It would be wrong to deny there has been an important shift among Catholic lay peopleARCHBISHOP DIARMUID Martin’s recent wide-ranging speech on the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland reminded me of a rather more famous address by Abraham Lincoln.
Paraphrasing part of Matthew’s gospel, Lincoln declared: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
Not that I am suggesting that Archbishop Martin will shortly be forced to lead people into a divisive civil war, but his speech suggests a Catholic house divided, between those still in denial of the reality of sexual abuse of children by clergy, and those willing to face up to reality.
He spoke in grim tones of “strong forces which would prefer that the truth did not emerge”, of “subconscious denial” and “rejection of a sense of responsibility”. Even more worryingly, he believed there were signs that the “solid regulation and norms” on child protection were not being followed with the required vigour.
This sparked off a frenzy of speculation as to who the “deniers” were, and which church pundits, publicists and academics were the target of his comments.
It may be an enjoyable game, but it is a dangerous distraction from the central thesis made by Dr Martin, that we do not have “a true sense of the crisis of faith that exists in Ireland”.
Presumably, the archbishop has notified the independent body responsible for overseeing child protection in the Catholic Church, the NBSC, identifying the places where he suspects failure to follow guidelines.
Presumably, too, he has had face-to-face dialogue with the people he sees as rejecting responsibility.
Otherwise, he is engaged in communication via the media, a tactic doomed to failure.
As a human being, he is entitled to be discouraged and disheartened. God knows, they are feelings shared by thousands of ordinary, decent Catholics.
However, it would be wrong to deny that there has been an important shift among lay people.
Many of those who have decided to stay with the church are doing so in the full knowledge that they are members of a deeply flawed institution. However, they are also more aware than ever that it is their church, and they bear responsibility for its renewal and reform.
It is nearly 50 years since the Vatican council affirmed the role of the laity, and the wish to see an end to the clerical club that wandered so far from the message of Christ.
Some weeks ago, I wrote of an initiative in response to the Murphy report in the parish of Our Lady of Good Counsel, Ballyboden, in Dublin.
I have since heard many reports of similar ventures around the country, where lay people in partnership with priests have begun taking responsibility for ensuring change. There are also literally thousands of lay people volunteering in child protection.
Some people within the church are quietly positive.
For example, the Oblate priest, Fr Des O’Donnell, who was ordained in 1953, and is an author and clinical psychologist, is firmly convinced that “a new expression of church is emerging, and it is good news”.
He believes the church is in better shape than it has been for hundreds of years, not least because of this painful purification process. He sees numerous signs of hope, including the move beyond “religious obligations” to a deeper and more authentic spirituality.
He points to the growth in adult religious education, in concern for social justice, and a viable alternative to criminal capitalism being articulated in the church’s social teaching.
None of this alters the fact that there are huge challenges ahead for the Catholic Church. Personally, I feel weak wondering what will emerge from Cloyne, and from other dioceses. It is long past time that the church fully acknowledged all its failures.
However, that does not mean that it cannot also highlight where change has occurred, or where media coverage focuses only on the problem of clerical sex abuse, to the virtual exclusion of all else.
This week, yet again, the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, highlighted ongoing failures by the HSE on child protection. It does not spark the same kind of condemnation the church routinely receives. The church should be held to higher standards, but not to the extent that all other areas where abuse occurs are neglected in comparison. This is not denial, but concern for the many children who have not been allocated social workers, or had sexual abuse claims investigated.
Archbishop Martin is right to highlight a crisis of faith, and the fact that so many young people see no life or relevance in the Christian message. He is right, too, about the failures of religious education, and the patchy way in which it is delivered.
However, I wonder if he is underestimating his own ability to do something about the crisis. He is an extraordinarily gifted speaker.
For many years, Cardinal Martini of Milan conducted meetings in the cathedral on the first Thursday of every month for thousands of young people. Italy is deeply secularised, yet his talks were packed.
Would Dr Martin consider using his considerable talents to do something similar?
An ongoing dialogue with young people, month after month, would be really powerful.
A house divided cannot stand. All of us in the church have no alternative but to unite behind child protection and reform.
However, a house united cannot mean a stifling conformity, much less “my way or the highway”.
If he is to achieve the reform he so deeply desires, the archbishop will have to model a truly Christian way of relating to others, including those who annoy the hell out of him.
SIC: IT