I am for Barron! I am for Voris!

[Many thanks to Ben from Shadows on the Road for linking to me, welcome if you’re here from his blog!]

My apologies for the lengthy blogging absence. This will be a ‘short’ post to get back into the run of things, but I hope to get up another two or three shortly. I hope that you all had a wonderful Advent and Christmas!

I mentioned previously on my post on Pope Francis that I felt that the battles over the Pope online and in print were in some way ‘proxy battles for a different polarisation’ between different camps in the American Church, a polarisation which inevitably creeps in here due to the influence America has on the English-speaking world.

These battles seem to map onto a division between the Four Camps I’m always yammering on about, specifically between the more extreme Traditionalists (affectionately known as Radtrads) and (I think) Camp B (alas, I did not devote my time away from blogging to coming up with better descriptors for the camps). These divisions are a bit different in the US, but perhaps close enough for comparison.

One thing that I noticed about this division is that the Radtrads seem to be devotees of Michael Voris of Church Militant TV fame, whereas the B-Camp seem to be followers of Bishop Robert Barron and his Word on Fire channel. There are exceptions, as always.

Hence the title of this post, which comes from a line in 1 Corinthians 3 you might be familiar with.

Interestingly enough, a short while ago my attention was drawn to a post by a former staffer at Voris’ group called Miles, who has become disillusioned with Church Militant and left. It’s a very good, charitable, but incisive post and impressive for somebody as young as he is. Fair play to him for being able to make up his own mind at that age.

But I bring this up mainly for the title of the post: ‘From Vorisite to Barronite: Why I Left Church Militant.’ Here we have these two factions within the Church summed up at their most explicit.

Many Traditionalists seem to have a beef with Bishop Barron. Steve Skojec sums up some of these here. I don’t always agree with Skojec, and I don’t think he’s right in every point he makes necessarily, but he’s right in this: Bishop Barron shouldn’t be beyond criticism, as long as it’s charitable and reasonable. There does seem to be a knee-jerk defence of Barron sometimes.

The problem I have with much criticism of Bishop Barron is that some of his critics don’t even give charity the merest of lip service (or truth, for that matter). I’ve often heard Barron denounced as a heretic from the get-go as a means of writing him off rather than engaging with his more controversial views. It seems to go into a form of tribalism.

I think that this tribalism is summed up pretty well by Mark Shea (Note Well: firmly in the Barronite camp) in this piece, which is very good. (For the sake of balancing out the Skojec article, here is a piece critical of Voris and his approach by the same Shea).

And I think that this tribalism is contributing to the problems of divisions within the Church, whether it’s the divisions between the Vorisites and Barronites in the USA or the similar-but-different Irish divisions I’ve mentioned before in the Four Camps post.

What’s very interesting about this is its similarities to certain other divisions which have been described as tribal. Recently I’ve been reading a lot of posts at a blog called Slate Star Codex. It’s written by an atheist psychiatrist working in Michigan (who incidentally studied at an Irish university) who goes under the nom du blog of Scott Alexander. Here are two key posts that deal with precisely this issue:

I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup

Five Case Studies On Political Polarisation

The first is an interesting study of how the USA is divided into two ‘tribes,’ the Red Tribe and Blue Tribe, and how while everybody believes that they are tolerant of differences etc., really they are just tolerant of diversity within their own tribe. Each tribe coalesces around a set of views that are often mutually contradictory. This summary doesn’t do the very lengthy, excellent post justice; go read it yourselves!

The ‘Red Tribe’ according to Alexander

…is most classically typified by conservative political beliefs, strong evangelical religious beliefs, creationism, opposing gay marriage, owning guns, eating steak, drinking Coca-Cola, driving SUVs, watching lots of TV, enjoying American football, getting conspicuously upset about terrorists and commies, marrying early, divorcing early, shouting “USA IS NUMBER ONE!!!”, and listening to country music.

The ‘Blue Tribe’ on the other hand

…is most classically typified by liberal political beliefs, vague agnosticism, supporting gay rights, thinking guns are barbaric, eating arugula, drinking fancy bottled water, driving Priuses, reading lots of books, being highly educated, mocking American football, feeling vaguely like they should like soccer but never really being able to get into it, getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots, marrying later, constantly pointing out how much more civilized European countries are than America, and listening to “everything except country.”

There’s also a smaller, libertarian ‘Grey Tribe’ which he lumps in with the Blue Tribe for simplicity’s sake.

The second post describes how issues get politicised by these tribal affiliations; for example, your views on global warming or the correct response to the recent ebola outbreak almost always correlate with which tribe you belong to.

I think that we see a similar phenomenon being played out within the Church both in the USA and in Ireland.

We have a ‘Vorisite Tribe’ which dislikes Pope Francis, dislikes the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, usually follows Republican politics, favours ‘hammer-of-the-heretics’ style rhetoric and has a very rigid view of theological debate amongst other characteristics.

Then we have a ‘Barronite Tribe’ which loves Pope Francis, prefers the ‘more flies with honey than vinegar’ approach to apologetics, is usually politically Independent and so on.

(There are also sides to the US Church that also map somewhat onto my ‘Liberal’ and ‘Camp A’ axes, but they’re not quite at the heart of this particular debate)

How do we solve this problem (And it is a problem; a house divided cannot stand, especially when those divisions seem to be at each others’ throats)?

The first solution that occurs to me is for us all to try and grow in the virtues of humility and charity when debating with others in the faith. Obvious, perhaps, but so necessary. When ego, anger and self-righteousness take over we end up doing far more harm than good.

The second thing we need to is a little harder. Let me be honest. One of my personal faults is that I don’t make enough of an effort to reach out to those I disagree with in the Church, sometimes writing them off because we don’t see eye to eye. I think that I might not be alone in having this fault. But I need to get over myself and reach out, trying to build bridges so that we might understand each other and together in Christ grow closer to the truth and grow in unity. I think that many of us need to learn this. Unity is incredibly important to strive for and we have to work at it.

Thirdly, so many of these debates could be avoided or at least improved by really studying and trying to understand what the Church actually teaches and why it teaches what it does, and moreover how to know the difference between a prudential matter and a matter of dogma.

The problem of politicisation Alexander points out is a real problem within the Church, and it happens here in Ireland too along different lines. I think that those three points are a start, but I think that more must be done somehow to break out of the tribal mindset.

Because I am not for Paul or Apollos or Barron or Voris.

I am for Christ.

 

Any ideas?

Pope Francis and Polarisation

Something has been bothering me about the reaction to Pope Francis in the run-up to and during the Synod on the Family, particularly amongst orthodox or traditionalist Catholics.

Those in the liberal camp, and the usual media suspects, of course, are spinning this as if it’s the beginning of the Great Liberal Revolution and so on. Plus ca change, as the French say.

But amongst those who profess loyalty to the Magisterium of the Church (I’m choosing my words carefully here), there seems to be a completely polarised reaction.

On the one hand, there are those who are freaking out, big time. There is a belief in some quarters, it would appear, that the papacy of Francis heralds The End Times, the End of the World As We Know It and generally very bad things. I exaggerate to an extent, although in some cases there are those who do seem to believe this.

For example, we have:

• Maureen Mullarkey’s essay which got her kicked off First Things (warning: that link contains some violent images of ISIS atrocities)
• Or this one from Michael Brendan Dougherty, endearingly entitled ‘Does Pope Francis fear God?’
• Or this example from Fr. Z, who is somewhat more restrained, even if he wants us all to ‘be sad and scared’ about the Synod, because apparently a little bit of anxiety will help us to ‘stay focused.’
• The blogger Scott Eric has a list of cases of what he calls ‘Pope Francis Derangement Syndrome’ going back to 2013.

On the other hand, there seem to be a good number of Catholics essentially shutting down any criticism of Pope Francis as mere hysteria. Move along, nothing to see here, they seem to say. This is from Catholics who are normally quite balanced and whose views I normally respect.

• For example, here is Mark Shea dismissing all criticism of Francis with some sweeping statements directed at First Things amongst others.
• Meanwhile Erin Manning, whom I have great respect for, looks at this same divide and concludes that those who are not worried about Pope Francis the Synod in the slightest are probably the side that have the ‘right’ of it.
• Here too is Artur Rosman with a similar viewpoint.

How do we have such incredibly divergent reactions? Whatever happened to the possibility of a balanced viewpoint? Every Catholic opinion-former I can see is either laying into Francis as if he’s the antichrist or else they’re whitewashing the whole Synodal process as if the massive debates and political shenanigans involved are inconsequential and Francis is blameless.

In exasperation, I remarked to somebody close to me that I just wished that there would be more balanced coverage somewhere. They replied, ‘YOU should write something more balanced.’

Oh dear. Well, I suppose I should.

Here’s what I think.

On the one hand, as Popes go, Francis is quite good. He’s incredibly pastoral, in the right sense of that word, meeting people where they are at, actually going out ‘into the marketplace’ as the phrase goes, trying to reach out to lost sheep person to person. He has done an excellent job of reminding us that we must reach out to the poor first and foremost, rather than getting bogged down in endless culture war debates, whilst simultaneously standing up strongly for life and marriage. I’ve been informed that his Apostolic Exhortation Evanglii Gaudium is excellent on joyfully preaching the Gospel (as its title might suggest) and I’m actually dying to read it.

At the same time, he’s not perfect. Many of his off-the-cuff remarks have been ill-considered; to take an example, I know Catholic parents with large families who were quite hurt by his remarks about ‘Catholic rabbits,’ which he later apologised for. Other remarks have been wildly taken out of context by the media worldwide, and yet they have done a massive amount of damage. Our Holy Father is not always prudent in his choice of words.

Moreover, some of his decisions regarding personnel at the Synod are questionable, to say the least, particularly his decision to grant Cardinal Danneels of Belgium a position as Synod Father. Besides his outspoken support of gay marriage and allegedly pressuring King Baudouin to sign Belgium’s abortion law, the good Cardinal has also been implicated in the cover-up of Belgian child abuse scandals. Why has he been given this position then? Why has a man who defended a bishop who abused his own nephew permitted to weigh in on the Church’s response to family matters? It beggars belief.

The Synod is worrying, if only because it will cause more confusion about what the Church actually stands for, something the Church does not need right now. I am particularly frustrated at the fact that this Synod, like the last one, has been spent to a large degree waffling on about proposals that go against Church teaching when the time could have been spent actually coming up with ways to deal with the multitude of issues facing the modern Christian family: divorce, separation, trying to raise children in a hostile culture, or local issues such as polygamy in Africa and Asia or the dangerously low birth rate in many Western nations.

Here’s the thing: is it not simply possible, that rather being the personified ‘Smoke of Satan’ as I saw one writer refer to him, or rather than being yet another living Saint, as we tend to see all of our Popes of the last century (indeed, some were; I’m not questioning the Church’s judgement on this), that Pope Francis is simply a decent pastor, trying to do good work according to his own style, who like all of us has the capacity to make mistakes, even big ones?

After all, Pope Paul VI, the Pope who presided over the disastrous misinterpretations of Vatican II, was also the Pope who gave us the prophetic and courageous Encyclical Humanae Vitae.

After all, Pope Emeritus Benedict, the incredibly wise and gentle Pope who gave us so many clear, insightful teachings and genuinely tried to tear out the culture of child abuse and cover-up amongst certain members of the clergy was in the end unable to escape media portrayals and the machinations of his opponents in the curia.

After all, St. John Paul II, for all of his incredible work trying to reach out to the world, helping to bring down Communism, correct many of the excesses that went before and providing beautiful teachings on art and human love, made mistakes, including some terrible mistakes; think of his blind endorsement of the infamous Fr. Marcial Maciel, in spite of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s deep-seated concerns about the man who did in fact turn out to be leading a terrible double life. This doesn’t take away from his canonisation one bit.

I think I know what the difficulty here is. We have fallen into a particularly Ultramontane view of the Papacy. A perfect storm of circumstances, namely the collapse of much of the Church’s traditional power bases and orthopraxy (that is, the correct implementation of Church teaching on the ground) coupled with new forms of instantaneous global communication have meant that many Catholics have turned to the authority of the Papacy, the one thing that seemed to be a common bulwark against collapse, unchanging throughout the turbulence of the twentieth century, a phenomenon which has gathered pace over the course of the last few decades.

Since the Pope is looked to for this kind of leadership and stability, as opposed to local Bishops’ Conferences and priests, an expectation of perfection is placed upon a figure who is, at the end of the day, a human being. The Vicar of Christ that man may be, but he is not Christ and not perfect. When this level of perfection is not met, there is a tendency to whitewash and explain away, or else to experience a strong negative reaction.

This state of affairs can last without a collapse as long as the papacy remains relatively unchanging and the throne of Peter is occupied by a man who is both holy and wise, a tall order in most circumstances. Of course, the abdication of Pope Benedict should teach us that nothing in this world remains constant.

We have been blessed with the Popes of the last century. They have been, to varying degrees, both holy and wise.

But let’s cast our eyes back to some of the Popes from before living memory. There were the Medici and Borgia Popes, amongst others, who wildly abused their power during the Renaissance period. Their abuses (sale of indulgences and positions, shoring up their power bases by making their friends and relatives Cardinals, using Church funds to launch personal wars, fathering numerous children) led directly to the Reformation.

Let’s face it. Pope Francis may have his faults, but they are tame compared to these.

We are guaranteed, according to Church teaching, that the Pope will not make an ex cathedra statement on faith or morals that is false. That’s all. There is presumably some kind of grace of state that goes with the Papacy, but like any grace one must embrace it freely.

We need to detach ourselves from an unhealthy reliance on the papacy, because as long as it lasts it will take one Alexander VI or a Pope along those lines to knock the feet from under us. We need to have both eyes open when it comes to the Holy Father.

Similarly, there needs to be more balance, charity and respect for the position of the Pope in the criticism levelled at him.

Pope Francis isn’t the antichrist. Neither is he God. He’s a weak human being, like the rest of us, who makes mistakes. And we need to stop tearing each other apart in debating those mistakes.

We need to stop the polarisation, the frustrating, divisive, stupid battles we fight against each other over the smallest of differences!

Although the examples of blogs above are coming from the USA and not Ireland, (something I hope to address soon) I think that we may be seeing the same kind of divide we see between the different camps I mentioned before here. The verbal battles over Pope Francis almost seem like proxy battles for a different polarisation between traditionalists and liberals, Camp A and Camp B (still haven’t thought of other names for those two!).

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.