Divisions in the Church (Part III: Between the Generations)

Part three of a series on various kinds of division in the Church.

Part one, on divisions between active, practicing Catholics is here.

Part two, on divisions between all those who identify as Catholics is here.

Once again, this is a post based on personal observation and is thus to a degree anecdotal. Constructive debate is very welcome.

The type of division I want to write about now is a division of age ranges or generations, although generations might be inaccurate since some of the ranges are on the narrow side.

I have noticed certain differences between various different age ranges vis-a-vis faith issues and I am going to try and tease them out.

Under Twelves

Children are usually very open to religious belief, but here in Ireland we have developed the practice of sending them to Catholic Schools, which are places where they are inoculated from the Catholic faith by being deprived of any knowledge of Jesus Christ or His Church beyond ‘God loves you, let’s sing ‘Circle of Friends’ together!’

I’m being glib, and to be fair there are a good number of genuinely Catholic primary school teachers who are doing a heroic job of trying to pass on the faith in a way that does not dumb it down. The problem here is that they are a minority and not concentrated enough, and many of their peers, probably a majority, do not share that faith and so children get the watered-down version that puts them off Catholicism for life unless exposed to the real thing.

Teens through Early Twenties

Teenagers are often quite open to the faith to a degree, but as they get older cultural pressure makes them more cynical. Still, I have noticed that there is something of a small renewal amongst this generation, helped by diocesan initiatives and especially groups like Youth 2000.

However, this generation above all is exercised about gay marriage and peer pressure can be particularly vicious when it comes to this topic. Only very strong-willed teenagers and young adults can resist this kind of pressure. University is particularly bad and there is a need for Catholic societies and chaplaincies in colleges that can reach out, although this is proving more difficult as time goes on and colleges grow more hostile.

This issue is a big stumbling block for reaching out here, although perhaps the key is to try and get them to have an experience of God and from experiencing His love move to moral teachings, showing how they are based in love in the first place.

Perhaps one solution is offering programs of learning the faith and volunteering where they can hopefully experience living in a young, committed Catholic setting whilst getting good formation in the faith, kind of a gap year before college. Catholic colleges have been suggested too but there are limitations to what these can do.

Mid Twenties through Early Thirties

There is something of a renewal in this age bracket as well, with many of the same causes as the bracket below it. Given the slightly more mature age range, I think it’s a bit stronger generally, although again not all involved in the Church at this age are completely orthodox.

Whilst there are many in this bracket who have embraced anti-Catholicism wholesale post-college years (Source: the comments section after any journal.ie article), and a fair number like those below them in age are into campaigning for gay marriage, I think that the dominant disposition in this group is apathy towards any kind of political involvement, at least in my experience.

The problem with this group I think is getting them interested in anything that is not material.

Mid Thirties Through Late Forties

I feel very, very sorry for practicing Catholics in this age range, as they are almost alone in a wilderness. I think that this range is the one that was most heavily hit by poor catechesis because they endured the worst of poor Catholic schooling but before there was any kind of revival. Post-Vatican II problems were at their height.

There are of course some fantastic dedicated Catholics in this age range, but my impression is that it’s thinner on the ground amongst these.

I’m not quite certain how to reach out to those who are lost here; I think that cultural Catholicism has become very ingrained.

Early Fifties through Late Sixties

This generation got the last of the decent catechesis in schools, and practice is still relatively high amongst them, although I imagine that a large proportion of those who are Practicing non-Active as described in the previous post fall into this category; the faith is cultural to a large degree but there are still many others who have been faithful all this time. I can only imagine it’s been difficult keeping the faith through those tough years of the late 80s/90s/00s as adults.

Seventy +

Similar to the previous group, although with higher again rates of practice, and even if it’s cultural to a degree I feel that it’s sometimes most genuine here. When I see some of this oldest bracket in church sometimes I’m struck by how much dedication they’ve shown coming all their lives through the difficult years.

Cooperation Between the Generations

One of my main points for bringing this up is that I think that one thing that can be lacking within the Church is cooperation between generations. Obviously, cooperation implies a sense of mission, which means I’m really talking about the Active Practicing here.

Now, it’s difficult sometimes to get younger people invested in something that’s dominated by older generations. It’s partly a modern phenomenon, I think, but it’s real and it has to be dealt with.

I know that as a young child I found it difficult to go to Catholic events where the next youngest people were a married couple in their late 30s, and the next youngest after that were in their fifties. It’s not very inspiring when you think that a particular thing has nothing whatsoever to say to people your age.

But I think that there’s a crucial difference between a group that is ALL from an older generation, which doesn’t attract teenagers/young adults on account of that generation’s need for company of their age, and a group that is of all ages, young and old, as one would imagine a parish or indeed any Church group should be.

We need to be able to work with all different age ranges and we can’t dismiss any of them. At the same time it takes a degree of formation to get out of a certain modern mindset that young people don’t speak to middle-aged or older people, which is why I think that groups like Youth 2000 are right to limit their age range, if only to cater for complete newcomers to the faith.

So I guess I’m talking more at those who are already committed and involved. We need to be willing to make the effort to bridge generation gaps. There can be a tendency to dismiss the elderly, which we see in a lot of younger, liberal campaigns where they dismiss ‘old, white males’ as though being old (or, indeed, white or male) is something intrinsically sinister.

Our age can often put youth on a pedestal but we forget that it is those who have been through life that have so much experience and still have much to offer, even if it is only their prayers when it comes to the Church. I sometimes feel a bit bad when young people are put to the front of things like pro-life demonstrations and so on. I understand that there’s a need to show that the movement has wide appeal, but I can’t help but feel that it’s treating our older members as though they’re already cold in the grave.

At the same time, many of the efforts local Church groups and authorities make to court ‘the youth’ are cringeworthy or plain stupid. (I heard of one parish which hired a militant atheist to be a parish youth coordinator on the basis that she was young and ergo would know how to get young people involved). People in their teens and twenties don’t want to be talked down to and a watered-down version of the faith does not attract them.

At the other extreme I have come across parishes that have resigned themselves to only ever having the elderly attend and everything advertised in the parish is for the over-65s as though the parish is a retirement club. One problem along these lines is that most parishes have stopped offering daily Masses apart from the 10am, which only those who are retired or on holidays can attend.

I have worked before in Church groups where every generation is working together. It’s a fantastic feeling of unity, for we are meant to be ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not a bunch of ministries targeting different age groups.

That said, as I pointed out in the beginning of the post, different approaches are needed for different age ranges, if only because of differences in the cultures surrounding those generations, as well as different needs.

(ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that I should probably try to tie this into the Four Camps post somehow, but I think that there’s a relatively even spread of ages in the different camps, except that the Liberal camp tends to be older, at least amongst those who are Active Practising)

The Divisions in the Church (Part II: Amongst all Irish Catholics)

This is the second in a three-part series on division with the Irish Church. As previously stated, these posts are largely based on personal observation, although in this one I’ll inject a little hard data so as to get an idea of certain proportions.

The first part looked at divisions amongst active, practising Catholics in Ireland.

I demonstrated this using a diagram:

Diagram 1: The Four Camps

It’s time to develop this argument. I originally brought up the ‘Four Camps’ idea with a good friend in the Church and he broadly agreed with the points I had made. But he pointed out that I was missing a very, very large part of the picture. He said that the camps could be seen as extremes, and in the middle was a much larger group of Catholics who were practising but not active. They might have tendencies or leanings one way or another, but in general they do not get involved in the life of the Church beyond showing up on Sunday and going through ceremonies such as weddings and funerals in the Church. It is worth noting that like in the active practising group, there will be a number who are not orthodox.

We might now take the diamond in the diagram above and place it in a new diagram.

Diagram 2: Active and Non-Active

I’m not certain how proportionate this diagram is, as I’ve no idea of the real percentages, but I do imagine that it is a minority of weekly Massgoers who are active in parishes, movements and apostolates in the sense of actually running things and moreover attempting to evangelise and build the Kingdom of God. Reflecting on this idea, I decided to develop it further, and contrast these two distinct groupings again with another, larger grouping: non-practicing Catholics.

This brings us to a diagram within a diagram within a diagram.

Diagram 3: The Distinct Groupings Who Call Themselves Catholic on the Census

You’ll notice that I decided to include Non-Catholics in the diagram, outside the circle, mainly for completeness’ sake.

Before we look at what the point of all this categorization might be, I’ll crunch some of the available numbers, and make up some estimates where numbers are not available. The links to the data are available in this previous post of mine.

According to the most recent Census:

• About 85% of Irish citizens and residents identify as Catholic
• About 15% of Irish citizens and residents do not

Of those who identify as Catholic, an Association of Catholic Priests survey found that:

• 35% go to weekly Mass (which is roughly 30% of all Irish)
• 65% do not go (which means that roughly 55% of Irish are non-practicing Catholics)
• A maximum of 13% agree with all of the Church’s teachings that were surveyed (which is roughly 11% of all Irish)

Now, two caveats about these stats:

One, the ACP survey has a much greater margin of error than the Census, given that they polled about a thousand people and the Census polled everyone.

Two, I’m about to conflate orthodox Catholics with Massgoing Catholics, which you can’t do in 100% of cases, but for the sake of ease we’ll assume that they are the same thing, which in the majority of cases they are.

So we end up with statistics like these for the population of Ireland:

• 11% Practising, orthodox Catholics, of which an unknown percentage are active
• 19% Practising, unorthodox Catholics, of which an unknown percentage are active
• 55% Non-practising Catholics
• 15% Non-Catholics

Now, I’m going to make a wild estimate of how many of the people who show up in the pews each Sunday are active according to my previous definition. Does 1 in 5 sound reasonable? (I imagine that this grouping is weighted towards the orthodox, but that’s just my perception).

Here are some new statistics, the bold being estimates.

• 6% Practising, Active Catholics, some orthodox, some not?
• 24% Practising, non-Active Catholics, some orthodox, some not?
• 55% Non-practising Catholics
• 15% Non-Catholics

Now, where on earth am I going with all of these figures?

Simple. We now have a series of distinct groupings within Ireland as regards their relationship with the Catholic Church:

• Orthodox, Practising, Active Catholics
• Unorthodox, Practising, Active Catholics
• Orthodox, Practising, Non-Active Catholics
• Unorthodox, Practising, Non-Active Catholics
• Non-Practising Catholics
• Non-Catholics

My point is that the Church in Ireland is divided into five categories, the largest of which by far is Non-practising Catholics.

In addition to this, there is a minority of Non-Catholics, which is an entirely heterogeneous category consisting of Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, Atheists, Agnostics and everything in between.

So in order to reach out to people and bring renewal to the Church, we need a different approach for each category.

Those who are Orthodox Practising Active form the bulk of the group that fall into the Four Camps I mentioned previously. They are the backbone of the Church, but as I pointed out face poor leadership and are divided, often over petty differences.

This group requires the building of bridges, greater unity and closer networks as well as stronger leadership, of the holy kind and not the charismatic, egotistical kind. This group also needs greater catechesis and spiritual guidance so as to grow in knowledge of the faith and personal sanctity. Encouragement too. We need to stand by each other and watch out for each other in the days t come.

You know what else what be great? More retreats, guided and non-guided, preferably in retreat houses that haven’t been swamped with New Age practices.

Those who are Unorthodox Practising Active need those of us who are orthodox to reach out to them. They obviously feel deep within themselves the need of the Church, but have left its teachings somewhere along the way.

Patience, charity and clear, informed, reasonable discussion will be key to drawing them back to the Church’s teachings. Hammer-of-the-heretics style attacks will drive this group away more than anyone else, since their bête noir is the return of more rigid days.

Those who are Orthodox Practising Non-Active need those of us who are active to encourage them, invite them, inspire them to become part of the mission of the Church, to respond to the calling that is in their hearts; we need to help them to catch fire. Beautiful, attractive communities (in the sense of communities that really practice Christian charity and strive for a true relationship with God) of the faithful will help.

Those who are Unorthodox Practising Non-Active need a bit of both of the previous approaches.

Those who are Non Practising need to be reached out to as well, although probably with the assumption that their understanding of the faith is very limited. The whole gay marriage issue will be particularly difficult here, I think; as I’ve said before we need to find ways around that particular barrier. Above all else we need people to feel welcome to come home.

Those who are Non-Catholic…well, they will need as many approaches as there are beliefs. But again, they will need those of us active in the faith to be willing to reach out, answer questions, invite, try to dialogue and understand where they are coming from.

In a way, there is a hierarchy here; the approaches needed for each group can be built upon as they grow closer to being Orthodox, Practising, Active Catholics.

This is a brief sketch, but I hope I’ve made the point; the divisions we face will need a myriad of solutions, but unity and charity amongst those of us already active is key. After all, as somebody once said, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

As always, these are broad brush-strokes; really there needs to be an individual approach to each person. But we need to recognise the broad trends and where we stand to make a start, and putting the means in place and getting our own house in order will be the first step.

I’ll have the final post up in this trilogy soon I hope, on the different generations.

Bishops, Seminaries, and the Virtue of Hope

Just a short post before my next one on our divisions within the Church.

This post came up on the Russian Orthodox Rod Dreher’s blog today, from a US Catholic seminarian writing about the seeds of hope that have been planted by numerous bishops in the US. It’s heartening, especially given the terrible problems amongst both American seminaries and a portion of its episcopate, which the seminarian writing does not shy away from mentioning.

What proportion of US bishops? I can’t say, but given that there are 270 active bishops in the USCCB (active as in not yet retired) there could easily be a large number of good ones working to renew the Church there, as I believe there are.

I bring this up in light of something I linked to in passing in my last post, this Irish Catholic article about Maynooth about six seminarians held back, apparently on account of being ‘too conservative.’

Upon reflection, it occurred to me that something wonderful had happened. Three of the bishops stood up to Maynooth and stood up for their seminarians! I know, it sounds crazy that that seems like a surprise. But the bishops have seemed unwilling to take any responsibility for what is going on there previously. I recall reading an article about the four archbishops of Ireland rejecting the Apostolic Visitation’s report on Maynooth at the time in the Irish Times, but I can’t seem to find it now.

Unfortunately, three of the other seminarians held back are still in limbo or out on an additional pastoral year.

One question this raises, which I would love to know the answer to, is who were the bishops that stood up?

And importantly, were they some of the new ones appointed recently? Do we have a changing of the guard for the better?

If so, we might be seeing seeds of renewal here, like in the US. Only as always, Ireland is a decade or three behind the curve of elsewhere. The seminarian Dreher quotes thinks it will be 50 years before results are widely seen. This is the way of things. But at least let us begin.

There’s not too much we can do about selecting new bishops. But we can pray that the relevant authorities choose the right men for renewal. I’m going to be controversial here and suggest that we need men like George Cardinal Pell, who aren’t afraid to stand up to dissidents, and yet attempt to do so in a spirit of respectful debate rather than silencing them, and moreover aren’t afraid to seriously tackle the abuse crisis while they’re at it.

The Divisions in the Church (Part I: Amongst Active, Practising Catholics)

I want to write about something that has been on my mind for a long time, namely the different divisions within the Church in Ireland and what difficulties these present. I am going to try and look at a variety of types of division. This post is going to be largely based on personal observations and so to a degree is anecdotal, so alternative views would be welcome.

This is the first post of three on the issue of divisions within the Church, more to come shortly.

Four Camps

Amongst those who are both practising Catholics (defined as those who attend Sunday Mass regularly) and active Catholics (defined as those who are involved in Church groups on account of their faith, whether this means parishes, apostolates, movements or charities) I have noticed several broad divisions.

I have attempted to sketch some outlines of these divisions and for convenience’s sake I have divided them into four rough ‘camps’ of active, practising Catholics, outlined in the diagram below.

 

Diagram 1: The Four Camps

Some important caveats: these are not four fixed points but rather a spectrum. Each person is an individual, unique and thus occupying a different place within the four points of the diagram, if indeed they even fit within it. It is not my wish to pigeonhole every Catholic in Ireland but rather to identify certain trends and divisions within our Church. My descriptions of these camps will be broad caricatures.

In attempting to identify strengths and weaknesses in each camp, I am not trying to tar anyone with a particular negative reputation or imply that certain strengths belong only in one place, but rather give some general tendencies I have observed.

So what exactly are these four camps? I shall start with the two easier ones to define.

Traditionalists and Liberals

These terms should be obvious in their meaning to anyone involved in the Catholic Church, but I will sketch them out a bit here.

Traditionalists are those who are attached to the older forms of worship, particularly the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, or the Traditional Latin Mass as it is also called. This covers quit a broad spectrum, from those who attend both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, to those who only attend the Extraordinary Form when given the choice, to those most extreme who will not attend the Ordinary Form even if this is the only Mass available on a given Sunday. This latter group includes many who have left the Church for groups such as the quasi-schismatic SSPX and various smaller sedevacantist groupings.

Traditionalists are the driving force behind a variety of groups, such as the Latin Mass Society of Ireland and the St. Conleth’s Heritage Association as well as religious fraternities like the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). There are some who lean towards PLC and others towards YD in terms of pro-life activism. They tend to come from a higher socio-economic bracket and be well-educated. The more moderate would read The Brandsma Review, the more extreme Christian Order.

Traditionalists’ strengths lie in their dedication to beautiful liturgy, their desire to preserve the liturgical, architectural and historical heritage of the Church which has often been tossed aside carelessly in the aftermath of Vatican II. It is thanks to traditionalists that the older rite is still practised.

Their weaknesses lie in tendencies towards rigidity and in some cases a strong tendency to romanticise the past, especially the monarchies of Europe, and to run after conspiracy theories. In some cases they are overly critical of Vatican II, to the point of rejecting it outright in the case of the SSPX and sedevacantists.

Liberals, on the other hand, are those who have embraced a particular definition of Vatican II known as ‘the spirit of Vatican II.’ They are almost always in disagreement with a large portion of Church teaching, especially in the area of sexuality, although many would draw the line at abortion. Liberal Catholics in Ireland are probably best known through the Association of Catholic Priests and the various leadership figures of that group who have been silenced by the Vatican (NB: ‘silencing’ is a process whereby the liberal priest is censured by the Vatican for their heterodox views, with the result that they gain regular newspaper columns and television appearances). Many older religious orders would largely fall into this category, such as the Redemptorists and Jesuits, albeit with exceptions. Younger liberal Catholics would have tended to be involved with groups such as Magis. They have been the driving force behind the liturgical reforms post Vatican II, which alas have included the destruction of many beautiful churches, which traditionalists refer to as ‘wreckovation.’ Irish seminaries have long been dominated by liberals who are reputed to be holding back what they refer to as seminarians who are ‘too conservative.’ Although there are young liberals in the Church, this group in particular is dominated by the old, at least going by some of the more liberal conferences that have been held, and the factors of age and a sense of having lost the battle for the Church after the pontificates of St. John Paul and Pope Emeritus Benedict have often embittered them towards the other groupings. They read the Tablet and similar publications.

Their strengths lie in their great desire to help the poor and downtrodden, often putting more orthodox Catholics to shame by their work with the homeless, drug addicts and asylum seekers, perhaps a case of liturgical innovators entering the kingdom of heaven before the rest of us.

As mentioned above, their weaknesses are a disregard for orthodoxy which often extends to a stubborn refusal to consider the arguments for orthodoxy and is often coupled with a strong tendency to go with the flow of the world.

Camp A and Camp B

Now we come to another split along a different axis. The names I have chosen, you will notice, are entirely nondescript, as I could not come up with terms to describe these groupings of Catholics satisfactorily. Nonetheless I must try to describe them. Again, these are broad trends I have observed, common strands that tend to tie these amorphous groupings together.

Camp A describes those who tend towards more a more charismatic spirituality (I toyed with calling this grouping ‘charismatic’ but the label would be a bit too narrow). Their spirituality is often very devotional. They are generally the first to be attracted to new visionaries or private revelations. If they haven’t been Catholic all their lives, then they probably became Catholic because of Medjugorge or because of somebody who is into Medjugorge. They tend to be the backbone of prayer meetings and adoration teams around the country. In terms of pro-life work, they tend to gravitate towards Youth Defence, HLI and Precious Life. A substantial proportion of them are working class or lower middle class, though not all. A lot of Camp A people would be involved in movements like the Legion of Mary, the Marian Movement, the Elijah Fellowship or the Emmanuel Community to name a few. Their paper of choice would be Alive! or the Catholic Voice (although the latter would have some crossover with some traditionalists). Camp A tends to be highly Eurosceptic.

If they have strengths as a group, they are the great zeal for evangelisation they bring to the Church, their desire to share the Gospel courageously and their steadfast dedication to the Church and perseverance in prayer that lasts for years.

If they have weaknesses as a group, it is a tendency to be credulous regarding dubious private revelations and charismatic leaders (in the human sense); there is also a tendency towards a form of quietism (that is to say an attitude of praying about the problems in the Church and society without doing anything).

Camp B, which I considered calling ‘Thomistic’ (although again this proved too narrow for what I wished to convey) tend towards a more intellectual approach to the faith (I make this as a neutral rather than a positive remark), sometimes with a more Ignatian spirituality. Their faith is often very focused on philosophy, theology and apologetics. They are often involved in movements in the Church such as Communion and Liberation, Regnum Christi and Sant’Egidio; some would be members of Opus Dei. They work with groups such as Catholic Comment and would be the strongest supporters of the Iona Institute. In terms of pro-life work, they gravitate towards PLC or Family and Life. They read The Irish Catholic or Position Papers. A substantial proportion of them come from a higher socio-economic bracket, though not all. Camp B tends to support the EU, although often with reservations.

If they have strengths, they are a prudent, considered approach towards private revelations, evangelisation and apologetics, a pragmatic, professional approach towards apostolate and a desire to grapple with the great intellectual tradition of the faith.

If they have weaknesses, they are a desire for respectability in the eyes of the world that can lead to being afraid to be open about their faith or even in some cases compromise with the world and a spiritual pride that comes from placing learning of the faith on a pedestal.

As I said, these categories are not firm and there is much crossover. Plenty of people in Camp A and Camp B attend the Traditional Latin Mass; plenty more are into liturgical innovation. Plenty of people in Camp B incorporate private revelations such as Medjugorge or other traditional devotions into their spirituality. And then there are always going to be those strange outliers such as the gay marriage advocates who attend the Extraordinary Form.

These categories are rather loose collections of threads that tend to bind certain people together into different Catholic ‘Camps.’

Divisions

This is interesting in and of itself, but I’m not simply raising the issue for taxonomy’s sake. I bring it up because from what I observe these differences tend to divide us. Rather than seeing ourselves as one Church and many people trying to work together to build Christ’s Kingdom in the world, we tend to see only the differences.

Of course, there is the issue that some within these groups, particularly those within the liberal camp but also others (such as the extreme end of the traditionalists) are in outright disagreement with Church teaching, which is divisive in and of itself.

But more than that, there is a tendency to lay into each other over our differences. There is a tendency to treat disagreements that are purely prudential as though they are inviolable doctrine and an unwillingness to see beyond these disagreements and try to come to a compromise.

I believe that one element of this is that the lack of leadership from our bishops has often meant that a variety of charismatic individuals have stepped up as leaders within the Church, often with the belief that what they decide is right, often justified either through a sense of intellectual or spiritual pride, or a mistaken idea of discernment which says that if you pray about something then whatever you do is blessed and anyone who disagrees can’t be following God’s will.

I’m speaking in generalities here, so I’ll take two concrete examples, focusing particularly on the divide between the A and B camps.

One of the most obvious examples is the split in the pro-life movement here. Now, this issue is of concern to more than just the Catholic Church, but given that Ireland is predominantly Catholic so too is the pro-life movement, and committed pro-lifers tend to be committed Catholics. As I said before, Camp A tends to side with Youth Defence, HLI and Precious Life, whereas Camp B tends to side with PLC and Family and Life.

To take a specific flashpoint, there was a debate before the abortion legislation went through in 2013 between members of Camp A and Camp B over whether or not demonstrations should include prayer. Camp A argued that we shouldn’t be afraid of our Catholic faith or hide it, and furthermore some in this camp argued that the threat of abortion was so imminent that only public prayer could stop it (there is the quietism). Camp B argued that in order to convince members of the public to take the issue seriously, pro-life events should be primarily non-denominational so as to attract a wide base and show that there are reasons to be pro-life that Catholics and non-Catholics can agree on.

Subsequently a prominent member of one of the Camp A pro-life groups went on record in one of the Catholic newspapers after the bill was passed by the government, specifically condemning the Camp B pro-life groups for bringing in abortion, because they refused to pray at their events, which meant that they had abandoned God and He has consequently punished Ireland with abortion.

Now, never mind that most of the people in these particular groups are devout practicing Catholics, who don’t particularly hide their faith and who in fact helped to organise a massive prayer vigil in Knock.

This was a classic case of a member of one camp condemning the others for a tactical issue that was purely prudential. Nowhere in the Bible or the Catechism does it say that public prayer is dogmatically essential at a public political rally. In fact, you can find words spoken by Jesus that could be interpreted to mean the opposite. But this particular charismatic leader (who I might add HAS done good work for the pro-life cause, and is to be commended for it) decided to turn the other side into a scapegoat for an issue that is actually the result of losing a much, much broader cultural battle over an issue that is entirely prudential.

That said, some in Camp B argued that there shouldn’t be any public prayer at these kind of events whatsoever, which I felt indicative of the aforementioned desire for respectability in the eyes of the world. No doubt these same people think very highly of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King without realising the irony.

A second concrete example would be the different attitudes towards the EU; there are some in Camp A who want to leave the EU altogether, and this becomes intertwined with nationalism, whereas some in Camp B can go to the opposite end and blindly follow Europe. Catholic-sounding arguments are often used to justify these positions, such as ‘integrating into the EU will bring in abortion, therefore it is an intrinsic evil.’ Given that various EU treaties have not dealt explicitly with abortion, this is a bit of a misleading statement. The only legalisation of abortion in Ireland happened through the actions of the Supreme Court and our elected representatives in the Dáil.

One particularly egregious example of this was when the Irish Catholic took a firm, front-page stance advocating a Yes vote regarding the Lisbon treaty. Now, I think that this was a stupid move that would alienate a lot of Catholics (and, for the record, I was not a Yes voter). The Irish Catholic normally does very good work working for unity between all within the Church and in that instance it was a bit of a let-down.

But churches certain parts of the country actually sent the papers back then, refusing to sell them on the basis that they thought a Yes vote was not just imprudent but immoral. I have heard it said that the Irish Catholic sold out Catholic principles by taking such a stand, and however I feel about the EU I feel that this is making a purely prudential issue into an absolute, with the result that one side anathemises the other.

Abortion and the EU are two examples. There are many other, smaller examples of differences in approach; traditionalists who won’t accept those who attend the Novus Ordo as ‘real Catholics,’ people in other camps who write off all traditionalists as ‘too conservative,’ liberals who refuse to dialogue as they shout about ‘dialogue’ and, indeed, those in the more orthodox camps who refuse to even talk to liberals, ignoring the Church’s call to enlighten those we see on the wrong path.

Unity

So ultimately I think that one of the problems we have within the Church in Ireland is a grave lack of unity. The various different groupings need to learn to listen to and respect one another, to be secure enough in themselves to hash out differences in charity so as to come to the truth. We also need to learn our faith and understand what it really teaches, what can and can’t be disagreed over and still be faithful to the Magisterium.

So often too ego comes in and ruins any chance of cooperation, a risk we all need to watch out for.

We need to understand that we all have different experiences and we all experience God in different ways. Even if there is only One Truth, we are each fragments that reflect that Truth through our own unique subjectivity, each called to serve in a unique way.

If we are going to rebuild the Church in this country we all need to work together. And that means not seeing each other as the enemy, not seeing impassable gulfs where there are only differences in tactics or emphasis. It means building bridges between groupings of Catholics who wouldn’t normally work together.

UPDATE: Some further points on this post here.

Further Musings on what Same-Sex Marriage Means for Us

Apologies for the two week absence, various circumstances intervened and I was unable to write.

I want to shortly post about certain divisions within the Church in Ireland and what they mean for us, but another short post on same-sex marriage first.

I don’t particularly want to dwell on culture war flashpoints like this. There’s so much ink spilt about these issues and in some ways they can distract us from the work that really needs to be done.

So I hadn’t intended posting again about same-sex marriage, but recent events have thrown up a few more thoughts worth reflecting on, and since one of the purposes of this blog is to deal with the obstacles to renewal in the Church, we might as well take another look at an issue that is going to present us with one of our biggest hurdles to overcome.

Gay Pride Parade

As it happened, I was away from home last week. I came back on Saturday, and found myself in the midst of the tail end of Dublin’s gay pride parade in the city centre.

What struck me was the massive number of people in their teens and early twenties dressed up in rainbow colours and flags cheering and celebrating as they dispersed through the streets. Some media sources said that there were more than 50,000 at it, and although the numbers have been exaggerated before (such as this Irish Times article, which in addition to the 25,000 they claim were at the 2011 parade decide to include 100,000 who ‘watched;’ I wonder if they’ll do that for this weekend’s Rally for Life?) I don’t doubt given the movement’s momentum post-referendum that for once the numbers are accurate.

My point being that the Catholic Church in Ireland has lost an entire generation, in the sense that it has embraced and campaigned for a cause antithetical to Catholic sexual morality.

Even amongst the vanishingly small percentage of under 25s who are still practicing Catholics and active amongst Church groups, a certain sizeable portion are also in favour of gay marriage in spite of the Church’s teachings. I can’t blame them, really, when the Church has done such an abysmal job of evangelising and catechising in this country.

The problem is compounded by peer pressure. How can you convince a teenager who is insecure in themselves to stand up against their peers on such an emotive issue as this in which opponents of same-sex marriage are labelled bigots and haters? How many would be willing to risk the unpopularity of being associated with such a cause?

This issue isn’t quite like any other. Of course, there have been losing battles over other issues such as divorce and abortion and contraception and cohabitation and so on, but there has never been such a public demand to accept an issue. People will debate abortion and acknowledge that the pro-life side has an argument, and divorce will always be seen as a bit messy, but with gay marriage one must AFFIRM.

We can see more of this in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s outlandish decision to invent a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage (Who knew that it was hiding away amongst all those amendments all this time? But five justices somehow managed to coax such a right out of hiding like a rabbit out of a hat).

One of the consequences of this is Facebook’s campaign to have people adopt rainbow colours on their profile picture. There’s a good critique here of how this results not just in celebrating but also in shaming those who do not embrace the rainbow colours (I don’t know why the editors of that piece decided to bring Lenin into the issue, but the text of the article stands).

The placing of Yes Equality signs and rainbow flags in the windows of businesses put me in mind of this essay by Vaclav Havel, the Czech politician and philosopher who opposed Communism, particularly the section about the greengrocer. To quote:

The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests.

I couldn’t walk by a business without a Yes Equality sign without wondering why the decision had been made not to put one in the window, and whether or not there was pressure to do so.

So it is with Facebook. Of course, it’s a softer form of pressure than that exerted by the Communist party, but it’s a form of pressure from all around nonetheless.

The Obstacles

So this brings me back to a point I mentioned in my last post on this. This issue is one that will separate people from the Gospel message.

But more than that, I wonder now if I was too hasty in dismissing what I referred to as ‘Persecution Lite.’

I am hesitant to use the word persecution at all, even with the qualifier. Here in Ireland or elsewhere in the west we do not have to endure the torture of Communist regimes or the rape and beheadings of ISIS. Some commentators have said that it is insulting to use the same term to describe intolerance of religious conservatives in the west as is used to describe the slaughter of Christians and other groupings currently happening in the Middle East.

There’s a lot of truth in such remarks. We do have it comparatively very easy here.

Perhaps I will refer to it as ‘intolerance’ in this piece, although that too is a clumsy word with other connotations.

So we are not facing the persecution of beheadings and crucifixions and lions in the Coliseum.

But we are facing the intolerance displayed towards Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript who was forced out of Mozilla for donating to an anti-gay marriage campaign in California. I know of others, people who do not have the profile of Eich, who are afraid to make public their beliefs because of fear that they will be fired; this is particularly a problem in large tech corporations.

It will be the intolerance displayed towards Paul Barnes, former owner of Daintree Paper, who was forced out of business because he refused to stock gay wedding cake toppers. The subsequent manager decided to crow about her decision to bring them straight back in when she took over the business. Naturally, other businesses will take note.

It will be the intolerance displayed towards institutions which do not conform to the status quo, as the Obama administration’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli stated might be a problem for universities or colleges which oppose same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court ruling.

It will be the intolerance displayed towards voices that dissent.

So it might not be persecution, in the sense that we normally think of that word. But that’s small comfort to somebody who loses their job or their business for having the wrong opinion.

And moreover, persecution has to begin somewhere, with the demonization, marginalisation and silencing of a society’s designated acceptable targets of hate.

Which now means us.

So again, this brings us to two obstacles we face.

The first is the one that I mentioned before: people, especially but not only younger people, now believe that Catholicism stands for hatred, and this is going to present the biggest obstacle towards helping them to come to know and love God in His Church.

The second is the institutional difficulty. How do we get the word out about what we believe when we are unable to speak out for fear of losing our jobs or being marginalised or having our businesses destroyed? How do we speak out when there is no outlet permitted in the media or at university, or only the most limited, truncated freedom of speech?

I raise these points not to be defeatist, but rather to point out that these are the obstacles. There are barriers in front of us. We cannot be deterred by them, but we cannot ignore them either.

We must take stock of what these barriers are, what their nature is, how they might be overcome.

And then we go around them, or over them, or under them, or through them.

The first step, of course, is to always be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. We need to know and understand our faith before we can share it. We must try to understand and take to heart the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

I’m not certain still how to go around the emotional barriers that people have on this issue, the kind of drawbridges that get pulled up when people find out that you don’t agree with gay marriage.

As for the practical points of getting the word out, we need to be creative and find new platforms and outlets and build communities in new ways outside the systems that exist. The internet is our friend here, at least for as long as that too is free.

The Labour Party, however, has its own plans for the internet in this country. You’ve been warned. (That source seems to be quite left-wing, so obviously I don’t agree with his arguments against censorship on the basis that it holds back abortion, but the primary point at the beginning of his post about how draconian these bills are still stands)