives what they do not have". Or in other words, you can't give it, if you haven't got it.

All of which, as you can see for yourself, clearly takes me to the scene in Luke's Gospel where Mary and Joseph find the boy Jesus in the Temple.  Following an exchange of words with them, Jesus returns (submissively) to Nazareth and, as Luke memorably puts it, " the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom: and the favour of God was upon him".

And there you have it; "Nemo dat quod non habet". There in the simple domesticity of his home life, Jesus begins the process of RECEIVING, absorbing, taking on board, the lessons taught by the wisdom that filled him. What he is learning will change him, mould him, and awaken a call in him that will one day urge him to listen to the Baptist and then out onto the open road that leads through the hills to Jerusalem and to one final hill which will provide his path to the great world he never physically saw but into which his disciples would feel sent.

Now there is a thing called "Orthodoxy"; a correct understanding of things. The church has always held it dear. But these days, as the institution feels a loss of power and influence in the world, this orthodoxy is being encouraged to dominate our Christian experience to such an extent that we fail to appreciate the receiving and growing that took place in Jesus and the similar receiving and growing that is at the heart of our relationship with Him.

"He speaks with authority" they remarked, not like the so-called "experts" they were obliged to listen to in the temple and in their local synagogue. These "experts" quoted texts and offered opinions, Jesus seemed to "know". "Nemo dat quod non habet".

"Were did the man get all this" they asked, "is this not the carpenters son?"
Orthodoxy will pronounce that he "got it" because he was the second person of the Blessed Trinity, made man. He got it because of the "Hypostatic Union" a divine person with both a divine and human nature. But while such proclamations of orthodoxy provide useful maps to keep us on the right course during life, they can also deafen us to the Gospel potential located in our own daily receiving and absorbing. Nemo dat quod non habet.

In the Gospel reading of tomorrow's Mass (Second Sunday of Easter), John 20: 19 - 31, Jesus asks us to "receive" the Holy Spirit, and in the strength of that Spirit go out on a mission of forgiveness. He has already been warned by the orthodoxy of his day, that forgiveness belongs to God alone, but Jesus has clearly learned something, perhaps in those long nights of solitary prayer.  Unhesitatingly he expects his followers to "forgive," warning them that refusal to forgive has the dreadful consequence of leaving others bound by their sin.

He urges us to such forgiveness because he has learned to understand that that is God's way; the God of Jesus. Nemo dat quod non habet.

Thomas shows us the way. He asks for an experience to bolster his faith. We must too; the kind of experience that will root our faith in the facts of life as we are called to live it. Orthodoxy is useful, but it will never send anyone "on mission".

EASTERING IN US AND ABOUT US

BLESS YOUR HOUSE/HOME/FAMILY THIS EASTER

You will need
 Easter Water from church
 A prayerful heart
 Friends and Family
 A quiet thoughtful time
 These few prayers

This what you do:
1. Start with a little DREAM TIME – (10 minutes shared thoughts) Remember or imagine the people who have lived there before you. Ask a blessing for them too. Become aware of what this blessing means to you, what you hope it will bring you and what it asks or you. Remember that you are part of the church, Christ’s Body on earth and that the whole church joins in asking this blessing for you.
2. If you have a favourite picture or icon, put it in place now.
3.  Reading from Scripture: If you have a favourite appropriate piece, please use it. Or you could use this.
A reading from the letter to the Ephesians 4:1.6
“I, the prisoner in the Lord, implore you to lead a lie worthy of your vocation. Bear with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience. Do all you can to preserve the unity of the spirit by the peace that binds you together. There is one Body one Spirit, just as you were all called into one and the same hope when you were called. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God who is Father of all, over all, through all and within all. This is the word of the Lord.
4. Quiet time for reflection and possible sharing of thoughts.
5. PRAYER: “ Lord be close to you servants who have moved into this new home and ask your blessing. Be their shelter when they are at home. Their companion when they are away, and their welcome guest when they return. Show them that you already live in their hearts and that you know them, better than they know themselves. And at the end lead them to your eternal dwelling place with the Father, where you live and reign forever and ever Amen.
6. Other favourite prayers may be added before this final blessing.
7. Lord of Easter, we use this water to invoke you powerful presence the house where we now make our home, upon all who live here and all who will come to visit us. May our lives in this place reflect your presence in the church.
Sprinkle Holy Water liberally about the house saying In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen   

Can we learn from the Catholic Church in Ireland?

Time to free church from clammy grip of clericalism

KEVIN HEGARTY IN THE IRISH TIMES - 11/04/2012

RITE AND REASON: Liberal Catholics have arrived at their views of church teaching on contraception, married and women priests, and homosexuality as a result of honest and honourable reflection

THE PAINTER Tony O’Malley had a custom of creating an artwork every Good Friday. When news broke during Holy Week of the Vatican censure of Fr Tony Flannery and the Redemptorist magazine Reality, I wished I could paint a picture to express my sadness.

Pope Benedict’s address at a Holy Thursday Mass in Rome copper-fastened my gloom. Responding to a call to disobedience by Austrian priests and laity on celibacy and women priests he asserted that they had challenged “definite decisions of the church’s Magisterium”.

Church leaders often talk of the right of free speech, most recently the Pope himself on his visit to Cuba. The recent Vatican moves are designed to create a climate of fear among liberal clerics. To echo a comment some years ago of the English writer AN Wilson, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has “ways of making you not talk”.

I know Tony Flannery quite well. He has given 40 years of sincere service as a priest, mainly as a preacher of missions throughout Ireland. He is an engaging and empathetic speaker and an innovative liturgist. His columns in Reality, based on his commitment to the ideals of the Second Vatican Council and his vast knowledge of the Irish church, were often thought-provoking.
He is one of the founders of the Association of Catholic Priests, set up in September 2010, and one of its leadership team. The association has provided a forum for debate and an independent voice for Irish priests.


Among its achievements was its intervention in the case of Fr Kevin Reynolds, who was grievously libelled in the Prime Time Investigates programme (Irish Television) last May.

I expect that Fr Reynolds would agree that without this help he would still be languishing in a limbo from which he might never have emerged.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the Vatican has moved to censure Fr Flannery. The Second Vatican Council promised an open and dialogical church, willing to engage with the secular world. Since the 1980s there has been in Rome a retreat from its reforms.

Pope Benedict has a jaundiced view of the council’s spirit. Last year he sent a team of apostolic visitors to examine the Irish church in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals. In the summary of their report issued recently, the visitors have a cut at liberal Catholics. They noted that a significant number of Irish Catholics held views at variance with “the teaching of the magisterium”.

They should be accorded full marks for their powers of observation. The many liberal Catholics in Ireland hope for a church that is open to married and women priests, a rethink on the issue of contraception as exhorted by Humanae Vitae, and a reversal of the harsh insensitivity of the teaching on homosexuality.

We have come to these positions as a result of honest and honourable reflection. We are not seeking change for the sake of change. We believe that such reforms would aid the emergence of a church that is more humane, relevant and inspiring, a church released from the clammy grip of clericalism.
Nor are these sincerely held views at variance with the fundamental doctrines of the church as the visitors claimed in their report. These doctrines relate, for example, to the humanity and divinity of Christ, the resurrection and the sacraments.

I am not aware of any priest in Ireland who publicly dissents from these beliefs.
There is a tendency of conservative church commentators to argue that liberal clerics are an ageing, disgruntled minority who have turned their misinterpretations of the Second Vatican Council into a kind of holy writ.
To them we are castaways on a remote island, brazenly holding aloft the tattered banners of the 1960s.

They won’t like this but I have to disillusion them.
Anecdotal evidence, coupled with the results of a number of professional surveys, indicate that the majority of Irish Catholics support radical change in the church’s ministry and moral teaching.

To paraphrase Gerry Adams in a different context, we are not going away. The Vatican has been a “cold house” for liberal Catholics in recent years. The least we expect is respect for our freedom of speech and conscience.

A reform of the church which excludes these rights is a form of repression. It seems that Pope Benedict thinks “a creative minority” of Catholic conservatives will transform the church in Europe. To me that sounds like a polite euphemism for an assembly of Rick Santorum lookalikes.

---

Fr Kevin Hegarty is a priest in the parish of Kilmore-Erris in Co Mayo, and a columnist with the Mayo News.

SOME SEE IT DIFFERENTLY

Sir, – While every effort has been made to blame Pope Benedict for deliberately launching an investigation, during Holy Week, into the activities of Fr Tony Flannery, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Vatican did not contact the Irish media during Holy Week but someone else decided to make capital of it. The facts are that Fr Flannery was notified over two months ago that he was being investigated about articles published by him, over many years, attacking the traditional teaching of the church on a variety of serious matters. He has done so for years with the obvious approval of his superiors and unfortunately without any reported objection from our bishops. It is disgraceful.
Obviously, there is something wrong in the church in Ireland and it must be corrected. In the first instance there is widespread disobedience. The public disobedience continues daily in many parishes where celebrants refuse to adopt the New Translation of the Missal at Mass. The faithful have never been consulted by these celebrants who simply do what they like, regardless. This makes it extremely difficult for good priests and the faithful alike. It appears to be a planned attack by some priests, a persecution from within and if not stopped immediately will lead to perdition.
For those familiar with what is taking place in church this investigation is a welcome beginning and gives great hope. It is no surprise, whatsoever, that the usual suspects from the media and church came out immediately in support of Fr Flannery and in unanimous condemnation of the Pope – it will probably get worse.
However, regardless of this expected hostility, the Vatican has a sacred obligation to investigate any religious whose teaching is contrary to that of the church: to defend those sacred teachings: and to protect the faithful from all taint of error and corruption. To do otherwise would be very grave and unforgivable. There are two certainties whether we like it or not: we all need correction at times and at the end we will all have to account. Viva Papa Benedict. – Yours, etc,
JOHN FERRY,
Marymount, Sligo.

PICTURE HIM RISEN

A man in Manila puts the finishing touches to an image of the Suffering Christ. How may we set about creating an image of the Risen Christ? Is such a thing possible?

It will help us if we remember that the church refers to the Sundays following Easter NOT as Sundays AFTER Easter but as Sundays OF  Easter. In that way we are reminded that the resurrection of Jesus is not something to be left like a fossil in the pages of history, but something for us to explore against the background of our own life experiences.

So when we come to think of the Resurrection of the Lord, we must not only remember the story as told in the scriptures, but also the ongoing story of our own lives.

Take for example the Gospel story that occurs well after Easter Sunday , the fifth Sunday OF Easter in fact, John 14: 1 – 12.

Lots of people will remember the words, " Do not let your hearts be troubled" and so on. They occur often in funeral Masses. Priests and Deacons may feel they know it by heart. But though we do like to use this passage to steady our nerves at such difficult times as funerals, it would be a mistake to think that it is recorded for just such a purpose.

John 14: 1 - 12 is part of the Gospel as a whole and is meant to put our whole lives into the context of the Resurrection of Jesus.
Just how do we picture the Risen One?

There are many masterpieces of art that attempt to portray Jesus, Risen from the Tomb, but almost inevitably these may mainly focus on the fact of his having risen, the event itself, if you like.  .

What we may need even more is some way of picturing not just that he rose, but that HE IS RISEN, he is Alive, a vital presence in our own living and in the life of the world around us.
How can we possibly picture such a thing?

Here, even the great masters of art may not be too much help. It is something we can and must do for ourselves. We have all that is necessary to paint this picture; a faith that speaks to us from the experiences of daily living, making our hearts burn within us with excitement, not simply from the past which may only serve to make us wish that we had been there, but from the daily reality we ourselves live.

The Lord leaves us in no doubt. This is not a work we can look at in a book, or buy in an art gallery, it is a work we must set ourselves to do for ourselves: "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God still, and trust in me."

It may well be that if we are searching for an image of the RISEN Lord, we could begin by looking in a mirror, just so long as we remember to look deeper than the facial image we see there. Look behind the face to the life that is being lived in that person. That is our way of doing what he said his disciples should do, “go back to Galilee (their home place), they will see me there”