ADDRESS TO PRIEST OF ARDAGH AND CLONMACNOIS
IN POOR CLARE MONASTERY CHAPEL, DRUMSHANBO
AT MASS OF THANKSGIVING
TO MARK 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF MY
EPISCOPAL ORDINATION
1967-2007
6th August 2007

First, may I express my sincere thanks to Bishop Colm for his kindness in arranging for this Mass to mark the 40th Anniversary of my Episcopal Ordination. I am so pleased to be once more in the company of priest from Ardagh and Clonmacnois, with whom I worked in the service of the Lord for fifteen of the forty years of my episcopal ministry, and I thank the priests for coming to join with me and Bishop Colm on this day. My words today will not constitute a homily, but rather a series of reminiscences; but I am sure that you will allow me some indulgence in nostalgia on ‘the day that is in it’.

On 23rd May 1969, I had a telephone call from the Nuncio – Monsignor Sensi, later to become Cardinal Sensi – asking me to come to the Nunciature by 10.30 next day. I knew that he must have some important reason for asking me to come, and I spent a sleepless night in my home in Belfast.

Next day the Nuncio told me that the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, had appointed me to be the new bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnois. This left me in a kind of daze. I knew very little about the diocese, except that my father was born there, in Keadue. That fact itself already constituted an important link with the diocese, and this helped greatly my settling in to the diocese as bishop, and, presumably, to my being welcomed into the diocese as bishop.

The date of the announcement of my appointment was fixed for Friday, 2nd June: it was the feast of the Sacred Heart and the First Friday of June – a very good omen for the future. Those days remain largely a blank in my memory and also in my diary: I was too dazed to record events except in the briefest terms, and often nor at all.

My first visit to the diocese, which was soon to become “my diocese”, was on Thursday 8th June. Accompanying by my younger brother, Patrick, I drove to Mohill to meet the Vicar General, Canon McLaughlin. He had a lovely lunch ready for me in the Parochial House in …, and after lunch he drove to Longford for my first view of St. Mel’s Cathedral and the Presbytery, and of the Bishop’s House, St. Michael’s, which was to be my new home. I met the Chapter in the Cathedral Presbytery and was very cordially welcomed by the Dean and Chapter. At a later date, closer to the actual ordination, I was formerly inducted into the diocese by the Chapter.

I noted in my diary that “the Cathedral is a delight, inside and out”. I noted also that I felt “happy and humble” with all that I saw and all those whom I met on that day of my first visit. Those early impressions and that first reaction were to be intensified over the next fifteen years. I felt humbled and privileged to inherit the pastoral care of a diocese where so many bishops and priests had laboured before me and had helped to form a faithful laity: in the words of the gospel, others had laboured and I had entered into their labours.

My pre-ordinational retreat was in a  convent retreat house of German and Italian nuns at Vicarello, near Lake Bracciano, in a lovely setting not far from Rome, recommended to me by Monsignor Conway, then Rector of the Irish College. On the way to Rome, I had stopped off in Paris and at Lourdes and had celebrated Mass at the Grotto. At each new stage of my life I have had the opportunity to visit Lourdes and to place the next stage of my life’s journey in the hands of Our Lady. During the retreat I read and re-read and prayed over the Gospels and the Pastoral Letters of St. Paul, as well as whatever I had been able to find in Paris bookshops about the ministry of the Bishop. There is no kind of centre and no courses available for preparation for the office of Bishop.  If there were, I suggest that the first person to apply for enrolment in such a course should first be sent for psychiatry assessment! … From my retreat at Vicarello, I still remember the cicadas chirping in the trees outside my bedroom window, and the murmur of the river which passed by the convent on its way to Lake Bracciano.

After the retreat and back in Rome, I had an audience with Pope Paul VI. He was most gracious and encouraging. And I told him that I had not pastoral experience and was apprehensive, he replied: “Don’t be afraid; Irish priests have a pastoral sense in their blood; and the priests and nuns and active laity in your diocese will help you”. I was soon to find out how true this was; I was supported by this help during my fifteen happy years in Ardagh and Clonmacnois. I mentioned my mother to the Pope and he immediately opened the draw of his desk, to find a rosary which he asked me to give to her: saying “Ask your mother to pray for me”.

The date, 16th July 1967, had been chosen for the ordination. It was the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The ordination liturgy was called “Consecration” at that time. A little niece of mine was coming her parents to Longford for the ceremony, and was all excited about what was going to happen. She wanted, as children do, to share her excitement with her class and her school. So she challenged her schoolmates: “Do you know where I am going next Sunday?”. The reply, of course, was ‘No’. Then, triumphantly, she replied: “I’m going to Longford for the consternation of my uncle Cahal”. She spoke more wisely than she knew! My mind and memory of that day are a blur for me. I remember meeting the priests of the diocese and speaking of how I looked forward to working with them to implement in the diocese the splendid vision of the Church as set out in the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

My first formal meeting with the priests of the dioceses was at the Clergy Conference. These were held in St. M|el’s College, Longford, in the curate’s house in Carrick-on-Shannon, in St. Mary’s Presbytery, Athlone, and in Dean O’Kane’s house in Granard. The first one that I attended was in Granard. I still remember the warmth of welcome I received on each occasion. Dean O’Kane – a formidable patriarch – was particularly generous in his words of welcome. With his endorsement, I felt somewhat less apprehensive about the future.

A few days after the ordination, I had visited Clonmacnois, with my sisters, Sheelagh and Rosaleen. I remember calling in the Church at Tang, thinking that this was in my new diocese. Clonmacnois was and remains very special in my memories of Ardagh. I always added ‘and Clonmacnois’ when I refer to my new diocese. I particularly remember the annual Masses there for the young people of the diocese. Above all, of course, I remember the visit to Clonmacnois of Pope John Paul II. That was indeed an historic occasion, and no one who was present will forget it. It had a deep impact on Pope John Paul II himself, and he referred to it more than once afterwards as one of the highlights of his visit to Ireland.

As I look back on my fifteen happy years in the diocese, which I often call the ‘golden years’ of my life, some things stand out for me amid a host of memories which find me forever to Ardagh and Clonmacnois. First, there are the last two years of my mother’s life, spent in Longford, and her death in St. Michael’s, early in the morning of 28th January, 1974, with all the family gathered round her bedside. May she rest in God’s eternal peace.  Then there is St. Mel’s Cathedral, the restoration work there and the new and reordered sanctuary and Blessed Sacrament Chapel, the tapestry depicting the Second Coming of the Lord in glory, and the Emmaus painting by Ray Carroll. Although not without pain at the time of the restoration, the Cathedral is now, even more than when I first visited it in June 1967, a place of prayer, of beauty and of peace.

There are humbling memories too. I remember one Christmas when, feeling out of sorts, I preached even longer than usual; frankly, I lost the thread of my homily but yet kept on talking! I had no defence when Father John Greene – one of the most honest men I ever met – came in to me next day and gave me a thorough dressing down. He told me that I was “killing religion in this parish with my long sermons”.

I shall nevertheless go on a little further to say that I remember the kindness and loyalty and the zeal of the clergy of this diocese, their pride in the diocese, their loyalty to their bishop, their brotherhood and camaraderie with one another. My class fellows, Tommy O’Brien and Michael Reid, have since passed on to their heavenly reward; but I sincerely felt all the clergy as my friends, and for this I thank you all.

I remember the kindnesses of all the Sisters of the diocese and the support which they gave to me in everything I tried to do.

This is the Feast of the Transfiguration, which, tradition tells us occurred on Mount Tabor. This is a conical-shaped mountain, raising steeply from the surrounding plain. A steep climb is needed to reach the top of the mountain. The road to the summit is a zig-zag one; anyone who has ever gone up that road in a Palestinian taxi will never forget the experience. It takes determination, persistence and perseverance to get to the top. At the top, exhausted and breathless from the climb, Peter and the others were rewarded by the sight of the glorified Lord and by the sense a power of the Divine Presence. Peter cried out: “Lord, it is good for us to be here”. It is good for us to be in the Lord’s presence when we pray. We bring the Church with us, we bring our own parish and diocese with us when we pray. To be men of prayer is the first condition of success in our ministry. We do need pastoral skills and pastoral planning, particularly at this difficult time in the life of the Church. But, more than any other skill, we need to be men of prayer. There is urgent need for more vocations to the priesthood; but, what the Church needs at this time is not just priests, but priests of prayer, holy priests. Let us pray, not simply:  “Lord, give us priest”, but rather: “Lord, give us holy priests and holy bishops.”

May I add also a reference to the great concern we should all have for the decline in the vocations to religious life for women. We must never forget the immense contribution which our Sisterhoods in this diocese and all over this country have made to the life of the Church and of the nation. We shall perhaps not fully appreciate their contribution until their convents are empty.

However, let us not be down-hearted. Let us remember the words which Julian of Norwich says are addressed to her by the Lord Jesus himself:
“All shall be well
and all shall be well,
and you shall learn for yourself
that all manner of things
shall be well”.

The Lord is with his Church, and therefore with our diocese, till the end of time. Let us say to him, with total trust and confidence,
“For all that has been, Lord, Thanks.
To all that will be, Lord, Yes.”

ADDRESS AT MASS OF THANKSGIVING
 IN ST. PATRICK’S CATHEDRAL, ARMAGH
ON 4Oth ANNIVERSARY OF MY EPISCOPAL ORDINATION
IN ST. MEL’S CATHEDRAL, LONGFORD
1967-2007
SUNDAY, 15th JULY 2007

I shall try to be brief, something I rarely succeeded in being during my active ministry!

On 16th July 1967 I was ordained Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnois in St. Mel’s Cathedral, Longford. The liturgy of ordination of a Bishop at that time was called “consecration”. A little niece of mine announced proudly in school that, next Sunday, she was going to Longford for the “consternation” of her uncle Cahal! I was age 50 and had in the previous year celebrated 25 years of priesthood. My predecessor, Bishop James Joseph McNamee had been ordained Bishop at aged 50 and had served 40 years as Bishop until his death at age 90. It is time for me to pack my bags, as Pope John XXIII said near the end of his life. (Someone who wrote to me since my 40th anniversary informed me that Cardinal Logue had been 45 years a bishop when he died!)

In 1967 the Church was re-living its youth, with the Vatican Council still fresh in our memories and its programme of renewal challenging us in every aspect of the Church’s life. To adopt lines of the poet Wordsworth: “Bliss was it in those days to be alive, but to be young was very heaven”.

After fifteen very happy years in Longford, I had a heart attack, in February 1982. Before my convalescence was completed, I was asked to leave Ardagh and to go as Bishop to Down and Connor. Belfast in those years was experiencing the horrors and the torment of what we have come to call the Troubles. However, it was my native diocese, where I had lived a quarter-century of my priesthood, and I had the advantage of knowing its priests and its people. It was in Down and Connor that I felt I would be spending whatever time on earth was left to me. In the event, I spent eight years in Down and Connor.

Then, with shock and suddenness, came the sad news of the death during the diocesan pilgrimage to Lourdes, of Cardinal Tómas O’Fiaich, which occurred on 8th May, 1990. The news shocked the Archdiocese and indeed the whole nation. On the date in question I was in Glasgow, attending a meeting between the bishops in Belfast, Glasgow and Liverpool. It was there that I received the sad news by telephone.

The Cardinal’s Requiem Mass was celebrated on 15th May in this Cathedral. I had the privilege of being Chief Celebrant and preacher at this Mass. I still remember the sense of awe and the nervousness that I felt as I looked down at the packed congregation in this great Cathedral, gathered in sorrow at the death of their beloved Cardinal and in prayer for his eternal rest; nervousness also at the presence of so many distinguished public figures come to pay their tribute to the great Churchman and great Irishman who was Cardinal O’Fiaich.

The vacancy in the See of Armagh lasted for six months. There was naturally much speculation about the Cardinal’s successor. A Synod of Bishops was scheduled for the month of October 1990. I was present in Rome at the Synod.

On Sunday, 21st October that year, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops invited me to concelebrate Mass with him in his private oratory. It was Mission Sunday. Dr. Sean Brady, then Rector of the Irish College, drove me to Cardinal Gantin’s residence. After Mass, the Cardinal told me privately that the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, had appointed me Archbishop of Armagh, though this would not be announced until 6th November 1990, Feast of All Saints of Ireland. As Dr Sean Brady drove me back to the College, I confided my secret to him, knowing that my secret would be safely kept to himself; so our present Archbishop was the first to know of my appointment. I spent the rest of that day in the College Chapel, praying as best I could after the shell-shock of the morning, praying for God’s grace for the next period of my life.

Two days after the announcement, I went to Armagh and met with the Archdiocesan Chapter. I shall never forget the warmth of the welcome I received from the late Dean MacLarnon – a long-time and dear friend of mine – and the rest of the Chapter.

My six years in Armagh were very happy for me and I formed a bond with the clergy and people of Armagh which remains as strong with me to this day as it was when I lived in Ara Coeli. The Troubles raged on apace in those years, but those working for peace and justice and reconciliation, those who believed in justice by the ways of peace, prevailed in the end. All those who prayed for peace throughout those bitter years have seen their prayers answered. We thank God for that. There is still a long way to go before the wounds of that time are healed and the bitternesses of those years are overcome, but what has already been accomplished offers good hope for the future.
Among those who worked tirelessly for peace and justice all through those years was my good friend the late Monsignor Denis Faul. May he rest in God’s eternal peace. As for my Armagh friends and classmates of seminary days, three of them had died before I came to Armagh: Father Owen Quinn, Father Andy McNally, and Father Malachy Coyle; a fourth died later, namely Canon Des Campbell. May they rest in peace after their labours in the Lord’s service. Father Michael Ward, of the same 1941 Ordination Class, is still happily with us.

High on the list of my many blessings in Armagh is the appointment in 1995 of Dr. Sean Brady as Coadjutor and his later installation as my successor. I have watched with pride and much satisfaction the progress of the Archdiocese in so many fields under his gentle guidance and wise leadership. The Archdiocese which we all love is in good hands. Above all it is in the hands of our good Lord himself. May God bless Archbishop Sean’s work, together with that of my, and now his, faithful and devoted Assistant Bishop, Bishop Gerry Clifford.

Last week I was trying to put finishing touches to a book which I have been writing on the Eucharist. Although many pages before the end of the book still remain to be written, I have composed the concluding page of the unfinished book. I want to end my words today with the last paragraphs of that coming book.

These are difficult days in the life of the Church. Remember the words which the great English mystic, Mother Julian of Norwich said were spoken to her by Our Lord in what she called her “Showings of Divine Love”:
“All shall be well,
and all shall be well,
and you will see for yourself,
that all manner of things shall be well.”

The Eucharist is God’s everlasting guarantee to us,

BISHOPS AND THE LAW 
ON PUBLIC MORALITY
Introduction
Cardinal Cahal B. Daly
July 2005

In 1997 the Irish Catholic Bishops published a collection of statements relating to constitutional and legislative change in matters of public morality, issued by them in the period 1973 to 1995. The proposal for such a collection was suggested in the first place by Jim Cantwell, who was at that time Director of the Catholic Press and Information Office; and it was he who wrote the introductory notes, giving the context in which each statement was issued.

The past quarter century has been marked by profound social change in Ireland; and this publication brought together in one cover a series of documents outlining Catholic Church teaching on some of the moral issues associated with that social change. Indeed the collection provided, for Catholics and for other interested parties, a conspectus of Church teaching  in this domain. Since Ireland had been in the past three or four decades a kind of laboratory of social change, change affecting State as well as Church and having important implications for Church and State relations, the publication had the further benefit of offering an easily accessible book of reference for historians of the period and for analysts of social change generally, Indeed, the topic has relevance, therefore, not only for Ireland but for similar situations elsewhere.

The social change occurring in Ireland in the period in question, however, has continued since 1995, and the Bishops have issued further statements on these issues since that date. The Bishops have, therefore, decided to reissue the volume, extending it so as to include episcopal statements issued between 1995 and 2005.

Having these statements in one cover so that they can be read collectively makes it easier to discern the basic principles on which Church teaching on these issues is based. It can also help the wider public to make informed judgements about the validity of the Bishops’ case, the nature and the cogency of the evidence which they advance for their conclusions, and the consistency of the bishops’ position on the various issued involved.

Wide Range of Statements
Many of the statements, like many of the proposed constitutional or legislative changes which evoked them, have to do with sexual morality. There is a danger that this could reinforce the common prejudice that the Church is unduly, if not exclusively, concerned with sexual morality. It is important, therefore, to stress (as the introduction to the 1997 edition of this collection stressed) that these texts are only part of the wide range of statements and pastoral letters issued by the bishops over the period covered by the present collection. It is timely to list some of these. From 1973 to the present, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland have issued eleven major Pastoral Letters. Seven of these were collected in a single volume, published by Veritas in 1979, with the title Justice, Love and Peace. Two of these Pastorals were devoted to social justice (The Work of Justice, 1977; and Work is the Key, 1992); three were on prayer and the family (Prayer in the Home, 1973; Handing on the Faith in the Home, 1980; Cherishing the Family, 1994): one was on Change in the Church (1972). Two extensive Pastoral Letters were devoted to marriage (Christian Marriage, 1969; and Love is for Life, 1985). One was addressed to The Young Church (1985). One Pastoral was devoted to the right to life, with  an important section on abortion and another section on violence in Northern Ireland (Human Life is Sacred, 1975). In 1998 the Bishops issued a Pastoral Document on Conscience. A further letter on the Right to Life was issued in 2001 to mark the Day of Life proclaimed by Pope John Paul for that year, and further Letters on the same theme were issued in 2002, relating to the abortion referendum of that year. A Pastoral Letter on Euthanasia was issued in 2002 to mark the next Day of Life. In 2003 the Bishops published a submission which they had made to the Government Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction. In 2004 Archbishop Sean Brady made a statement on behalf of the Episcopal Conference on Marriage and Family at a Seminar organised by IBC on Marriage and Family Life.

Two major statements were devoted to issues of world poverty and development, (Development, 1973 and 1982). One Pastoral Letter was devoted to the topic of the Church’s missionary outreach (Missions, 1978). During this same period, twelve statements were issued by the Bishops concerning Northern Ireland. Two statements addressed the question of immigration and two further statements related to economic justice (1970 and 1979), with a third statement entitled: Christian faith in a time of Economic Depression, (1983). Questions of war and peace were not overlooked: one major statement was devoted to the morality of nuclear weapons, with the title: The Storm that Threatens (1983). The question of European Unity was addressed in three statements. Two Episcopal Statements related to the abuse of alcohol. Others related to particular wars and conflicts (South Africa in 1986; Armenia in 1988; the Gulf War in 1991; Conflict in Rwanda in 1994 and in Bosnia in 1995.) Two statements were devoted to the problem of Aids (1987 and 1990). A statement was devoted to child sex abuse (1994) and this was followed by many related initiatives by the Bishops, such as the setting up of the Child Protection Office and the Child Protection Committee, the Hussey Commission, the College of Surgeons Report, the Lynott Report.  A Pastoral reflection on the issues raised by child sex abuse was issued in Lent 2005 with the title, “Towards Healing”.  One statement was directed to Charismatic Renewal (1993) and another to the New Age Phenomenon (1994). At the same time, Agencies of the Irish Episcopal Conference, such as the then Council for Social Welfare, the then Irish Commission for Justice  and Peace, the then Commission for the Laity, and Trocaire, all issued various statements related to issues within their respective remit.

Indeed, it would take a number of publications like this one to do justice to the Irish Bishops’ teaching and pastoral guidance in such areas as ‘The Bishops and Christian Faith in a Changing World’,  ‘The Bishops and the Family’,  ‘The Bishops and Respect for Life’,  ‘The Bishops and Social Justice’. 

No “State Enforcement” of Catholic Teaching
In the ongoing debate in Ireland about relations between Church and State, a number of misrepresentations about the Catholic Church’s position regularly recur. The texts of the successive statements collected here demonstrate very clearly that these are indeed misrepresentations and are without foundation. One of these is that the Catholic Church is asking the State to enforce Catholic teaching on all citizens; or differently put, that the Church is usurping the place of the legislature. The Bishops have repeatedly made it plain that this is not so. In the first statement printed here, which related to contraception, dated 1973, after stating that “no change in state law can make the use of contraceptives morally right”, the Bishops go on to say:
“It does not follow, of course, that the State is bound to prohibit the importation and sale of contraceptives. There are many things which the Catholic Church holds to be morally wrong, and no one has ever suggested, least of all the Church herself, that they should be prohibited by the State.

Those who insist on seeing the issue purely in terms of the State enforcing, or not enforcing, Catholic moral teaching are therefore missing the point”.

Statements to this effect were frequently made by the late Cardinal Conway, President of the Episcopal Conference from 1963 to 1977.

Openness and Transparency of Church-Government Relations
Cardinal Conway took steps also to correct  a further misconception regarding any dealings between Church and Government. It was sometimes suggested that these would typically take place in secret, by the “back door”, away from public notice. The Bishops, in Cardinal Conway’s time, adopted a policy whereby any meeting between a bishops’ delegation and government representatives would be announced in advance and would be conducted, so far as the Bishops were concerned, on the basis of a document prepared by them in advance and subsequently published. Thus all reasonable measures would be taken to ensure that all dealings between Church and Government were as open and transparent as possible.

Nevertheless, various misrepresentation of the Catholic Bishops position continued. In 1976, the Bishops issued another statement, “Restating the Principle”. In this, the Bishops repeated that:
“It is not the view of the Catholic hierarchy, that, in the law of the State,  the principles peculiar to our faith should be made binding on people who do not adhere to that faith”.

Instead, the Bishops emphasised, in both the 1973 and 1976 statements, that the question to be decided in matters of this kind – as far as state law is concerned – is the impact on society, which a change in the law would be likely to have.  The Bishops expressed regret that the “social dimension” of such issues is usually ignored, while
“instead the questions are discussed in the false context as to whether the State should impose Catholic moral teaching on all, irrespective of their beliefs – something which the Bishops have never suggested”.

Legislation in a Pluralist Society
The Bishops, in their statements, do not ignore or dismiss the difficulties of legislating on issues of public morality in a pluralist society. In their 1986 statement on the Divorce Referendum, for example, the Bishops stated:
“Many considerations require attention from legislators when they are enacting legislation or from voters when they are voting on constitutional change. Among other things, they have to take account of the convictions of those who do not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church. They have to aim at creating laws which favour reconciliation between citizens and communities throughout the island of Ireland. They have to try to give citizens the maximum freedom which is consistent with the common good.

Their first concern as legislators or as voters, however, is for the well-being of society as a whole: and it can scarcely be denied that the well- being of society is closely bound up with the stability of marriage and the family. In the forthcoming referendum voters must ask themselves whether other factors outweigh the damage which divorce would certainly cause to individuals, to families, to children and to the whole of society.

Family Stability
Family stability, based on monogamous marriage, is a powerful agent for the moral formation of children and young people. Legislation which weakens the family or which, however unintentionally, facilitates the separation of child-bearing from marriage and from marital fidelity, is detrimental to the welfare of society.

In their statements on divorce, the Bishops were not content simply to stress the moral wrongness of marriage following divorce and the damage that divorce and remarriage can do to the stability of the family and to the well-being of society, they also appealed for “legal reforms to strengthen the stability of marriage and lessen the risk of marriage breakdown”. The passage of time has made this appeal for ‘marriage-friendly’ legal and political policies more urgent than ever.

Abortion
In their 1992 statement on Abortion Law, following the Supreme Court Judgement on the so-called “X-case”, the Bishops inevitably condemned abortion as being in fundamental conflict with the divine commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, and declared that:
“No motive can justify (abortion). No court judgement, no act of legislation, can make it morally right. Abortion goes to the very well-springs of human life and touches the very foundations of morality. … The issue of abortion is a matter of justice. It involves the most basic of all human rights, the right to life.”

Turning to the questions of freedom of travel and freedom of information in relation to abortion outside the State, the Bishops emphasised that
“when an action is morally wrong the provision of information which assists a person to perform it is also morally wrong, and counselling which suggest that it is a proper or a neutral option is likewise morally wrong”.

The Bishops, however, go on to state:
“It does not follow that travel or information should be prohibited or restricted by law. Many actions which are immoral are not prohibited  by the State, because attempts to prohibit them could lead to an unacceptable infringement of the personal liberty of citizens in a free society, and could bring the law into disrepute”.

In a follow-up statement in 1992, the Bishops repeated the substance of this paragraph.

Morality, Law and Well-Being of Society
It is worth noting, however, that when the influence of Church teaching declines in society and the binding force of morality and of conscience lessens, the State seems to feel itself obliged to intervene more and more in people’s lives, in the sheer interests of public order and social peace; and we then see the growth of the “nanny State”. In other words, moral restraints and legal restrictions seem to be in inverse proportion to one another. As moral self-restraint weakens and civic virtue declines, the State attempts to enforce virtuous behaviour by legislation and by legal penalties for transgressions. The danger then is that personal freedoms begin to become imperilled by the State itself.

The Irish Bishops, do not believe that one can make people virtuous by legislation. In their 1992-1993 statements about condom legislation, the Bishops state:
“There are many things which are sinful and which the law of the land cannot reasonably be expected to prohibit.”

The State itself, however, depends for its cohesion and stability on a degree of moral consensus in society about the legitimacy of the State and of its agencies for peace-keeping and for law and order and law-enforcement, and about  the basic legitimacy of its laws. When that moral consensus is weakened, the very stability of the State itself is threatened. The State may then attempt to create and impose a new moral consensus by new legislation. Inevitably, the attempt fails. People cannot be made moral by legislation alone.

The State, however, can by its legislation further erode moral consensus and moral conviction and thus weaken its own moral foundations. The Bishops went on in their 1992-3 statements to declare:

“Neither can the law make what is morally wrong become right. Laws cannot make people morally good but they can sometimes make moral living more difficult by seeming to make immorality socially acceptable (by giving the appearance of society’s approval for acts and practices which are morally wrong)”.

In 1993, in a statement referring to the law on homosexual activity, the Bishops repeated once again the Church’s view on the relationship between morality and civil law. They declared:
“This teaching of the Church (on homosexual acts) is independent of State law. No change in State law can change the moral law. New civil laws cannot make what is wrong right. Laws relating to homosexuality, like other laws which bear on moral issues, should not be seen in terms of the State’s upholding or not upholding Church teaching. The Church does not expect that acts which are sinful should, by that very fact, be made criminal offences. All such laws bearing on moral issues must be assessed in the light of the way in which they contribute or fail to contribute to the common good of society. …

It is a matter of experience that legislative change is never neutral in its effects on society”.

In a statement in 1995 on the divorce referendum, the Bishops declared:
“It is not a question of whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church should be removed from the Constitution. The simple fact that something is in harmony with the Church’s teaching is not in itself a reason to keep it in the Constitution, but neither is it a reason to remove it. The proposal should be evaluated in the light of the social implications of introducing divorce.”

Referring to Catholic Church provision for the annulment of marriage, the Bishops state firmly:
“But the Church has never asked or expected that the civil and canonical jurisdictions should coincide. The Bishops do not ask that Church decrees of nullity should be accepted by the Civil courts. … A Church decree of nullity is not divorce by another name”

Reason, Empirical Evidence and Morality
The Catholic Church’s teaching on morality depends ultimately on the authority of divine revelation. But the Church insists that human reason also is a source of moral truth and a channel through which God reveals His plan for human behaviour. The Church holds that rational arguments and empirical and sociological evidence reinforce Church teaching on moral issues. It is commonly assumed by the Church’s critics, however, that Church teaching depends solely on divine revelation and on supernatural authority. It is taken for granted by some that reason and empirical evidence belong to a different sphere than that of the Church, namely the sphere of rational debate; and that rational debate is the prerogative of the secularist approach to morality and law; and that this approach is the defining characteristic of a scientific and secular and pluralist society. I recall a university debate in which a spokesman for the secular humanist viewpoint professed himself indignant at my use of rational and sociological arguments for my moral position. His reaction implied that I was “cheating” by “stealing” arguments which are the exclusive “property” of the secular side of the debate!

I submit that an unbiased reader of these statements by the Irish Catholic Bishops would conclude that these are exercises of sustained moral reasoning, appealing to rational argument and to empirical evidence from ordinary human experience and from the human and social sciences. These are not “diktats” of authority coming from “another sphere”; they are reasoned and reasonable contributions to serious public debate among citizens, and thereby are a service to society as well as being a guide to the consciences of Catholics, who rightly expect moral guidance from their Bishops on issues of public morality. Indeed, as the Bishops and very many others are convinced, the balance both of reason and of evidence lies clearly with the position of the Bishops on issue after issue of public morality.

No “Confessional State”
I submit finally that these statements bear out the following claim, made on behalf of the Irish Bishops by their delegation to the New Ireland Forum on 9th February 1984:

The Poor in the Bible
Lent is a time for taking a good, hard look at our lives in the clear light of the Gospel, and asking whether our lives reflect the Gospel or whether they contradict it.   It is a time for being honest with God and with ourselves, and trying to get our lives right with God.   In the Prayer after Communion on the First Sunday in Lent, we ask the Lord:
“Give us the body and blood of your Son, guide us with your Spirit, that we may honour you not only with our lips, but also with the lives we lead, and so enter the kingdom”.

The Holy Spirit says to us in Lent:
“O that today you would listen to His voice.   Harden not your hearts”  (Psalm 94: 7-8).

One thing the Bible tells us is that God speaks to us also through the poor.  To hear their cry is to listen to God’s voice.  To ignore their needs is to harden our hearts against God.  There is not much written about the poor in all the libraries of history books.   There is very much about the poor in every book of the Bible.   In page after page of the Scriptures we read how God hears the cry of the poor and asks us to hear it too.  

The first time God speaks of His plan to save His people is when he tells Moses:
“I have seen the miserable state of my people …  I am well aware of their suffering …   The cry of the sons of Israel has come to me …   So come, I send you to bring  … my people out of Egypt”.   (Exodus  3:7-10).

The Psalms
The Psalms are full of the cry of the poor and of their certainty that God will hear their cry.
“For the needy shall not always be forgotten nor the hopes of the poor be in vain …   O God, do not forget the poor …   Lord you hear the prayer of the poor,  You strengthen their hearts; You turn your ear to protect the rights of the orphan and the oppressed so that mortal man may strike terror no more”   (Psalm 9:20; 12; 17-18). 
 
“For the poor who are oppressed and the needy who groan I myself will arise, says the Lord, I will grant them the salvation for which they thirst” (Psalm 11:6).

“This poor man called, the Lord heard him and rescued him from all his distress” (Psalm 33:7).

God is shown in the Bible as the One who is on the side of the poor:
“Father of the orphan, defender of the widow, such is God in His holy place” (Psalm 67:6).

“(The Lord) is just to those who are oppressed.   It is He who gives bread to the hungry … who raises up those who are bowed down, the Lord who protects the stranger and upholds the widow and orphan” (Psalm 145: 7-9).

The Prophets
The prophets in God’s name assert the rights of the poor and denounce those who violate their rights.  Amos pronounces those men sinful who trample on the rights of the poor and those times evil when the needy are turned away at the city gate.  (cfr. Amos 5:1-13).

Isaiah pronounces woe to those:
“who refuse justice to the unfortunate and cheat the poor among my people of their rights” (Isaiah 10:2).

Jeremiah says that doing justice to the poor is what it means to know the Lord: 
“(Your father) used to examine the cases of the poor and the needy; then all went well.  Is not that what it means to know me? – it is the Lord who speaks” (Jeremiah 22:16).

The Wisdom Books
The Wisdom Books of the Bible show that true wisdom includes concern for the needs and respect for the rights of the poor.   This is true reverence for God.   Without this one cannot be pleasing to the Lord.  
The Book of Proverbs says:
“He who looks down on his neighbour sins, blessed is he who takes pity on the poor” (Proverbs 14:21);
“To mock the poor is to insult his creator, he who laughs at distress shall not go unpunished”  (Proverbs 17:5);
“He who shuts his ear to the poor man’s cry shall himself plead and not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13).

The Book of Job again tells us of the cry of the poor:
“The poor have cried out to (the Lord) and the wailing of the humble has assailed His ears” (Job 34:28).

Again the Book of Ecclesiasticus says:
“Do not avert your eyes from the destitute … to the poor man lend an ear …   And you will be like a son to the Most High whose love for you will surpass your mother’s”  (Ecclesiasticus 4:5-11).

“A plea from a poor man’s mouth goes straight to the ear of God”  (Ecclesiasticus 21:6).

The Messiah
The Old Testament is one repeated promise of a Messiah who was to come and inaugurate the final salvation of His people.  He was to set up an everlasting kingdom of justice for all men.   One of the Psalms describes the kingdom which will be established when the Christ comes:
“May the mountains bring froth peace for the people and the hills, justice.   May He defend the poor of the people and save the children of the needy …   For He shall save the poor when they cry and the needy who are helpless.   He will have pity on the weak and save the lives of the poor.  From oppression He will rescue their lives, to Him their blood is dear”  (Psalm 71: 3-4; 12-14).  

Isaiah says that the coming King will see justice done to the poor:
“(He) will give a verdict for the poor of the land”  (Isaiah 11:4).
And this will bring reconciliation and peace  (cfr. Isaiah 11: 6-9).

Our Lord and the Poor
Jesus Christ, our Lord, is that promised King and Messiah.   At the beginning of his public ministry Jesus introduced himself in Nazareth in words taken from that same passage of the Prophet, Isaiah:
“The Spirit of the Lord has been given to me for He has anointed me.   He has sent me to bring the good news to the poor …  to set the downtrodden free”   (Luke 4: 18-19).

John the Baptist once faltered in his confidence that Jesus was indeed “the one who was to come”.   Jesus sent him back this message:
“The blind see again and the lame walk …  and the Good News is proclaimed to the poor”  (Matthew 11:4-5).

So the message of the Bible comes over loud and clear.  A society where the poor are neglected is not one in which Christ is reigning as King and Lord.   A community which is not on the side of the poor is a community which does not walk with Christ.  Those who do not listen to the voice of the poor are not hearing the voice of Christ.   Jesus not only takes the side of the poor.  He became himself one of the poor.   St.  Paul says:

THE TSUNAMI: WHY DID IT HAPPEN?
WHERE WAS GOD?
BY CARDINAL CAHAL B. DALY

13th January 2005

Since the South-East Asia earthquake and tsunami, many people have been asking “Why?” this happened and “Where was God?”  I too have been asking: “Why?”, and I have found no intellectually completely satisfying answer. This I have learned, however, that answers are to be sought, not by drawing ideas out of one’s head at a desk but by searching one’s heart in humility on one’s knees in prayer. As Karl Rahner said, what the Church needs nowadays is “theology on its knees”. The tsunami and the havoc it has wrought have more of the aspect of mystery than of problem.

We can think and speak and argue – and even preach – so glibly about God, forgetting the reverence and awe which attach even to the thought of God, even to the word ‘God’, even to the name, God.  God cannot be properly named by a human name or fully apprehended by human thought or adequately defined in human language.  Jews to this day never pronounce the holy name ‘Jahweh’; it is too sacred to be spoken.  (Contrast the way some people use the holy name, Jesus.) Job in the Bible, after arguing with God about the evils he had suffered in spite of his innocence, ends by saying:
“I have been holding forth on things I cannot understand. …
I knew you only by hearsay
but now, having seen you with my own eyes,
I retract all that I have said”. (Job 42:3-8).
Nothing that I can say or write about the tsunami is completely satisfying, even to myself. No definitive ‘explanation’ can be given. We can only offer comment to suggest the complexities of the whole question. We can only point to things which we do know from science and from reason, and to things we know from faith, supported by reason. Reason itself assures us that it is God who created the universe and who made it knowable by reason and by science.  It is an evolving and developing world; evolution is the process which God uses as His instrument in creating and sustaining the world.  People of faith know that, where science is thought to be in conflict with  faith, either science is being misunderstood or faith is being misinterpreted.

A world where continents did not move and where tectonic plates did not impact on one another – in other words, a world without earthquakes – would not be the world which science knows. A world where earthquakes in maritime regions do not cause tsunamis would be a world where science is impossible; for science presupposes an order of nature where effects invariably follow causes and where patterns of regularity and sequence apply. Furthermore, there are good scientific reasons for believing that the environmental conditions applying on our planet are those which are required for the coming into existence and the survival of human life. These conditions have not been found to exist anywhere else in the universe. It would seem that if God wished to create humans in His own image and likeness, as we believers know He did, then the present earth is the kind of earth that He “had” to create.

In my boyhood home there was a picture representing Jesus Christ, his side pierced by the soldier’s lance, his Heart open to love and its pain.  His right hand is holding up a fragile globe, representing our earth. This picture, which some might call naïve, gave, I suggest, a symbolic representation of creation which in many ways is closer to the truth than many of the notions of creation reflected in the recent debate about the tsunami. For its coming into existence and its continuance in being, the world depends totally and at all times on God’s upholding power; if that were withdrawn, the world would immediately crash into ‘smithereens’, – or rather into nothingness. Yet everything in that upheld world has its own inbuilt patterns of cause – effect relationship, of order and of inter-connectedness with the rest of nature. All of it is subject to the “laws of nature”. It is as though in creating the world God freely self-limits His almighty power, in order to create a world where physical laws prevail, a world also where human beings with reason and free will can exist; and this is a world where the human species can flourish and a world where science is possible. God’s power is directed by His reason, and His power and reason are guided by His love. Christians believe in miracles; but miracles are by definition extra-ordinary and, in the modern jargon, “one-off”, suspensions of the laws of nature, not their abolition.

We read in the biblical account of creation that God entrusted the earth to the care of the human species, bidding them to “cultivate and take care of it”, to “conquer” and “subdue” it. An evolving and unstable earth often needs to be “conquered” and “subdued”, and science provides many ways of doing this – including recording and prediction and warning systems, as well as engineering and architectural systems, which at least mitigate the destructive power of natural disasters. But these are least developed or non-existent in poor countries. God created an earth with abundant resources, but left it to humans’ reason and free will to share these resources fairly and justly among all members of God’s human family. Instead of asking, “Where was God when the earthquake happened?”, it might be more appropriate to ask, “where were the rich and powerful of the earth when the tsunami struck and there was no regional warning system and no advance preparation?”

After writing all this, I am still asking: “Why?”. But I am also remembering the many “Why’s?” addressed to God in the Bible by people of faith and prayer. Many of these are in the psalms. We find them particularly in the group of psalms lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple at the hands of the Assyrian invaders:
“Why, O God, have you cast us off forever?” (Psalm 73).
“Why should the nations say, ‘Where is their God?’” (Psalm 78).
“Why have you broken down the walls (of your vineyard)?” (Psalm 79).

But the most amazing ‘Why?’ of all comes from God Himself, God made man, Jesus Christ, dying in anguish on a cross, and almost despairingly crying out: 
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”. (Matthew 27:46).

He was praying Psalm 21; these are the opening words of that Psalm. This is the only time in all four Gospels that Jesus does not address God as ‘Abba’, ‘Dearest Father’. The Son of God feels literally ‘God-forsaken’!  But soon after, he is again addressing God as “‘Abba’, ‘Dearest Father’, into your hands I commend my spirit” (a verse from Psalm 30). In spite of everything, Christ’s trust in God’s love never wavered, even when God, his Father, seemed to have abandoned him.

It is possible to believe totally in a person that you love, even when you don’t understand that person’s behaviour in a particular situation.  You know that you are seeing only part of the picture; one might say, ‘hearing only one side of the story’; and you know that when the whole picture is seen, all will be made clear.

So it will be with us who believe in God and who trust Him now in the darkness and amid the chorus of all the “Why’s?”. On the eve of His Passion, taking leave of his disciples, Jesus said:
“You are sad now
but I shall see you again
and your hearts shall be full of joy
and that joy no-one will take from you.
When that day comes you will not ask me any questions.
  (John: 16: 1)

There will be no need for questions; for on that day all will be made clear; and, in spite of all the appearances to the contrary, it will be seen that, as Mother Julian of Norwich said: “Love was His meaning”. God so loved the world as to send His only Son to join the huddled masses of innocent sufferers, so that in the depths of their suffering, the sufferers might hear, from their own midst, the voice of a fellow-sufferer who is God and yet is one of their own; and he is saying to them: “I am with you … I am with you all days, Yes, to the end of time.” Hans Küng once wrote: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ begins where the Book of Job ends”.

THE MULTIPLICATION OF THE LOAVES
HOMILY IN THE CHURCH OF THE NATIVITY OF OUR LADY
KEADUE, CO ROSCOMMON
BY CARDINAL CAHAL B. DALY
Sunday 31st July 2005, 10.00 am
(18th Sunday of the Year A)

The Gospel today is St.  Matthew’s account of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. This account is found, with minor variations, in the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke; it is, clearly, seen as a very important part of Our Lord’s life and teaching.

In all three gospels, the account is part of a whole section of the life of Jesus, which shows him teaching the crowds, healing the sick, and giving signs of his divine power. In other words, the Lord was leading them to faith, preparing them to become members of the group of disciples who were to be the first members of his Church.

After the long time they had spent with the Lord, the people were now hungry; but the place was a desert space, far away from any village or any shop where they could buy food. Jesus then asked the disciples to give the crowds some food. But they had brought very little food with them – in fact, only five loaves and two fish; and what use was that to feed so many? There were no less than five thousand men, not counting the women and the children. Jesus said to the disciples: “Ask the people to sit down and bring the loaves and fish to me”. The fish, by the way, were to be cut up in little pieces to be placed between the slices of bread, so as to make what we would call sandwiches.

Jesus then took the loaves, raised his eyes to heaven, said the blessing and then broke the loaves and then handed them to the disciples, who gave them to the crowds. They all ate as much as they wanted.

Do these words remind you of anything? Have you heard them in any other context, apart from this gospel? Remember what the priest does and says at the Consecration of the bread and the wine in every Mass. Using the very words that Jesus used at the Last Supper and doing the very things that Jesus did at the Last Supper, the priest takes the bread of the Eucharist into his hands and says (and if one puts the two sets of words in parallel columns, the point is made clearer):

Eucharistic Prayer 1
The day before he suffered
he took bread into his sacred hands
and, looking up to heaven,
to you, his almighty Father,
he gave you thanks and praise.
He broke the bread,
gave it to his disciples and said,
Take this all of you and eat it.
This is my body
which will be given up for you.
Multiplication of loaves

(Jesus) took the five loaves …

raised his eyes to heaven

and said the blessing,
and breaking the loaves,
he handed them to his disciples,
who gave them to the crowds.

Clearly, Jesus already had the Eucharist in mind when he multiplied the loaves. What he said and did then was intended to prepare his hearers for the great gift of the Mass, which we receive this Sunday morning. No wonder it is called the Day of the Lord, Dé Domhnaigh, or, as some Christians call it, the Lord’s Day.

The Manna in the Desert
But the multiplication of the loaves reminds us of something else as well. It points back to the Old Testament story of Moses, as well as forward to the Mass. After leaving Egypt and crossing the Red Sea, the people of Israel found themselves in a vast desert, where there was no food and there were no villages where food could be found. They were famishing with hunger and began to complain bitterly against Moses for bringing them there to die from starvation, and they grumbled against God for forgetting His promises. Moses prayed for help and God answered his prayer. Next morning, the people found the ground covered with a scattering of little grains like coriander seed, which could be boiled and eaten like porridge or baked and eaten like wafers of unleavened bread. The Israelites did not know what this strange food was and they asked one another, ‘What is it?’ (in Hebrew, ‘M?n h?’): hence the term ‘Manna’. In the evening, the sky was black with flocks of birds called quails, which the people were able to catch and cook for food.

There was a peculiarity  about the Manna: each one was able to gather as much as he needed or wanted; if he took more and tried to store it, he would find in his store only what he needed, no more and no less. If took two days supply, when he went to his store he would find there only enough for one day. The exception was the Sabbath Day (which was the Jewish Saturday, corresponding to our Sunday). No manna could be gathered on that day for that was a day for the Lord, a day of rest and prayer. The Sabbath day’s supply was gathered on the Friday. There was no need to be over-anxious about tomorrow. The Lord gives us each day enough for that day, and he will do the same for us tomorrow, if we trust Him.

Let us now go forward again to the Gospel account of the multiplication of the loaves. The Gospel tells us: “They all ate as much as they wanted”. As with the manna, so also with the multiplication of the loaves, and so also with the Eucharist. Each person receives from each day’s Mass and Holy Communion, as much as each one wants and needs for that day. Each Sunday, each person receives from that Sunday’s Mass as much as each one wants and needs for the coming week. There is no need to worry anxiously about tomorrow or about next week: the Lord will provide for tomorrow and for next week if we trust Him.  This is why Jesus himself taught us to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread”.

The Mass
The Mass is our sufficient supply of energy-building spiritual food and spiritual “vitamins” for today; tomorrow there is always another Mass. Each Sunday the Lord gives us a sufficient supply for that day and for that week; and next Sunday there is another Mass. From each Mass we receive as much as we need and as much as we want. But how much do we want from Mass? How much do you want from this Mass? How much do I want from this Mass? Mother Teresa’s nuns display in each of their sacristies over the bench where the priest vests for Mass, a notice which says:
“Dear priest of God,
celebrate this Mass as if it were your first Mass,
your last Mass,
your only Mass.”

The same applies to each of us. The words, “We get from this Mass as much as we want”, also means: “We get from this Mass as little as we want”.  Some people are heard nowadays to say: “The Mass is boring. It doesn’t do anything for me”. Are you sure that the fault is not with you, rather than with the Mass?. Have I tried hard enough to deepen my faith, so as to understand the Mass better?  Do I pay enough attention to the readings, to the sermon, to the words spoken by the priest? At Mass, the priest speaks the words of Jesus Christ and acts in the person of Jesus Christ. The priest may have, as I have and as we all have, his particular character and his mannerisms and his foibles, but, at Mass, he acts in the person of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is acting through him. Remember that you will get from Mass as much as you want to get from it; if you want little, you will get little.

But “little” won’t do. That’s the way of spiritual anorexia; when what we need is spiritual vitamins, and we need them perhaps more today than people ever did in history before. Not only is there very little in our newspapers or television or radio programmes today that will support our faith; there is much that conflicts with it, criticises it, tries to ridicule it; or at least, which offers us a way of life that has no need for God, no place for God, no time for God. To give just one example, behaviour which, until recently, was regarded by all Christians and by very many non-Christians as morally wrong is now presented to us as modern and liberal and progressive and civilised and normal and supported by law and seen as part of the life-style expected of modern and enlightened people. To question this behaviour is to be usually met, not with reasoned argument or debate, but with outrage and name-calling: one will be called a fundamentalist, a reactionary, someone who is harking back to a backward and ignorant Catholic past. This, I have said, is not the language of reasoned debate but is simply propaganda, and indeed a form of spiritual and moral conditioning or brain-washing. It resembles the tactics of some skilled advertisers: attach favourable adjectives to your preferred brand-name so as to bring about “pro-attitudes” to the brand; and, sometimes, add negative adjectives to the rival brand and arouse “anti-attitudes” to it.

What is clear is that we do need spiritual health-supplements nowadays to stand firm against such criticism. We need the Mass as never before. We need to deepen our faith, to strengthen our hope, to increase our charity. But, whatever happens, we have the certainty, which nothing can take away from us, that Christ is with us.  We have the assurance of Christ’s own words: “Do not be afraid. I am with you”. As St.  Paul puts it in today’s second reading:
“I am certain of this: neither death nor life, no angel, no prince, nothing that exists, nothing still to come, not any power or height or depth nor any created thing can ever come between us and the love of God, made visible in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Amen.

THE POPE IN IRELAND
MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS:
25 YEARS ON
BY CARDINAL CAHAL B DALY
[For the ‘Irish Catholic’]

My memories of Pope John Paul’s pastoral visit to Ireland 25 years ago are still very fresh.   I spent  most of that September working in Rome with the group which prepared drafts of the Holy Father’s addresses.  The group was composed mainly of priests working in the Holy See’s Secretariat of State.  Since the Holy Father was proceeding directly from Ireland to the ‘United Nations’ Assembly in the United States, there were two sets of texts to be prepared together, with some 60 addresses in all to be delivered. 

The first and the final version of each address came from the Pope himself.   He wrote a preliminary draft for each address, read and revised each subsequent version personally, and made the final text his own.  I remember his insistence that his Irish addresses, and particularly the address in Drogheda, should be direct and specific.  The Drogheda address is in fact the one to which he delivered particular and personal attention.   It was clear that he was closely informed about the conflict then raging in Ireland, that he was fully aware of its complex underlying causes, and that he saw the need for political and economic responses to the violence.   He was strongly convinced of the moral wrongness and futility, both of recourse to violence and of such forms of excessive military response to violence as violated justice and human rights. 

I was struck by the long working hours of the priests who cheerfully worked all through the days and often far into the nights at their drafting and redrafting task.  I often wondered what they did for sleep.  But it was the Pope’s own activity which impressed me most.   Once a week, and sometimes more often, during the weeks of preparation, there was a working lunch at which the Pope discussed the various drafts in turn and asked for amendments.   His energy, physical as well as mental, was phenomenal.  When one looks at photographs or at recorded television coverage of the 1979 visit, and compares these with the television images of the visit to Lourdes last month, the contrast is startling between the dynamic, athletic stride and posture of the Pope of 1979 and the wheel-chair bound and enfeebled man of today.   The contrast can touch one to tears. 

But it should arouse us much more to admiration.  Pope John Paul II sees his present condition as a new and even more powerful way of proclaiming Christ’s message.  Speaking to Swiss Catholics in Berne in June, he said: “It is wonderful to be able to offer oneself until the end for the cause of the Kingdom of God”.   He declared: “It is the duty of announcing the Gospel of Christ that pushes me along the ways of the world”. 

In his Apostolic Letter of 1984 on the Christian meaning of suffering, Pope John Paul declared that suffering in union with Christ is not just passive acceptance of suffering; it is active continuance of Christ’s mission in today’s world.   It is actively helping to accomplish Christ’s own messianic programme.   It is “releasing love” in the world and helping to create a “civilisation of love” in a world often convulsed with hate.  We need that message in Ireland now. 

In 1979, Pope John Paul II showed us the way out of the wasteland of violence.  We need him now to show us how to avoid being tricked by misleading signposts into following ways that would lead to a new and still more deadly wasteland, a wasteland of the soul.  In Limerick, the Pope asked us: “What would it profit Ireland to go the easy way of the world and suffer the loss of our own soul?”   We need to hear that challenge from his own lips again.  

SYMPOSIUM AFRICA/EUROPE

ROME:  10/13 NOVEMBER 2004

General Considerations:
Financial help from Europe to Africa is a continuing necessity, both at the level of the Church’s ongoing missionary task and at the humanitarian level.   It is important, however, to ensure that the African Church be not seen as financially dependent on the Church in Europe and that Africa be not perceived as the perpetual ‘poor relation’ of Europe.  

It is important therefore that, the ‘exchange of gifts’ between the Church in the two continents be more widely interpreted, that the European “gift” to Africa be seen as including services like cultural exchanges, training courses in scripture, theology, liturgy, etcetera, and also in technology, telecommunications, etcetera; and that Africa’s reciprocal “gift” to Europe be seen in cultural and in spiritual terms, where for example Africans are enabled to share their communitarian skills with a European continent which has become more individualist and seems to be losing its sense of solidarity and inter-dependence.   The emphasis should be, not, as hitherto, on how Europe can help Africa, but on how Europe and Africa can help one another.  

For this purpose, exchange of observers between CCEE Conferences of Bishops and SECAM Conferences should be fostered.   This could facilitate greater knowledge and understanding between the respective Episcopal Conferences, and can be a constant reminder to each Conference that it is part of a world-wide Church and must not be solely concerned with the problems of its own island or its own continent.  

Ireland’s Missionary Tradition
Ireland is privileged in being a country with a strong missionary tradition, both in its first millennium and in the closing centuries of the second millennium.   Irish priests and religious congregations of women and men have been sending priests, brothers and nuns all over the English-speaking world for two centuries.  Successive waves of emigration have sent Irish men and women all over the world, to make a new life for themselves in North America, in Australia or New Zealand, in South Africa etcetera.   Irish-descended people overseas far outnumber Irish people living in our native island.  All this facilitated the strong missionary commitment of the Church in Ireland in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  

Despite the sad decline in missionary vocations in the last few decades, Ireland’s missionary outreach is still very strong.   There is still a significant number of Irish-born missionary bishops in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, as well as many more of Irish descent.   There are many parishes in Ireland still which have a native son or daughter ministering in Africa as priest or Sister of Brother, or as lay missionary worker, or as development worker.   Furthermore, many Irish diocesan priests have served in Africa as ‘Fidei donum’ missionary priests.   All this can provide a springboard for more systematic exchanges of gifts and experiences between the local churches in Africa and in Ireland, based on existing living links between Irish parishes and African mission centres.   

Many Irish parishes have already set up informal relationships with particular African parishes or mission stations, usually centred on a native of the Irish parish who is ministering in Africa.  Such relationships can be developed and their purview expanded.  Hitherto, the ‘exchange’ has been mostly one-sided, with funds being collected in an Irish parish for the support of an African mission station or project.    This can be extended to include exchange of visits, which in turn can facilitate exchange of lived experiences between different life-styles sharing a common faith.  

Poverty
People in Ireland now, generally speaking, have little if any experience of real poverty.   Many seem to have forgotten what frugal living means; and yet frugal living is surely part of what living according to the Gospel of Christ entails.   A visit to Africa can be a life-changing experience for Irish people.  They can experience for themselves the kind of contentedness, of community, of solidarity, of sharing, even of joy and song and celebration, which can come from having little and appreciating what one has.   The experience of Mass in Africa sheds a completely new light on liturgy for Irish people, accustomed as many are to largely silent and sometimes, sadly, uninvolved congregations.   The African system of catechetics, with much of the responsibility being taken by trained lay catechists, is something which we in Ireland can learn from.  

Opportunities should be created in particular for young people to visit Africa and spend some time there, preferably engaged in some organised activity, whether directly missionary or developmental, or both.   All kinds of skills are relevant in African conditions, and new skills are acquired by living in Africa.   Trocaire and many other aid organisations can supply information and other assistance in setting up such projects.  

Irish missionary congregations of men and women can advise about ways in which lay volunteers can assist in their missionary activities in Africa.   Doctors, nurses and health-care workers generally, teachers, building and construction workers of all grades, architects, engineers, agronomists and agricultural scientists generally, and many others, can give great help to missionaries on the ground, as well as deriving enormous personal and spiritual benefit from the experience themselves.   The virtues and values which we Irish acquired in the past through the poverty of our ancestors are now at risk of being lost in our present affluence.   We are beginning to appreciate better the value of qualities of life which we are in process of losing.   Time spent in Africa, however short, can help us to regain some of the positive qualities of a way of life which we have nearly forgotten.   It can also help Africans to see that other people care about them, respect them and wish to work with them for a better and more just and more Christian world.  

Towards a More Just World Order
Work for justice in the world is a task for all Christians, as Pope John Paul II is constantly reminding us.   One of the great needs of our time is for more young people with integrity and a passion for social justice to become actively engaged in politics.   Politics for Christians cannot be confined to one’s own local area or even to one’s own country; it must have a more universal outreach.   Poverty in Africa is our problem too.   We are causally contributing to it because of our role in the EU and in the UN and because of our place in the world market, where we belong to the rich nations trading block and enjoy, and in some measure create, trading conditions, agricultural subsidies and other advantages for our own trading group which disfavour Africa and other poorer nations and contribute to their continuing poverty.   Christians in politics have an obligation to make themselves aware of these conditions and to work to try to change them.  We are party to solemn international commitments to Overseas Development Aid, but we are shamefully slow to honour our part of that commitment.  All Christians as citizens have an obligation to do our part as voters to ensure that our political parties include these  objectives in their agendas.  

The Millennium Development Goals
0.7% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was adopted by the so-called “developed nations” as their contribution to aid to the “less developed” nations.  It is a modest target; and yet, several ‘development decades’ later, most of the rich nations have not yet attained it.  Ireland, to its shame, has still not come up to that mark in terms of overseas aid, even though we are ourselves much richer now than we ever expected to be when the commitment was first made.  

The United Nations marked the new millennium by a series of millennium goals.  These read very impressively.   In the year 2000 the “developed nations” undertook to eradicate extreme poverty everywhere in the “less developed” world, to establish universal primary education, to reduce child mortality and improve maternal health, to combat diseases, including Aids, TB and Malaria.   These nations committed themselves to reduce by one half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.   These commitments were solemnly renewed at Monterey and again at Barcelona in 2002.   These are noble commitments.   And yet, on present performances, it will be 2115 instead of 2015 before the millennium development goals are met, and many millions will have died because of poverty in the meantime.  The Governor of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, said recently (Shanghai 2004), that it is “nonsensical” that the international community is spending $900 billion per year on military expenditure, more than $300 billion on agricultural  subsidies, and only between $50 and $60 billion on overseas development.  This is no kind of example for the international community to set.   This is no kind of message for Europe to give to Africa.   We must urge our governments to do better.   We Irish bishops must urge the Irish government to do better. 

Trocaire the Irish Episcopal Conferences overseas development organisation,  has urged the Irish government to turn promises into action, to improve the poverty focus of EU aid and make it more efficient, to commit to trade justice, to work for reform of the international financial institutions and for increased debt relief, and to build a political culture of sustainable development, especially on the occasion of EU enlargement.   This would represent a programme for an EU which is not simply bigger but more just and which is a factor for justice in the world of the third millennium.   Meanwhile, however, Irish government policy has, to its credit, targeted aid towards genuinely low-income countries, with a priority for Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia; and it is encouraging to note that considerable progress in reducing poverty has been registered in most of these countries.    This Africa/Europe Symposium can make a significant contribution to mutual understanding of these problems and to deepening a spirit of communion between African and European Bishops.   

ONGOING PRIESTLY FORMATION
BY CARDINAL CAHAL B. DALY

For Worldpriest.com
October 2004

Priestly formation begins in the seminary; it does not end there. Properly understood, is a life-long process. It is a process involving every aspect of our priestly lives and ministry. We are priests from the day of our ordination; but we grow into priesthood progressively, just as we grow into personal holiness. We grow into priesthood through our cooperation with divine grace, which culminates for us in the sacramental grace of our ordination. The Synod of Bishops on priestly formation in 1990 stressed that the foundation of all priestly formation is “contained in the dynamism of the Sacrament of Holy Orders”. We create space for God’s grace to expand into all aspects of our personality through our prayer, our celebration of the Eucharist, our prayerful reading of holy scripture, our fidelity to daily praying of the Prayer of the Church or the Liturgy of the Hours. We create this space also by our pastoral care of our people, our relations with our bishop and our fellow priests and with our lay collaborators and friends and with our own family. We enlarge that space also by our reading of theology and what used to be called our ‘spiritual reading’.

Life-long learning is now seen as essential for adequate performance in almost any or occupation. Although priesthood is a calling which is unique and which cannot be simply classed with other careers or professions, nevertheless ongoing formation is equally essential for effective exercise of priestly ministry.

Of all the qualities required in priestly ministry, and therefore also in formation for ministry, the most essential is personal holiness. All programmes and resources for priestly formation should be such as to conduce to personal holiness. This includes reading and refresher courses in theology and in sacred scripture. Theology is itself a fruit of the prayerful study of God’s self-revelation, and of the prayerful reflection on holy scripture practised by the Church across the ages: this latter is what we call tradition. Karl Rahner said that what the Church today needs above all is “theology on its knees”. Theology is the servant of faith. Theology is a search for the mind of the Church which is one with the mind of Christ.

This was the kind of theology which, through Yves Congar and Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar and others inspired the Second Vatican Council and led to one of the great periods of renewal in the Church’s history. That renewal is still in progress. That kind of theology is still active and fruitful in the Church . No other kind of theology is truly life-giving. Personal reading in theology is imperative. Sharing of such reading with one’s colleagues is helpful. Many refresher courses in theology and sacred scripture are available at diocesan and national or international level. Informal meetings of clergy, whether at vicariate or deanery level or under the auspices of one or other spiritual movement or fraternity of clergy, are very helpful.

We neglect ongoing formation to our own spiritual loss and to the spiritual loss our people. If we are not growing into greater personal assimilation of our priestly identity, then we may be growing out of priesthood in everything but name. The post-synodal document, Pastores dabo Vobis, speaks of “a sort of internal fatigue” which can set in in the life of a priest in mid-life. The document sees ongoing formation as particularly relevant to this condition. Nowadays, when priests are fewer and older, the possibility of fatigue and stress and ‘burn-out’ increases; and, consequently, the need for ongoing formation is greater than ever. On the other hand, older priests can themselves be the best “formators” of younger priests, by their own example, their own love of priesthood, and their own enthusiasm for the priestly ministry. ‘Peer-group ministry’ has its greatest opportunity among priests themselves, whether through the sacrament of reconciliation ministered to one another, or through spiritual direction or in more informal settings. This is one great field for the exercise of what has been called the “contagion of holiness” among priests themselves.

Pastores dabo Vobis concludes by placing all priestly formation under the patronage of Mary, “the human being who has responded better than any other to God’s call”. She is the one who continues to “keep vigilant   watch over the growth of vocations and priestly life in the Church”.