Position Papers - October 2017 by Position Papers

A review of Catholic affairs

St Thomas More and the Protestant Reformation by Rev. Thomas J. McGovern

Reclaiming the History of Irish Catholicism by James Bradshaw

The Symphony of the Faith: The Catechism at 25 Number 512 · October 2017 €3 · £2.50 · $4

by Fr Donncha Ó hAodha

If you would like to subscribe or donate to Position Papers (10 issues per year) just fill in the form below and return it to:

Subscription (One year, please tick the relevant box):

Position Papers a/c no. 32485030 Bank Sort code 931187

(overseas: Swift AIBKIE2D and IBAN IE16AIBK93118732485030)

Number 512 · October 2017

Editorial by Rev. Gavan Jennings

In Passing: The delusions of 21st century man (Part 1) by Michael Kirke

The Blessed State of Widowhood by Rose Goodstadt

Reclaiming the History of Irish Catholicism by James Bradshaw

The Impossibility of Neutrality – or the ideology of non-ideology by Mark Hickey

St Thomas More and the Protestant Reformation by Rev. Thomas J. McGovern

lreland and Europe by Tim O’Sullivan

The Symphony of the Faith: The Catechism at 25 by Rev. Donncha Ó hAodha Editor: Assistant editors: Subscription manager: Secretary: Design:

2 3 8 14 19 23 32 37

Rev. Gavan Jennings Michael Kirke, Pat Hanratty, Brenda McGann Liam Ó hAlmhain Dick Kearns Eblana Solutions

Contact us The editor, Position Papers, P.O. Box 4948, Rathmines, Dublin 6  email: editor@positionpapers.ie; website: www.positionpapers.ie Tel.+ 353 86065 2313  For new or renewed subscriptions contact: info@positionpapers.ie

Articles ©Position Papers, who normally will on application give permission to reproduce gratis subject only to a credit in this form: ‘Reprinted, with permission from Position Papers, Dublin’. Please note: the opinions expressed in articles do not necessarily reflect those of the editor nor of the Opus Dei Prelature of which he is a priest.

Printed by Digital Print Dynamics, Unit 14 Millennium Business Park, Cappagh Road, Ballycoolin, Dublin 11.

Editorial L

ast month I had the good fortune to visit the Holy Land. The highlight was a visit to the Sea of Galilee and the Church of the Primacy of St Peter, a Franciscan church located on the northwest shore of the lake. The church commemorates the spot where Jesus “reinstated” Peter as the head of the Apostles with a triple act of love to make up for his triple denial. It must be one of the most moving of the many moving places in the Holy Land. For me this spot underlines the “despite everything” dimension of our Catholic Faith: Christ reinstates Peter despite his falls; Peter accepts despite his awareness of his terrible moral frailty; the Pope and the Church are indefectible despite everything. This “despite everything” theology of the Church was present in an unusual custom St Josemaria Escriva had when reciting the creed. When asserting his faith in the divine origin of the Church with the words “One, holy, catholic and apostolic,” he would add the words “in spite of everything”. And when someone would ask him what he meant by this he would reply “I mean your sins and mine.” We should remember this as we witness the latest round in the “conservative versus liberal” turmoil surrounding the papacy of Pope Francis. We believe that Pope Francis is “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 882). And that is the case despite his weaknesses and human fallibility (which he has in common with his 265 predecessors). Christ’s admonished Peter to tend his sheep and feed his lambs. If the sheep were to snub Peter on account of his record of human frailty, they would snub the loving care of Christ itself.

In Passing: The delusions of 21st century man (Part 1) by Michael Kirke

here is no harm in being afraid of the Devil – except in one sense. The sense in which people are afraid to be heard talking about him, lest they be thought of as some kind of medieval freak.

cardinal’s position on the first issue – as is that of any Catholic in tune with their Church’s teaching – is as he puts it in his Wall Street Journal op-ed article with which Martin takes issue. In that article the cardinal said that while experiencing attraction to people of the same sex is not in itself sinful, samesex relations are “gravely sinful and harmful to the well-being of those who partake in them”.

Cardinal Robert Sarah engaged in debate recently with Fr James Martin S.J. on the issue of the latter’s alleged soft-peddling of Catholic teaching on sexual morality. In an article in America about the differences between the two men, it is noted, not approvingly, that Cardinal Sarah is on record saying that homosexuality and radical Islam are two major threats to the family and are “demonic”. The

“People who identify as members of the LGBT community are owed this truth in charity, especially from clergy who speak on behalf of the church about this complex

and difficult topic,” Cardinal Sarah added.

maintains it is? If a fact, what are its implications? If not, how should they argue their case against it?

He went on to praise the example Catholics who experience same-sex attraction but live according to Church teaching, citing Daniel Mattson and his book “Why I Don’t Call Myself Gay: How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace.”

Someone for whom “demonic” is just one more term of abuse, with its origins in superstition, the response will be different. For that person this is an outrageous label, the only effect of which is to make other people distrust, fear and probably hate what it has been pinned on. If those in this position have no interest in trying to understand what someone like Sarah believes to be the actual conditions of the real world, then they can only respond to him by abusing him in turn – or just ignoring him as a deluded freak.

“These men and women testify to the power of grace, the nobility and resilience of the human heart, and the truth of the church’s teaching on homosexuality,” the cardinal said. Reactions to any judgement by Sarah that “the father of lies” is responsible for the state we are in and the threat we face will broadly fit into two types. Someone who believes that the Devil is an existing creature, going about like a raging lion seeking whom he may devour – as St Peter described him – will sit down and think seriously about the implications of the statement. Is it some fictive narrative or is it a fact – as Sarah

We have here a radical cultural and religious divide of the most fundamental and dangerous kind. Denis Donoghue, Ireland’s greatest gift to the world of literary criticism, touches what may be the root of this chasm in his book Practice of Reading. It is in a passing observation in the

context of a wider theme but it speaks to our current discontents.

comments on the misreading as follows: Some critics find the thrill of Satan’s eloquence exemplified again in Byron’s Cain. The particular moment of satanism that is found irresistible comes in Book V of Paradise Lost when Satan, who has evidently been reading Stevens, rounds upon Abdiel, who has been insisting that Christ was God’s agent in the Creation. As always, Satan is a spoiled brat:

Interpretations of Milton’s Paradise Lost still divide literary critics. But one of them in particular seems to put us on a track which has a great deal to do with our fear – or lack of it – of the Devil. This is the one which reads Satan as the hero of the poem. For Donoghue this is a false reading but one, nonetheless, which has seeped into our literary culture with perverse consequences. Beguiled by this false reading, a reading in which Satan is just another metaphor for our conflicted tragic selves, they deny the existence of the real spirit which others know to be the ultimate source of all human misery.

That we were formed then say’st thou? and the work  Of secondary hands, by task transferred  From Father to his Son? Strange point and new!  Doctrine which we would know whence learnt: who saw  When this creation was? Remember’st thou  Thy making, while the Maker gave thee being?  We know no time when we were not as now;  Know none before us, self-begot, self-raised  By our own quick’ning power, when fatal course  Had circled his full orb, the

The corrupting consequence of this false reading is that, paraphrasing Donoghue, we read the world under the sign of Satan-as-tragic-hero in Paradise Lost. In doing so we miss, in a sense, the woods for the trees – the woods being Devil himself, the trees just being his beguiling works and pomps. Donoghue

birth mature  Of this our native heav’n, ethereal sons  Our puissance is our own.

angelism, the desire to transcend the human scale of experience in a rage for essence. They want to be rid of the world of fact, the opaque burdens of history and society, and to fly upon wings of their own devising. As critics, they thrive on weightlessness.

Satan’s claim to have begotten himself is nonsense. Adam deals with it adequately and silently when he tells of his own birth and addresses the sun:

“Our puissance is our own.” Now what does all that remind you of? Man as the measure of all things. Man, who can be the architect of his own nature and essence. Man, made in the image of himself and capable of moulding that image in whatever way he wants. Man the Satanic Angel.

Tell, if ye saw, how came I thus, how here? Not of myself; by some great Maker then, In goodness and in power preeminent.” But Blake, Hazlitt, and a formidable rout of critics have sent themselves into an altitudo of eloquence under the sway of Satan’s vanity. Harold Bloom is the most susceptible of these critics, and in Ruin the Sacred Truths and The Western Canon he quotes Satan’s boast as if it should be taken seriously. Bloom and his associates in this line of interpretation are the bad angels of criticism, exhibiting their own forms of

The error of these critics – apart from their misinterpretation of Milton’s own Faith – is also the great error of our age. The denial of the reality that is the Devil leaves us all at sea with the problem of evil. It also drains the concept of sin of all its meaning, giving it a meaning which makes nonsense of our sense of injustice and of the need for salvation – for we know neither that which we need to be saved from nor that which we

are saved for. Without this knowledge we have not a hope in Hell of understanding what the problem is with Islamic fundamentalism, with the abuse of our sexual nature – nor any basis on which to build the foundations for a moral life. Without this we flounder in a sea of relativism and our feeble efforts to be just more often than not end up perpetuating injustice. The delusions of Satan in Paradise Lost – in the passage quoted – are the delusions of “liberated” 21st century man.

ABOUT THE  AUTHOR

Michael Kirke is a freelance writer, a regular contributor to Position Papers, and a widely read blogger at Garvan Hill (www.garvan.wordpress.com). His views can be responded to at mjgkirke@gmail.com.

The Blessed State of Widowhood by Rose Goodstadt

“I

f I knew losing my husband would bring such pain, I would never have got married,” my friend sighed in utter desolation.

the Passion and Death of her Son. Had he lived, she would not be alone at the foot of the Cross, watching her Son in agony for three hours, breaking her heart over His cry, “Father, why have you forsaken me!” Joseph’s arms were not there to support her when she swooned. Before he died, Christ gave her St. John to look after her. But Joseph had been special. He was the faithful husband who had supported her throughout her years in being the Mother of God: in Bethlehem, in Egypt and in Nazareth. Now surely in Jerusalem, he should be standing by her side. Did Christ not want His mother to be comforted?

In the last three years, it has fallen to me to offer support to a number of newly widowed friends. In their raw pain, suffering reveals a new depth. Widows see only a void ahead of them, and all activities seem meaningless. My attempts at consolation sound hollow. I prayed for these my special friends as they were too angry or too numb to pray themselves. My thoughts turned to Our Lady. I wondered why Joseph died early. Our Lady would need his support and consolation at

Joseph’s early death must be part of God’s design for our Redemption. God does not do anything in vain. The seven swords that pierced Mary’s heart included the wound of losing Joseph and being alone at the foot of the Cross. Mary’s sorrow as a widow is intended for our Salvation.

"Below, I am imagining a conversation between Mary and Jesus about some of the events that are going to befall them, including the likely death of Joseph..... Jesus said: Mama, I want to talk to you about things soon to come so that you will be prepared and give your assent. It is about Papa. But first I want to tell you again that I am deeply grateful to Papa and you for giving me this loving home. Growing up in our deep love for each other has made me very happy. But soon we will have to lose Papa. Yes, Mama, I can see that what I am saying distresses you greatly, and you are wondering why this has to happen. You cannot imagine our family without him. He has been our constant companion and unfailing support since before I was born, since he was informed in his dream of my Father’s plan for man’s salvation. His faithful loving presence strengthened your Fiat, reassured you on the way to Bethlehem, protected you during the dangerous flight to Egypt and throughout the

God’s Mother was a widow. Widowhood thus gained a new meaning. It can never simply be an unfortunate deprivation, an accidental void, an emptiness with no hope of fulfilment, merely to be tolerated. In willing His mother to suffer the sorrow of being a widow, God has sanctified this state of life. Henceforth, all widows shall know that their pain has been borne by the Mother of God. Almost all women have to go through widowhood, and some live in this state longer than any other period in their lives. I write down the following thoughts in an attempt to gain some insight into this painful role for women.

following years. But it is time for him to leave us. He has completed his work with great devotion, and now he will go to my Fatherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s house to enjoy eternal happiness. I will miss him terribly. He was so much part of my life, carried me on his shoulder when I was small, taught me the Hebrew script so that I could read the Words of God my Father, showed me how to use the lathe and helped me to plane the first plank of wood to make you a tray, bound my hand if I carelessly allowed a nail to pierce it. Oh, a nail will pierce my hand again, and both hands too, and also my feet. And this will be done to me with great malice. Papa will not be there to bind my wounds. You look puzzled, Mama. But the time will come when you will understand these things. Soon I will have to leave home to begin my mission, to proclaim to all Israel the Good News that the Kingdom of God my Father has come. I will travel throughout Galilee, Judea, Samaria and the coastal regions, and beyond the Jordon, to save my people from

sin, to urge them to repent, to give them a new Commandment. I will reveal my Father to them. If they know me, they will know the Father for no one knows the Father except the Son. If they believe that the one true God has sent me, they will love me and I will be in them as my Father is in me. You will have to come with me to teach the people to love me. They will find it easy to love me through you, as you are the most beautiful, most tender, and most loving mother. I will choose disciples and teach them all the things they need to know to spread the Kingdom of God and they will bring this Good News to East and West and pass it down to all ages. It will take a long time for them to understand my message for the Salvation of man. Many things will take place which they will not comprehend. The poor and the sick and the oppressed and the imprisoned will love me and follow me but I will be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes. You must accompany my disciples to give them courage, a courage born of Faith. You can do this single-

mindedly, Mama, as Papa will be in heaven. My disciples need you with them to strengthen their faith, to respond to my Message with love and to follow me faithfully even without understanding. This will be true for all generations to come: you shall lead them to me. The time will come when I have to suffer greatly. Your Son will be handed over to sinners and will be mocked and insulted and spat upon, “despised and rejected by men” and will be killed. Most of my followers will abandon me, and one of my disciples will betray me. Grief will fill the hearts of my disciples, and their Faith will be shaken. They will be scattered and dispersed, like sheep without a shepherd. It is my Father’s wish that you will there to suffer with me for the salvation of my people. Papa heard what Simeon told you, that your heart will be pierced with seven swords. No, Mama, do not be afraid. Do not look so bewildered and do not cry. Even though Papa will not be by your side, you will not be alone. My Father will give you enough

strength to follow me to the end of the road, to my final Supreme Sacrifice. Yes, Mama, I am very frightened too and my soul will be “sorrowful unto death”. But I must do my Father’s will, and you will be there to do it together with me. If I feel totally crushed and unable to continue, I will turn to look at you. When our eyes meet, I will get new strength to struggle on, in obedience to my Father. It is best that Papa should go to heaven first and that you walk the Way with me alone, till my work is accomplished, mankind is redeemed and my Father is glorified. Before I die, oh, please do not cry, Mama, but listen carefully to my words, as my heart is also breaking. As I was just saying, before I die, I will make you the Mother of all my people, all those who will believe that my Father has sent me to bring all men to Him. They will be your children, as I am your Son. Can you see that you will first have to let go of Papa so that you can give your whole heart, and your whole being to the Church which will be born of my Blood as I

die? My Church will be my new Mystical Body, and you will be her mother.

the time comes, you will see all these things fulfilled.

After my Death, my disciples will all be frightened and confused and even in despair. But Mama you will not waver as our two hearts have always beaten as one. You will watch over my infant Church and nurture her as you once nursed me. But you will not have to wait in grief and fright very long as I will return to my Father in heaven and ask Him to send my Spirit to comfort and strengthen and guide my Church, for all eternity. The gates of hell shall not prevail against her. You will wait with my disciples for the coming of the Spirit and see them filled with the Fire of Love. You will see them perform great things in my name. As you are my own Mother forever, you will be the Mother of my Church till the end of time. What I am saying to you now will take time for you to comprehend fully. But I know you will keep my words in your heart and ponder over them as you so often do, with total trust in my Father. When

At this difficult time during my Mission, my Passion and my Death, you will want Papa there to comfort you. You wonder why my Father takes from you this precious human support at your hour of need. Your willingness to surrender to my Fatherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s will, and to suffer for my sake, will bring down special graces to all widows in all times to come. For they too will wonder why. But they will remember that I, the only Son of their Eternal God, has asked this sacrifice of His own beloved Mother. So, they will place their trust in my Fatherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s love and Wisdom. And in their darkness and emptiness, in their sorrow and uncertainty and confusion, they will run to you for comfort and refuge. For the sake of their filial trust in you, I will grant all widows, through you my brave Mama, special courage to bear their loss with great fortitude. They will unite their sorrow with yours. In your silent tears, I will hear their cry. For the sake of your pain and desolation, I will give them repose in green pastures and

revive their drooping spirits. I will fill their emptiness with my Divine Love. I will be their Light in their darkness. In my love, their lives will be renewed and be fruitful.

whether virgin or mother, will see themselves in you and call you blessed. And now, they will also honour you as the Blessed Widow. You are the “Perfection and fullness of all womankind”.

My dear Mama, I am asking you to suffer this additional sorrow to give widows the true meaning of their new state in life, which for many of them could stretch over many long years. You will be their source of strength and the channel of special graces. Your loss of Papa is my Father’s way to sanctify these women.

When Jesus had finished, Mary looked at her Son and asked softly, “Where is Papa?” And Jesus answered very gently, “He felt particularly tired this afternoon and I have helped him to lie down in bed.” Mary understood and walked with her Son to the bedside of Joseph. Upon the two united sorrowful hearts, a deep peace descends. And Mary whispered, “Let it be done according to thy Will”. And Joseph became the patron of a good death.

Mama, you are dearest to my heart. You are the ever pure maiden, the Ever Virgin. And you are my Mother. Women,

ABOUT THE  AUTHOR

Rose Yin-chee Goodstadt was a pioneer in developing Hong Kong’s social services, especially those serving the elderly and disabled. Currently, she focuses on Ireland’s “new” Catholics from China and their spiritual wellbeing.

Reclaiming the History of Irish Catholicism by James Bradshaw

“H

e who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984.

increasingly frowned upon. Church attendance has fallen dramatically, and religious vocations remain alarmingly low.

Every so often, a story about Ireland appears in the international media which makes reference to Ireland’s transformation from a conservative Catholic nation into something quite different. Indeed, in the space of about two generations, Ireland has gone from being arguably the most religiously observant nation in the Western world – a religiosity which went hand-in-hand with an unswerving conservatism – to its current state. There is now little sign of religion in public life, where any display of faith is

What is most significant can be observed within the overall zeitgeist: the dominant ideas within the political, media and cultural discourse. ‘Catholic Ireland’ now signifies a backward and wretched past existence, the horrors of which can only be imagined, but which are slowly being rectified as we continue on board the unstoppable train of social progress. All that is new is desirable; anything that connects us to the past is to be scorned. Whereas many successful political movements internationally derive strength by

appealing to a conservative instinct to preserve tradition, Ireland’s political establishment is resolutely on the side of ‘progress’ – whatever that is taken to mean on a given day. For those tasked with reviving and promoting a Burkean conservatism, this popular aversion to Ireland’s past makes building a successful movement difficult. The more serious problem however is that this prevailing historical narrative is based on an extremely distorted version of history which bears almost no relation at all to what really occurred. I have no interest in parroting such banal phrases as the ‘land of saints and scholars,’ I merely wish to record that since the conversion of the Irish to Christianity 1,600 years ago by St. Patrick and others, the Church has been the one constant feature in Irish life, the greatest source of community after family, and by far the greatest provider of charity, healthcare and education. Furthermore, even a cursory study of Irish history will show

that the faith of St. Patrick – passed down in an unbroken line from generation to generation – played an enormous role in preserving Irish nationhood. Of the few nations in these islands, only Ireland could not be successfully integrated into the Protestant United Kingdom, and that sense of difference inspired many to struggle to gain their nation’s freedom. The Proclamation speaks of the Irish people “six times during the past three hundred years” asserting their “right to national freedom and sovereignty”, but in truth this was a gross simplification and our history proves it. For instance, very few people remember historical chapters such as the Confederation of Kilkenny giving its allegiance to the embattled English King Charles I in order to protect Catholicism, or the tens of thousands of Irishmen who later fought to restore King James II to the English throne, as James’s commitment to his Catholic faith guaranteed their freedom to practise theirs. Or the times when our harsh Penal times were ended by our nation’s ‘Liberator’

Daniel O’Connell. And even though he did not free Ireland from British rule, it was O’Connell’s role in ending antiCatholic legislation which earned him his famous title.

which Ireland finally began to emerge from the Dark Ages.

The dearth of historical knowledge on the part of recent Irish generations is shown clearly by the demonstrably false view of history which is come to be believed in by many. Upon gaining independence, the narrative goes, education and healthcare in Ireland were handed over – this term is ubiquitous in media and political discourse – to the Church, who went on to claim complete power and commit gross crimes, after

No commentator ever gives a date for the aforementioned ‘handover’ to the Church, for the understandable reason that none exists. Catholic education, healthcare and charity in Ireland do not merely predate the coming of independence; they predate the coming of the Vikings. After independence, our statesmen were entrusted with the administration of a social service system which depended to a great degree on the combined labour of thousands of priests, brothers and nuns, and they had little difficulty in choosing to continue with it. It is debatable whether such a close attachment

of the Church to the state was a good thing – as a Catholic libertarian, I think it wasn’t – but for the state, it certainly provided enormous benefits which we rarely hear about and are instead dwarfed by the social benefits which have long been derived from the various social support initiatives which are in place in every parish in the land. Older Irish people know this. For millennials however, that firsthand knowledge often is not there, for the reason that the numbers of religious had already fallen considerably by their formative years. Younger people have less historical knowledge by definition, and with the media and academic landscape dominated by those with leftist leanings, there is little hope for a fair reappraisal of Irish history any time soon. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, the process of revisionism is constant, and deliberately undertaken for the benefit of the establishment and the furtherance of the policies which they wish to pursue. Witness the recent furore over a potential Catholic ethos at the new National Maternity Hospital,

and the ghoulish spectre of killer nuns which was widely postulated. This ensures that the popular mindset will be tilted against any instincts towards traditionalism, and towards any idea – no matter how half-baked – which appears progressive. Burke wrote that society is a contract between the dead, the living and those who are to be born. Whole-scale ignorance of the past among living Irishmen and women renders that contract null and void, and could soon have an indirect yet devastating impact on the generations yet unborn, also. In the hallway leading in to my parish church, a board bearing an inscription hangs overhead. The inscription urges that the reader pray for the soul of: “The Rev. Michael Harney / Whose mortal remains lie beneath / He was a zealous minister in the vineyard of Christ / Pious and charitable to the poor… / He died of fever on / The 2nd of March AD 1847.”

Fr. Harney was just one of the many priests and nuns who died during the Famine of the diseases which they contracted while ministering to the sick and dying, a feat which the (strongly anticlerical) historian Tim Pat Coogan pointed to as being worthy of remembrance in his book on that period. The littleread inscription is emblematic of how Ireland has forgotten so much of its past, or has been made to forget.

protect that which matters, our first step must be to learn what it is we seek to defend, and why others did so before us. The history of Irish Catholicism needs to be reclaimed; for the sake of truth, and the memory of Fr. Harney and the countless others, living and dead.

If conservatism stands for anything, it stands for the remembrance of those things that matter, and the valuing of the ties that bind the fleeting generations of a timeless humanity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the greatest of which is our history. If we must fight to

ABOUT THEâ&#x20AC;¨ AUTHOR

James Bradshaw is public policy graduate, who works for a consulting firm in Dublin. The Burkean Journal is a recently established online political and cultural magazine run by students from Trinity College Dublin that promotes conservative thought and ideas. This article is reproduced with the permission of the editor. www.burkeanjournal.com

The Impossibility of Neutrality – or the ideology of non-ideology by Mark Hickey

religiously-identified school accommodates the secular. The same cannot be said of a secular school system with regard to religion. “They are inclusive and welcoming. They are nonjudgmental of people’s beliefs” said a mother with whom I was discussing types of schooling recently. She was an avid proponent of Ireland’s secularist Educate Together movement and their new school slated to be opened in an affluent Dublin district. The secularization of society in Ireland today, along with a perceived oversubscription of schools (and the admission criteria for dealing with it) has prompted a demand

for a secular teaching programme devoid of religious identity. According to a Department of Education survey, there are currently around 3,000 primary schools in Ireland. Of these only a small minority are actually over-subscribed. The building of a few more schools would alleviate the over subscription problem. It is difficult not to conclude that many are using this issue as a pretext to push for a divestment of the Catholic Diocese from school ownership and a removal of the so-called “baptism barrier”. Theoretically the management authorities in Catholic schools currently can give preference to children baptised in the Christian

faith over non-baptised children when there are not enough places in a school to accommodate all applicants. In reality, this excess of demand over supply occurs in only 48 of the 3000 schools. Of those, 16 are located in the South Dublin area. Nevertheless, the secular movement is pushing for a transformation of the entire system. This seems to be promoted without taking cognizance of a democratic desire for the status quo to be preserved. In most cases where the divestment from ecclesiastical control of parish schools is put to the people (where there is a putative need for such), parents indicate that they want the school to remain under Catholic patronage. Clearly, when a school is oversubscribed, some criteria must be invoked to reach a decision on who should get first preference. This may be based on whether there is a sibling in the school or whether the child lives within the catchment area – or on religious belief if it is a school with faith education as one of its objectives. But you don’t hear about the ‘sibling barrier’ or the ‘geography

barrier’. Is this because many see religion as something about as arbitrary and meaningful as a town-land border? They cry discrimination (unjust discrimination, presumably) when a small number are refused on denominational grounds, but not when the greater number are refused on grounds of geography. A few vociferous opponents of faith schools want local divestment and assume everyone else should want it too. The nearest school to me is under the patronage of the Church of Ireland (protestant) and I am not at all alone in accepting that their ‘Anglicans first’ policy is valid and just when the pressure of over-subscription bears down. Recent government regulations recognise this and have conceded this right to them. The fact that there are fewer protestant schools in Ireland schools does nothing to change the nature of the argument against religious admissions policy. It is merely a matter of degree. Why should rights granted to the followers of one faith be denied to the followers of another?

The reality is that if secular parents seek to send their child to a Church of Ireland school or to a Catholic school, they will not, under normal circumstances be turned away and their child will be exempt from religious studies. This was the case with a friend of mine who attended the local national Catholic school with me. His parents were of the Ba’hai faith and he and his family were sojourning in Ireland for the school year. There is a modern notion that we should have a secular school system because “it’s high time we had one”, that it is the way of all modern democracies. “We are after all living in the year 2017”, they might say. It’s as if what we ought to be doing is determined simply by looking at the calendar. Many say that the teaching of religion is a private matter and that the teaching of religion should be confined to the home. However, secularism – an ideology which has the marginalization or elimination of religion as a core objective consists of a worldview with its own set of values, including a view on religion. Should not this

belief system be confined to the personal and private spheres as well? There is no such thing as a neutral education. The questions at the heart of man’s existence and on the lips of every child must be answered, at least tacitly. Religion, or whatever replaces it, is imprinted upon the school’s identity, rules and culture. When secularists take over a school their convictions replace whatever was there before. Where living and thinking human beings are involved there is no such thing as an ideological vacuum chamber. The secularisation of a public school system would make religion inaccessible to the ones who would probably need it most – those with no religion taught at home. In the United States, where I lived for a number of years - the secularisation of the public schools has been going on since the early 20th Century. The parochial school system is now all but extinct. What is in its place is an ailing and underperforming secular public school system, representing the only option for many. Only the wealthy can send their children to highly sought-

after and expensive religiouslyaffiliated schools. As modern and progressive as the Unites States is, it would appear that many who have money use it to fund their children’s education in the timeless or at least timetested values of religious education. An acquaintance of mine recounted that one of his teachers halted the practice of saying a prayer at the beginning of class. He recalled one girl rising and saying the prayer automatically anyway. The teacher’s response to this was that such “automaton-like behaviour” was the reason he chose to stop saying the prayer.

know that their school takes faith seriously. We cooperate with God when we give some room for his grace to work in. School authorities with moral and religious convictions will try to aim high and not to the lower common denominators. We can only hope that Ireland is not heading towards a secularist world where schools will be named after some wealthy and generous humanitarian who just points horizontally to his fellow men as exemplars of ideals, but after a saint who also points beyond – to Heaven and to God.

The argument was false and failed to see and understand the nature of prayer. Habit does not kill prayer. In fact it provides a vehicle which allows prayer to happen. If the practice of habitual prayer is in place in a school we can hope that those from a home where religious faith is vibrant will pray with fervour and conviction. Those who are from homes with a weaker faith will at least see the example of the stronger and

ABOUT THE  AUTHOR

After graduating from UCC in physics and applied mathematics, Mark Hickey undertook postgraduate studies in physics at Cambridge and went on to work in Leeds, MIT and the University of Massachusetts. With a young family to support, he exchanged the atoms and electrons for the bits and bytes of the software industry. He is married to Karen and is father of three.

St Thomas More and the Protestant Reformation by Rev. Thomas J. McGovern

hen Martin Luther was promoting the destruction of the Catholic faith in Germany, there was one man in England who had the foresight to see the long term consequences of this shattering event. His name was Thomas More (1478 -1535). He came from a deeply Christian family, was educated at Oxford university, and subsequently studied law in London at Lincolnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inn. His formation in the practices of Christian piety had not been neglected either at school or in the university. His study of the classics at Oxford prepared him for his subsequent studies of Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, which he later used effectively in defence of

the Church. At twenty three he lectured on St Augustineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s De Civitate Dei to the intelligentsia of London. With his brilliant mind and his legal experience he received rapid promotions and honours. At some stage More came to the notice of King Henry VIII and was appointed to his council. Henry used him for several diplomatic missions abroad in the course of which he was brought into contact with the centres of men of power in Europe. More had an extraordinary ability with languages and was a brilliant ex tempore speaker. In 1529 Henry made him Lord Chancellor, an appointment which gave him authority second only to the king. Although Henry had given

tangible and repeated expression of his confidence in him, More had no illusions about the man he was dealing with. As he confided to his son-in-law William Roper one day as they walked along the Thames, ‘If my head could win him a castle in France, it would not fail to go’1. More, in his different secular appointments, saw that for him fulfilment of his civic responsibilities meant that he should take an active part in state affairs despite any reluctance he might have in that direction. He adopted a positive approach to his assignment as Lord Chancellor, a philosophy to which he had already given expression in his Utopia published some years previously. In discussing how wise councils can be brought to bear on the actions of princes, he comments: ‘You must labour to guide affairs by indirection, so that you may handle everything as well as you are able, and what you cannot turn to good, you may at least 1T

succeed in rendering least bad. In stormy weather you must not abandon ship merely because you are unable to control the winds.’2 He knew the men around Henry, he was fully aware of the inherent limitations of his situation, and thus his expectations were tempered with a realism which he had already articulated in his inimitable laconic manner: ‘For all things could not possibly go well unless all men were good, and that I do not expect to see as yet for some few years’. In July 1520 Martin Luther was excommunicated and in May 1521 his books were ceremoniously burned in London. Later in the same year Henry finished a book of his own which attacked Luther’s doctrines and defended the seven sacraments of the Church. For this effort he was rewarded by the Pope with the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith), a title which is still sported on English coins with the letters F.D.

E Bridgett, Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More (London 1891), p. 59..

Rudolf B.Gottfried, ‘A Conscience Undeflowered’ in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More (Connecticut, 1977) , p. 256. 2

Luther fell into a fury when he read the king’s book. His reply to Henry is regarded as being one of the most scurrilous productions ever written and without parallel in literature. He called Henry, to mention a few of the less offensive epithets, a louse, an ass, a mad fool with a frothy mouth and a whorish face, a thomist pig!3 Since it was beneath Henry’s dignity to reply to such a scabrous attack on his person, More was asked to take up his pen in defence of the king. This he did under the assumed name of William Rosseus. Writing in Latin he deftly demolished Luther’s argumentation and showed that he could also match Luther’s language when it suited his case. 4 What was happening in Germany was clear evidence to More of the danger of the Lutheran heresy and of what might happen if Luther’s teaching became generally accepted. Within two

years of writing his book against Luther (1523) the bloody peasants’ war had fulfilled the worst of his fears for Germany. The fact that Henry’s marriage to Catherine had produced no male heir was a concern for Henry from the point of view of the future of the Tudor line. Catherine had first been married to Henry’s older brother, Arthur, who died shortly afterwards. At some stage Henry found a text in the Old Testament (Lev 20:21) which said that a man who takes his brother’s wife shall be cursed by God and remain childless. This suggested to him that his marriage to Catherine was invalid. So Henry set up commissions of theologians and canon lawyers to study the matter. The result was to find in the king’s favour. When Henry first asked More for an opinion on the marriage question he showed him the passage from Lev 20;21. More studied this and other scriptural

Bridgett, Life, 210.

Thomas More, Responsio ad Lutherum, Vol 5 of the Complete Works of St Thomas More; Yale University Press, 1969; Bridgett, Life, p. 210. 4

references in the light of the interpretation of the Fathers. He came back to Henry with several references from St Jerome, St Augustine and other patristic sources which were not at all to the king’s liking. But because of his respect at that time for More’s erudition and intellectual honesty he took it in good part with a view to discussing it further with More. Henry meanwhile petitioned Rome for an annulment but it was refused. About this time Henry became enamoured of Anne Boleyn, one of Catherine’s ladies-in-waiting. It was in this context that he decided to reject papal authority and to make himself head of the Church in England. In this way he could obtain the annulment which he so desired and be free to marry Anne. In due course parliament passed the Act of Supremacy which denied the universal authority of the Pope and which included the taking of an oath to this effect. Archbishop Cranmer of Canterbury, a creature of Henry VIII, declared the marriage with Catherine null and void, and a few days later

confirmed the marriage of Anne and Henry to be valid. More refused to take the oath, although all the nobility of England and all the hierarchy, with the exception of Bishop John Fisher, under pressure from the king, succumbed to Henry’s wish. Henry pointed out to the bishops that they could not have divided loyalties - they must opt for him or the Pope. On 15 May 1532 the hierarchy made their complete surrender to Henry. Next day More resigned his office as Lord Chancellor. Because of More’s prestige and the high esteem in which he was held by the people, Henry was prepared to use all the means at his disposal to persuade More to change his mind about the papal issue. More was imprisoned and subjected to intense interrogation by the King’s Council, to which he responded in masterly fashion. In the end he concluded, ‘I am the king’s true, faithful subject and daily bedesman, and pray for his highness, and all his, and all the realm. I do nobody no harm, I say none harm, I think no harm, but wish everybody good.

And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, in good faith I long not to live.’5 To try to appreciate more fully the significance of the stand taken by More in defending the supremacy of the See of Peter, it is useful to consider the human and material circumstances of the papacy in the first third of the sixteenth century.. More lived under the worst of the renaissance popes – Alexander VI ruled and died within More’s lifetime. The papacy he knew was very different from the papacy we know and respect today. He died for a papacy that, as far as men could see, was little else than a small Italian princedom ruled by some of the least reputable of the renaissance princes. This was the marvel of More’s faith. His defence of the Church and the primacy of the Pope reflects those qualities of loyalty, magnanimity and erudition which were so characteristic of everything he wrote. More

showed himself to be a true reformer, a man of patience. ‘It is far more to be wished’ he said, ‘that God may raise up such Popes as befit the Christian cause and the dignity of the office: men who despising riches and honours, will care only for heaven, will promote piety in people, will bring about peace, and exercise the authority they have been given by God… With one or two such popes the Christian world would soon perceive how much preferable it is that the papacy should be reformed rather than abrogated’.6 Thomas More was not blind to the papal scandals of the time, so his longing for ‘popes as befit the Christian cause’ came from a sorrowing heart, but that in no way shook his faith in the authority they had received from God: ‘And I doubt not that long ago Christ would have looked down on the pastor of his flock if the Christian people had chosen to pray for the welfare of their Father than to persecute him, to

Thomas Stapleton, Sir Thomas More, (London 1966), p. 166.

E.E. Reynolds, St Thomas More (London 1953), p. 167.

hide the shame of their Father than to laugh at it’.7 More’s exquisite charity and loyalty to the Pope is surely a challenge to Catholics of every generation.

‘friar out of a nun’s bed to preach it’.8

In 1528 when his friend Bishop Tunstall of London commissioned him to write refutations of heretical works which were being distributed in England, he was having recourse to a man who was eminently well qualified to do so. More used the Fathers to witness to a great many beliefs and practices which the reformers rejected e.g. the doctrine of purgatory, the perpetual virginity of our Lady, etc. He used the Fathers too to reinforce his condemnation of Luther’s immoral situation. With Luther’s marriage to the nun Katherine von Bora ever before his eyes, of one thing More was certain: if God were to make a revelation against his Catholic Church, he would not send a

Bridgett, Life, p, 219.

R G Marius, op. cit., p. 413.

From 1528 until 1534 when he was lodged in the Tower of London, More was to stand out in England as the champion of the Church, and in doing so was to write nearly a million words in its defence.9 Defending the Church’s position, More does not demy, here any more than elsewhere, the need for a reformation of morals both among the clergy and the laity. In a climate of violent anticlericalism he makes a plea for objectivity in regard to the clergy. His view was that poor standards - human, intellectual and moral – among the clergy would be half solved if bishops would be much more careful and selective in their choice of candidates for the priesthood. There were, he thought, too many bishops and priests engaged in too many activities which were definitely not priestly. 10

‘The King’s Good Servant’: Commemorative Exhibition Catalogue (London 1977) p. 73.

Christopher Hollis, Thomas More (London 1934), p. 186.

What was More’s attitude to heretics? In his epitaph More stated that he had been ‘troublesome to thieves, murderers, and heretics.’11 Writing in his Apology in 1533 after his resignation from the chancellorship, More gives us a further insight into the policy he adopted towards heretics while he was in office: ‘As touching heretics, I hate that vice of theirs and not their persons, and very fain would I that the one were destroyed and the other saved’.12 He was intransigent with regard to doctrine but showed the utmost consideration and tolerance in his personal dealings with people. To More, however, the word heresy conveyed a very different meaning from what it does today. It was the private choice, by an individual, of a doctrine contradictory to that held to be clearly revealed by the divinely

guided society to which that individual belonged.13 And to understand this attitude it must be appreciated that at the time of More there was one fundamental fact which is at the root of the different attitudes then and now. ‘There was One Church, and not even the early reformers could imagine a divided Church, still less a large number of separated congregations each claiming to be heir to the True Church.’14 With his exceptional political foresight More realized, as few other men did, how chaos and religious wars would follow if the unity of the medieval Church was shattered. More’s detailed knowledge of sacred Scripture was another of his powerful weapons in the battle against heresy.15 He eagerly upheld the study of sacred Scripture as the most fruitful occupation of the theologian. He had studied it

R. W. Chambers, Thomas More (London 1935), p. 286.

Hollis, op. cit, p.145

Bridgett, Life, p. 261.

Reynolds, op. cit., p. 208.

Hollis, op. cit., p. 197.

from boyhood and he was engaged in a commentary on the Passion when his books and writing materials were taken from him in the Tower. On the other hand his appreciation of Scripture made him realize that in the hands of the unlettered it could be a dangerous instrument. ‘Holy Scripture’, he wrote, ‘is the highest and best learning that any man can have, if one takes the right way in the learning. It is… so marvellously well tempered that a mouse can wade therein and an elephant be drowned therein.’16 He emphasised the need to read Scripture in the light of faith, with the Fathers as guide. This was More’s reply to the Sola Scriptura doctrine of Luther. The examples of the Reformers with their innumerable schisms was proof enough to More of the dangers of reliance on Scripture alone. The hierarchy were not unmindful or unappreciative of More’s efforts, and it was as an 16

Bridgett, Life., p. 307.

Ibid., p. 264.

Hollis, op. cit., p. 236.

expression of this that the bishops of England arranged for a collection to be made as a reward for his labours in combating heresy. However More gracefully refused the offer and said he was happy to lose even more nights’ sleep in this endeavour.17 When More refused to swear to the oath which would recognise Henry as head of the Church in England, he was imprisoned in the Tower. Several efforts were made to get him to subscribe to the oath. When Henry’s lackeys found that civility could not achieve its purpose they turned to threats. More answered the insult that he should barter his conscience for mere cravenness, in a proud and splendid phrase. ‘My lords’ he said, ‘these terrors be arguments for children and not for me.’18 In the end when he was brought to trial in Westminster Hall on July 1st, 1535, the government was able to secure a conviction

on the charge of treason on the basis of perjured evidence. He was executed on Tower Hill on July 6th and was able to die, in his last words from the scaffold, ‘the king’s good servant but God’s first’. After More had been asked whether he had anything to say against his sentence - hanging, drawing and quartering,19- he replied that not only could the supremacy in the Church not belong to layman, but that ‘it rightfully belonged to the See of Peter, as granted personally by Our Lord when on earth to St Peter and his successors’. 20 The full significance of this assertion to the background of Henry’s treachery, the capitulation of the hierarchy, the venality of the judges, the perjury of the witnesses, and the intimidation of the jury was captured powerfully by Robert Bolt in his magnificent trial scene in the play and film A Man for All Seasons. It was the point towards which 19

Henry commuted this sentence to beheading.

Bridgett, Life, p. 219.

More’s whole life seemed directed, and he carried it through with a strength and nobility which must have few parallels in history. ‘It will remain’, as Chesterton remarked,’ ‘a permanent and determining fact, a hinge of history, that he saw, in the first hour of madness, that Rome and Reason are one’.21

ABOUT THE  AUTHOR

Rev. Thomas J. McGovern, who is a priest of the Opus Dei prelature, works in Dublin. He holds a doctorate in theology from the University of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain. He is the author of Priestly Celibacy Today; Priestly Identity: A study in the Theology of Priesthood, and Generations of Priests.

G K Chesterton, ‘A Turning Point in History’, in The Fame of Blessed Thomas More, p. 64. 21

lreland and Europe by Tim O’Sullivan

n early 1968, concerns grew in the Soviet Union about the liberalisation of the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia under Alexander Dubcek. Increasingly strident comments were made in Moscow and elsewhere in Eastern Europe about antiSoviet and anti-socialist tendencies, bourgeois ideology and counter-revolution. Eventually, in late August, and in spite of valiant attempts at compromise from Dubcek, Warsaw Pact tanks moved into Prague and the ‘Prague Spring’, with its hopes of peaceful reform of Soviet-bloc Communism, was snuffed out. There is a world of difference between Czechoslovak

dissidence in the late 1960s and British dissidence in relation to the EU. No tanks from Brussels are poised to roll into London and citizens within the European Union, unlike those in 1960s Eastern Europe, enjoy basic if increasingly challenged democratic and religious freedoms. Nevertheless, there may be a parallel to be drawn in the stridency of the language used in both cases, in relation to countries looking for a looser arrangement with, or a break from, an international union. For anti-socialist tendencies and counter-revolution in Prague, read ‘ the darker energies of resentment and xenophobia’ in London or ‘transparently absurd’

propaganda or ‘visceral and irrational’ British attitudes, to quote a few Irish commentators. Our commentators and politicians generally echo highly critical EU perspectives on Brexit but give limited attention to the problems and issues which have fuelled dissatisfaction with the EU, in Britain and elsewhere. Yet there have been growing concerns in many countries about the modus operandi of, and democratic deficit in, the European Union. Even in our own country, where we meekly accepted a re-run of two EU referendums, there has been some criticism of the pressure applied by the European Central Bank on the Irish Government to take the bailout route in 2010 and of the enormous debt burden then placed on the Irish State. Greek drama In his memoir earlier this year about the Greek financial crisis of 2015, (Adults in the Room. My Battle with Europe’s Deep

Establishment, The Bodley Head, London), Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek Finance Minister at the time, offers a more robust criticism of European institutions. He paints a troubling picture of EU power-brokers who were disdainful of the democratic mandate received by a newly elected Greek government, and unwilling to work towards meaningful debt restructuring of a country whose citizens were suffering great hardships as a result of the economic crisis. He also describes the dysfunctional complexity of EU decisionmaking, or what he calls the ‘eurozone runaround’. For example, any attempt, he writes, to enter into a meaningful discussion with the highly influential German Finance Minister ‘was blocked by his insistence that I go to the institutions instead. Once there, I soon discovered that the institutions were also divided’. He concludes: ‘The runaround is a systemic means of control over governments of countries whose banking and/or public sectors are financially stressed’ (p. 308).

Varoufakis was a member of the radical socialist Syriza Government, whose politics would have limited appeal to this writer. However, he also comes across as a patriot and humanitarian who was attempting to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;rescue my country from the debt bondage and crushing austerity being imposed on it by its European neighbours and the IMFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (p. 7). His account of labyrinthine EU processes also gives some sense of the huge difficulty the British necessarily face in disentangling themselves from such a large and complex union, in which they have been embedded for over forty years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a difficulty which critical Irish commentary about British approaches seldom seems to acknowledge. Voluntary membership As our opinion-formers sometimes forget, UK membership of the European Union - unlike Czechoslovak membership of the Warsaw Pact after the Second World War - is voluntary. Brexit may or may not be a wise decision

and will have to stand the test of time. Given that a majority in Northern Ireland voted against it, it could well make Irish unity more likely in the long term. It will certainly complicate our lives considerably in Ireland in the years ahead, particularly in border regions. Nevertheless, the principle of subsidiarity and the voluntary nature of the European Union both imply that any decision to leave the EU is a sovereign, national decision, which appropriately belongs to the British or any other nation within the union. The European Union is formally committed to subsidiarity, for example, in the Maastricht Treaty, but the often angry reaction in Brussels to Brexit, and accompanying warnings of punitive Brexit financial settlements, would suggest that its implications are not fully understood. Given our painful history, we in Ireland are understandably wary of British nationalism. Nevertheless, we would surely be better advised to respect the democratic decision taken by the British people in 2016 and

seek to adapt as skilfully as possible to this new reality rather than to be continually scolding about our errant next door neighbours. Christians can legitimately take different views on the future of the European Union, the relationship between the Union and its members and their respective powers. These are all issues which we could profitably debate more fully in Ireland. However, current debate in Ireland on the EU and its future, as on many other topics, tends to lack breadth and diversity. The Pope’s address One useful source for reflection is Pope Francis’s powerful address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in November 2014, which highlighted the need to respect national diversity within the Union: All authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up: in this sense it is like a family,

which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself. I consider Europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of the institutions of the Union when these latter are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people… Since the 1950s, the Catholic Church has been broadly supportive of European integration while expressing warnings from time to time about its direction. In his 2014 address, Pope Francis praised ‘the firm conviction of the founders of the European Union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent’. However, he also spoke about ‘a general impression of weariness and ageing…of a Europe which is no longer fertile and vibrant. As a result, the great ideas which once inspired Europe seem to have lost their

attraction, only to be replaced by the bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions’. The Pope concluded his address by saying that ‘the time has come to work together in building a Europe which revolves not around the economy, but around the sacredness of the human person, around inalienable values. In building a Europe which courageously embraces its past and confidently looks to its future in order fully to experience the hope of its present’.

ABOUT THE  AUTHOR

Tim O’Sullivan is a regular contributor to Position Papers.

The Symphony of the Faith: The Catechism at 25 by Fr Donncha Ó hAodha Catholic harmony The Oxford Dictionary of Music informs us that while the term “symphony” has varied in meaning over the centuries, “as the word is now generally used, it means a large-scale orchestral composition […] reserved by composers for their most weighty and profound orchestral thoughts.”1 October 11, 2017 sees the twenty-fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] which St John Paul II presented to the Church as a document which “truly expresses what could be called

the ‘symphony’ of the faith”.2 As the most comprehensive and richest explanation of the Catholic faith ever written, it is an immense gift to the Church and to the world. The Dictionary of Music points out that the word “symphony” comes from the Greek, meaning “a sounding together”. The harmonious interplay of scripture, the Fathers, liturgy, magisterium and saints in the CCC is truly symphonic. The text is enriched by all the liturgical and spiritual traditions of the Church and framed in the teaching of the Second Vatican

M. Kennedy, The Oxford Dictionary of Music, OUP, 1985, p. 712.

St John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, 11 October 1992, 1.

Council with its apostolic thrust to proclaim the fullness of the Faith anew to one and all. It is in fact the catechism of the Council. St John Paul II saw the CCC as faithfully echoing “the symphony of the Faith” because it contains “the harmony of so many voices”.3 In fact the process of the formation of the Catechism engaged the entire Church in a truly catholic and collegial way. All the world’s bishops and Catholic universities were consulted. There were 938 replies, offering over 24,000 suggestions. These suggestions were examined, evaluated and included in the text where possible. Organic unity, in four parts A symphony is normally in four movements the Dictionary of Music tells us. The CCC too has its four “movements”. It adopts the four classical catechetical “pillars” which had previously provided the framework for the Catechism of the Council of Trent (also called the Roman 3

Catechism), the only other major universal catechism produced in the history of the Church. The four pillars of the Catechism are its four “Parts”, namely: (i) The Profession of Faith (Creed), (ii) The Celebration of the Christian Mystery (Liturgy), (iii) Life in Christ (Morality), and (iv) Christian Prayer. It is an organic movement from lex credendi to lex celebrandi, to lex vivendi, to lex orandi. Part One teaches the articles of the Creed; Part Two how we celebrate these mysteries in the liturgy; Part Three, how this faith known and celebrated is lived in daily life, and Part Four, how we nourish this faith by prayer as individuals and as members of the communion of the Church. As Cardinal Gerhard Müller has pointed out: “The Catechism essentially represents a statement of Catholic culture expressed in the same structure as the New Testament statement of the culture of the early Church – ‘And they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of

Ibid.

bread and the prayers’ (Acts 2:42)”.4

symphony of Christ, the Beauty of all beauties, bringing together many voices and scales, instruments and rhythms, orchestrated in the unity of the believing Church. The words of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn apply perfectly to the CCC of which he was the general editor: “Catechesis is not so much an exercise in teaching topics, but rather an orderly and systematic initiation into the revelation that God has given of himself to humanity in Christ”.6

The CCC is outstanding for its organic presentation of the Catholic Faith. Like a good symphony, each part is essential and enriches the others and all together they reveal the one central drama being expressed. As some experts in the teaching of the CCC have put it, “the Catechism has given us the opportunity to understand the wholeness of the Faith once more”.5 In music the symphony genre is “reserved by composers for their most weighty and profound orchestral thoughts.” It is not just a “weighty and profound thought” that forms the organic unity of the CCC, but rather the one saving Word, Jesus Christ. The CCC is a magnificent

The Christocentrism of the CCC is reflected in its logo. This is an image taken from a Christian tombstone in the catacombs of Domitilla in Rome dating from the end of the third century. It depicts Christ, the Good Shepherd who leads and protects his faithful (the lamb) by his authority (the staff),

Cardinal G. Müller, “Catholic Education: Its nature, its distinctiveness, its challenges”, Launch of the St Andrew’s Foundation for Catholic Teacher Education, University of Glasgow, Scotland, 15 June 2013, in L. Franchi, Shared Mission. Religious Education in the Catholic Tradition, Scepter, London 2016, p. 158. 5

Pierre de Cointet, Barbara Morgan and Petroch Willey, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Craft of Catechesis, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2008, p. 8. 6

Cardinal C. Schönborn, OP, Introduction to Pierre de Cointet, Barbara Morgan and Petroch Willey, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Craft of Catechesis, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2008, p. xxxiii.

draws them by the melodious symphony of the truth (the panpipes) and makes them lie down in the shade of the tree of life, his redeeming Cross which opens paradise.

and shared starting form this text.

The Food of Love The Preface to the CCC concludes with words from the Preface to the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love”.7 For his part, the Bard said: “If music be the food of love, play on”. The CCC is a unique and powerful instrument for the universal evangelization to which the Holy Father is calling us particularly at this time. The music of this unsurpassed symphony, the Gospel of Joy, is to be savoured

Recent years have seen an exciting new initiative for studying the CCC gather momentum all over Ireland. Adult Studies of the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers the chance to study the CCC locally along with a group of other interested people. For more information see: www.catechism.ie.

ABOUT THE  AUTHOR

Rev. Donncha Ó hAodha is a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, author of several CTS booklets and a regular contributor to Position Papers.

CCC 25, citing the Roman Catechism, Preface; cf. 1 Cor 13:8.

PRE-ADOLESCENCE For parents with children from 11 to 13 years old Courses 2017-2018 During puberty, children experience some psychosomatic changes that affect their sensibility and their behaviour. This is coupled with aggressive external influences. In this course, parents analyse the causes and effects of such changes and they study the most appropriate guidelines to maintain a firm and down-to-earth relationship with their children, without limiting their natural discovery of the world.

10am-12.30pm on the following Sundays: 29 October 10 December 14 January 25 February 11 March 15 April

Rosemont School, Enniskerry Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18

â&#x201A;Ź200 per couple for the 6 sessions (booking before September 1st, 2017 only â&#x201A;Ź170) This includes course materials, tuition and tea/coffee.

For further information contact: info@familyenrichmentireland.org To book: www.familyenrichmentireland.org