Ireland Recalibrates Ties to Roman Catholic Church

Spintendo

Irish Rupture With Vatican Sets Off a Transformation
By SARAH LYALL of The New York Times

DUBLIN — Even as it remains preoccupied with its struggling economy, Ireland is in the midst of a profound transformation, as rapid as it is revolutionary: it is recalibrating its relationship to the Roman Catholic Church, an institution that has permeated almost every aspect of life here for generations. This is still a country where abortion is against the law, where divorce became legal only in 1995, where the church runs more than 90 percent of the primary schools and where 87 percent of the population identifies itself as Catholic. But the awe, respect and fear the Vatican once commanded have given way to something new — rage, disgust and defiance — after a long series of horrific revelations about decades of abuse of children entrusted to the church’s care by a reverential populace.

While similar disclosures have tarnished the Vatican’s image in other countries, perhaps nowhere have they shaken a whole society so thoroughly or so intensely as in Ireland. And so when the normally mild-mannered prime minister, Enda Kenny, unexpectedly took the floor in Parliament this summer to criticize the church, he was giving voice not just to his own pent-up feelings, but to those of a nation. His remarks were a ringing declaration of the supremacy of state over church, in words of outrage and indignation that had never before been used publicly by an Irish leader. “For the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual abuse exposed an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an inquiry into a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago,” Mr. Kenny said, referring to the Cloyne Report, which detailed abuse and cover-ups by church officials in southern Ireland through 2009.

Reiterating the report’s claim that the church had encouraged bishops to ignore child-protection guidelines the bishops themselves had adopted, the prime minister attacked “the dysfunction, the disconnection, the elitism” that he said “dominate the culture of the Vatican. The rape and torture of children were downplayed, or ‘managed,’ to uphold instead the primacy of the institution — its power, its standing and its reputation.” Instead of listening with humility to the heartbreaking evidence of “humiliation and betrayal,” he said, “the Vatican’s response was to parse and analyze it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.” The effect of his speech was instant and electric.

“It was a seminal moment,” said Patsy McGarry, the religious affairs correspondent for The Irish Times. “No Irish prime minister has ever talked to the Catholic Church before in this fashion. The obsequiousness of the Irish state toward the Vatican is gone. The deference is gone.” While both sides are talking in more emollient terms now, there is no question that Mr. Kenny’s declaration deeply angered the Vatican. It immediately withdrew its ambassador from Dublin, ostensibly to help fashion the Vatican’s formal response. (The ambassador has since been reassigned to the Czech Republic.) The position of Irish ambassador to the Vatican is currently vacant, too, and there is talk here of merging it with the ambassadorship to Italy. While government officials say the question is part of a general re-examination of the diplomatic budget, such a move would be seen as a pointed snub to the Holy See, a sovereign state to which countries generally dedicate separate embassies.

Meanwhile, in what has developed into a tit-for-tat war of words, the church’s latest formal communication with Dublin — 24 pages of densely argued prose — took issue with both the Cloyne Report and Mr. Kenny’s remarks, saying that a crucial document had been “misrepresented” by the inquiry and calling “unsubstantiated” Mr. Kenny’s assertion that the Vatican had tried to “frustrate an inquiry” into the abuse scandal. Sympathizers with the church’s position say the Vatican made valid and nuanced points. And they say Mr. Kenny went too far. “Personally, I think it was excessive,” David Quinn, founder of the Iona Institute, a right-leaning religious advocacy group, said of the prime minister’s speech. In an interview, Mr. Quinn said that the relationship between the Vatican and the Irish government was “at a very low ebb.” The state of affairs had not been helped by the fact that newspapers in China, he said, had written editorials using Mr. Kenny’s remarks as an argument for “why the church should be under government control.”

Mr. Kenny, who took office in March after the long-dominant Fianna Fail party imploded over the financial crisis, has been accused of opportunism by some critics. But his position as a practicing Catholic from a conservative area helped give moral weight to his speech. And his government’s feisty new tone has been met with widespread approval in a place that feels doubly betrayed: first by the abuse itself, and second by what many see as a cover-up by the church, compounded by the often opaque, legalistic language with which it defends itself. “You can talk about the finesse of diplomatic ties and maneuverings, but what Kenny was actually saying was that you have to prioritize the victims of abuse, and you have to assert very loudly that this is a republic and civil law has to take precedence over canon law,” said Diarmaid Ferriter, professor of modern Irish history at University College Dublin.

While most people have not abandoned their religion, many seem to have abandoned the habit of practicing it. The archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, recently estimated that only 18 percent of the Catholics in his archdiocese attended Mass every week. The government has announced that it will introduce a package of new legislation to protect children from abuse and neglect, including a law — considered but rejected as too contentious by previous governments — that would make it mandatory to report evidence of crimes to the authorities. It has also established a group to examine how to remove half of the country’s Catholic primary schools from church control. In a recent interview, Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s deputy prime minister, said that Ireland had asserted its role as a “modern democracy.”

No longer would the church enjoy its previous privileges and powers as in times past, when it, with the government’s collusion, “effectively dictated the social policy of the state,” he said. “Historically, there was a view within the Catholic Church that there was a parallel law, that they had their own system of law, and that was the law to which they were accountable,” Mr. Gilmore said. “At a minimum, that blurred the understanding of the necessity for full compliance with the law of the state.” He added: “The Catholic Church is perfectly entitled to have its own view and its one rule and to view matters according to its own light. But this is a republic. And there is one law.”

When it comes to protecting children, Mr. Gilmore said, “Everybody in the state — irrespective of whether they’re ordinary citizens doing everyday work, or a priest or a bishop — has to comply with the law.”

fancydude

That is quite an assertion put forth in this article that secular governments are superior to religious ones. For this to be true, one would have to conclude that politicians only respond to the will of the people, never latch onto an issue solely for reelection and that all citizens under such systems have full equality and opportunity regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. Prisons would be uniformly humane, and capital punishment wouldn't exist. Environmental standards would be high and uniform between nations and corporations would all employ fair labor practices and provide adequate pensions (which by the way, would be subject to stringent regulation and not be allowed to be reinvested at great risk by the company at their discretion). For just one example, why then do some of the richest countries, such as the USA not have universal health insurance which somehow the United Kingdom residents were able to afford not many years after a devastating world war ravaged the country, costing billions to repair? Could it be the war negatively impacted most of the populace, underscoring the commonality of experience rather than widening the gulf between the rich and poor as is so evident in the majority of countries in the world?

There is also much in the modern welfare state that goes unexamined or woefully underexamined for such claims of superioirty to be accepted at face value. Take the last sentence in the article …."everybody...must obey the law, priest and commoner alike." While it is beyond dispute that many wrongs were committed (and still are) by the Church and the clergy escaped most if not all penalties, it is equally false that "all obey the law" in a secular state." In the USA for sure, one gets the best justice one can afford based on the lawyers one can hire and for the super-rich, often the very laws are subject to their influence, probably much more so in the economic rather than the criminal arena. Although if the rich serve time at all, they often go to country club minimum security prisons while the poor and racial minorities almost always serve time in far more harsh facilities.

Public assistance and the social service system which I am intimately familar with often creates abusive environments for children. Speak to any child protective services worker - hundreds, if not thousands of parents routinely abuse their own children! Since workers can only issue benefits and not attempt to counsel, under the false prohibition of "moralizing" many of these parents are barely out of childhood themselves. Due to the very misguided modern approach of not distinguishing between the "deserving and undeserving poor" generation after generation reproduces with abandon, making fathers almost irrelevant to a large segment of this population. Non payment of a few thousand in child support can perversely affect the payor resulting in prison time (usually more costly than what is owed) and then the person is released with a felony on his record, making employment even more difficult. Again, this affects racial minorities at a far higher rate than others in the U.S. This is not to say no one deserves financial assistance in time of need, but most people have no idea how truly counterintuitive welfare systems can be. Just this week I have spoken to three mothers who have never met the father's parents (the children's grandparents), claimed they had no idea whether or not the man had a job, been in prison and/or found out later that the man had three to 10 other children besides theirs! They are having children without knowing anything at all about their partner! I ask sometimes how they were planning to financially care for the child if neither they nor the father had a job. This question is usually greeted with a response of "what do you mean?!" As if the government has more responsibility for them than they do themselves! My state's protective services system will not process a referral on a teen mother unless she is under 13 years old! I have another friend who rented her house, due to wanting to retire up north and not sell it for a fraction of its worth due to the housing market decline. The renter lost her job, moved in her adult daughter on welfare and used $3,000 of illegally obtained electricity. They will not be prosecuted because (a) it would cost the utility more in legal fees and (b) due to such persons knowing how to hide assets and work under the table, etc. they would never pay a judgement anyway. The list goes on and on and is almost never discussed in any public media forum.

To summarize, every system has strengths and weaknesses and often a change in systems is simply an exchange of one set of problems for another.

fancydude

Secular governments have a lot to answer for too. In the USA, the eugenics policy of the 30's was supposedly to keep the mentally ill from reproducing and yet minorities, simply for being minorities were sterilized as well. The Japanese were rounded up during WWII, their homes and businesses were confiscated and they spent the war in camps. Many were born here! etc. etc. etc.

As to your statement ALL religious governments are hostile to Gays and women without exception - the world is a big place and has been around for several thousand years. Isn't it true that at least some cultures have homosexuality incorporated into puberty rites? Ancient China or Japan accepted some forms of homosexuality. Were all the governments of the past completely separate from the religion? I don't think so. That was supposed to be, at least in theory, a new concept when the USA started.

I am sincerely sorry about the nerve damage to your hands, but it is not as if all medical care is equal in the USA. I have waited weeks and months to be scheduled for tests. (and lets not forget millions have no coverage at all) How specifically is that a flaw of universal coverage and how does that explain the overall better health of the UK compared to the US?

Religion or churches have never helped anyone? ST. Vincent DePaul Society in France started during a great depression to help feed starving people. And even if they (wrongly) accumulate wealth, there isn't one priest worth 100 million yet in our capitalist societies there are lots of people worth that much yet a minimum wage job (without pensions or health insurance) only pays about $14,000 a year. And out of this you are a supposed to provide health care, food, shelter, utitlites, transportation etc. for yourself.

I never said a religious government was preferable, but some in the article were quoted as saying secular governments are superior so that means they should be a lot better, not necessarily perfect.

notquiteme

okay, here we go again…

while churches have their faults, who doesn't?

Here in the philippines, they do have some link to politics, but we can't discount the facts that they were responsible for educating a huge portion of the leaders today. three of the top four colleges are run by either jesuit, franciscan, or the la sallian brothers. of course the state university (where i came from) wasn't a religious institution, though.

I've also been a donor to a convent which houses orphans and victims of rape (who then became unwed mothers) and tries to get them back on their feet. Not all religion is bad, in my book.

I think both with the government and the church, the people (thus constituents) should take a stand, and in Ireland, they finally are. So there.

fancydude

come on Raph - I am not putting the burden on anyone. The people quoted in the article said secular governments are SUPERIOR to religious ones. That does not show my bias in favor of religion, it shows you are not reading what I wrote. I even went further to say a religious government is NOT preferable.

I don't know how much wealth the Vatican has, lets say it has tons as you suggest; I will offer what a philosophy teacher once said - the Vatican could melt down everything made of silver and gold, sell every painting and statue. Poverty would be alleviated for about an hour (pricelesss in money and artistic treasures would be lost to the public forever also) and then it returns to business as usual by the greedy millionaires and corporations. The Church teaches social justice, which is a fundamental paradigm shift in how society operates, but will probably never happen. Even some pretty anti-catholic posters on J-M-God said the Catholic Church looks super liberal compared to the TV prosperity gospel ministries that never mention spirituality, Jesus or helping your neighbor. It is all about tithing to the TV host so YOUR OWN cup will return 100 fold or whatever it says in the Bible. (i'm referring to South America where a TV minister just ran off with 100 million but we have our own in the USA too)

But even if we agreed 100% on religion, there are so many more ills in the world that wouldn't be touched by religion vanishing and giving up all its assets.

As to the Vatican Library, CBS news went there in April 2011, so it is hardly secret. Being not open to the public is different than secret. It is open to scholars. In reading about it there are priceless treasures and artifacts there which would be worn out if everyone from the public went there to see them.

I don't see the point of a tit for tat, secular vs. religious since AGAIN the point at issue is the supposed superiority of secular governments. I readily admitted more than once Church governments have a lot to answer for, even moreso I would say since they claimed to be representing God. But I gave examples of secular misconduct to show they weren't so superior after all.

I live in the USA and I'm Gay, how could I NOT be aware of all the religious nutters running for office or having been influencing public policy?

Now, you said there was not one religious government that wasn't hostile to Gays and Women, no exceptions. I'll grant that maybe you were referring to present day. That is a very hard thing to look up on the internet because it gets tangled up with Christian history. I readily admit I don't know but would posit that totally religious governments are probably in the minority compared to what they were 3 or 400 years ago so I have some more research to do but allow that probably that assertion is correct.

Don't get me started on Churches getting taxpayer money to run their charities. The Churches don't realize they will over time subjugate their principles and mission to continue taking Caesar's silver! Not to mention it is an obvious violation of separation of Church and state.

UK health - well, I haven't read anything lately, but I want to reiterate millions in the US have no health insurance at all. So how many people die because of that almost certainly isn't kept track of. I did watch a pretty long 8 hour special on public television that seemed pretty objective, watched Sicko and read about UK health stats in the New England Journal of Medicine.

So, when you were in extreme pain, you couldn't go to the emergency room?

fancydude

NO I did not say "preferable", I said if they are to be SUPERIOR, they must be a lot better. It is unmodified, go back and read it.

Yes, the philosophy teacher was at a Catholic school but if the point is valid, what difference does that make?

Now you're entitled to be anti-religion and that's fine except that perspective is "making" me say things I didn't.

For example, your third sentence - "just because there are other ills in the world, doesn't mean religion gets a pass." That is NOT what I meant nor what I said. There is no other way to say it - If religion disappeared tomorrow, that would not alleviate corporate greed one iota. Major changes would STILL need to take place in order to make society a more humane place. That is all I was driving at.

I never said it was a secret, uh yeah you did. Go back and look at what you wrote! The Vatican is under no obligation to make it like the Library of Congress, and if they allowed CBS news in and explained it is open to scholars then I'm really not so concerned. Not sure why it is an issue with you since I'm guessing it is all religious stuff anyway.

As to the Vatican threatening to excommunicate politicians, as far as I know the issue is abortion but in any event we're straying far from the topic. I don't see what the problem is here either though. If you are a member of the KKK, you probably can't be a member of the NAACP at the same time. I'm sure if you were a politician and this were discovered, the NAACP would yank your membership too. It is not like the Vatican is trying to make poltiicians subvert their country's interest to give money or land to the Vatican. If a politician favors his own pet causes, such as Tony Blair, it isn't right, but they all do it anyway. You can't single out the Catholic Church for condemnation, that is a wrong THAT politician himself/herself is personally accountable for. (and you can't prevent that sort of thing anyhow as humans are corrupt, you can only punish after it is discovered.)

WE already agree Chuirches shouldn't get taxpayer money so not sure if you have a new point here. To say secular governments are not truly secular? Keep on hoping for the day religion completely disappears I guess is the only plan you have. I mean if you're a US citizen, then you know we are SUPPOSED to have separation of Church and State, it is up to everyone to make sure that is enforced.

People on welfare who have insurance (Medicaid) are not, therefore, uninsured. Millions of Americans have NOTHING.

Well, I'm glad the emergency rooms here work differently than the ones in the UK. Surely, then you've heard of the UNCUT movement which started in the UK. The government there gives huge (dare I say, sincerely, OBSCENE? OBSCENELY HUGE?) tax breaks to corporations just like here in the US. So, there is your money to improve UK health care. (The example on the internet was some telecom company in UK owed billions but it only paid a few thousand?)

Spintendo

@fancydude:

The people quoted in the article said secular governments are SUPERIOR to religious ones.

Prime Minister Kenny's saying "superior" was not a proposition of value, it was a proposition of fact. Religious institutions are nominally subordinate to the laws of the government of Ireland.

notquiteme

hey, it's all about economics. you pay by your dollar vote or your actual vote. if the demand for religion wasn't so high (oh yeah the opiate of the masses) then they would have died out a long time ago.

governments are run by people, who are in turn voted by constituents. so if the people in power aren't what you want them to be, then make a movement of your own and try to convince the rest of the ambivalent country to care. ranting won't get anywhere.

it makes no sense to condemn religion or government because even your ability to put food on the table is a result of the system working for you.

on the other hand, maybe we need to look into ourselves and ask if we've done anything to even remotely relieve the "societal ills" that plague us. I can't say that i've done all that I can, which is why i don't judge.

just my thoughts. don't kill me.

fancydude

Raph -

Are you saying since Churches hoard wealth, you are going to donate your entire income to help the poor and live in a tent?

Since religion upsets you so and it is corrupt, are you going to leave England and move to a deserted island?

Or another solution: Are you saying since all religion should be banned, that people who are religious should be deported to their own country? But then since it should be banned completely according to you, should religious people be done away with somehow?

–-------------

Now you didn't say any of those things, except taking your religious ban to the extreme, what would be done with Churches and religious people?

But that is what you're doing to me (for example) when you say "the philosophy teacher defends the Church hoarding wealth." Actually I didn't defend hoarding money and don't defend it, but many have called for the Church to sell off all its art treasures and give the money to the poor.

And I ask again - how long would poverty be alleviated EVEN IF the Church did that? Not long, since wealth is primarily concentrated in the hands of individuals and corporations. But really, I don't mind you attacking the Church for being "obscenely wealthy" but do you think they have MORE wealth than Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? Do you have as much or more outrage at them? Or better still, what is it specifically that bothers you about Churches accumulating wealth? (as long as it is not via the taxpayers?) Or excommunication? Belonging, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries is completely voluntary.

I NEVER said, to quote you, that people who disagree with me are "unwashed immoral losers" and I have stated emphatically that I DO NOT think governments should give taxpayer money to Churches. I even stated a reason - that the Church risks government control when taking government money. But you STILL say "your side …is against separation of Church and State"

You really have stretched me out of context when you ask if Irans' government is superior to the USA. I never said that. I never said relgious governments are preferable.

Ok, I think I"ve made my points and if you think I haven't please bold the exact phrases from my writing to prove your point or I can't discuss this any further.