RESTORATION MINISTRIES

Rev Dr Ruth Patterson
Click on any image for a larger version

St Mary's Roman Catholic church in Haddington Rd, Dublin, is a fine church with some unique features. It is an appropriate backdrop to the Patrick Finn Lecture Series, the most recent of which I attended on Thursday (15/3/2018). The mere fact of that talk was in itself significant.

Ruth Patterson is a Presbyterian Minister in good standing and an Ecumenical Canon of the Church of Ireland, as well as being the Director of Restoration Ministries, an inter-church organisation which helps people find God, and just as importantly each other. The importance of this latter aim cannot be overstated, in particular in the divided communities of Northern Ireland.

It is heartening, when it happens, to see ministers from one denomination preach or lecture in another denomination's church. A complete turnabout from when I was growing up.

Even is recent times the process had its hiccups. A cousin of mine who was a parish priest in a Dublin suburban parish was invited by the local Church of Ireland Rector to address the latter's congregation. The deed was done and the cousin got an enthusiastic reception from the CofI congregation.

The return visit did not work out as smoothly, however. The Catholic congregation proved less than enthusiastic and the cousin was not only mortally embarrassed, he got complained to his bishop. So it's not always plain sailing even in a relatively affluent suburb in the South.

Anyway, to the point. As readers will probably know by now I'm not gone on the God bit. But I can treat it as an idiom and still get to the heart of the matter. Ruth's mission seemed to me to be to humanise people, though she might use the term sanctify. What I would describe as humanising the "other" she would probably call bringing people to an awareness that they are all God's children.

As I see it, we would be talking about the same thing, but with slightly different perspectives and in different dialects.

The basic idea is to reach out to people, get to know them, share with them, and they can then no longer be the "other" and no longer be exploited by those creating and maintaining divisions between people. And this reaching out is an act of personal responsibility.

As Ruth was speaking Seán Fagan's book, What happened to sin?, was flashing in and out of my mind. I'm sure, were he still alive, he and Ruth would get on very well together.

Another thought that occurred to me was how durable that initial reaching out across community barriers, under the EU Peace Programme, proved, even surviving the break down of the cease fire in 1996. The initial "other" had become no longer other.

I see from the Ministries newsletter that Ruth attended the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin in 2012. I wonder might she make the trip down south again in August and give the World Meeting of Families a blast of her inclusivity.

The text of Ruth's reflection with which she rounded off her talk can be viewed here.

St. Patrick also attended the talk
looking down from his perch on the wall

And finally, in it's closing hours, I trust ye all had a good Patrick's Day.

The Public Square

Archbishop Richard Clarke of Armagh
Click on any image for a larger version

Another in the excellent Patrick Finn Lecture Series in St. Mary's in Haddington Road. This time the title was "The Church in the Irish Public Square". It was a pretty provocative title and the talk certainly lived up to it.

The speaker was Archbishop Richard Clarke of Armagh and he didn't waste any time putting it up to his audience. He kicked off by deploring the way the media, in response to commercial pressures, were effectively dumbing down content to mere soundbytes and thus depriving us of the possibility of any sort of subtle conversations in that forum. And when it came to social media the content became more aggressive and nasty.

So far so good. But if you thought this was going to develop into a rant about how the media are not paying due attention to the teaching and views of the church you were in for a shock.

The church, he said, had no God given right to be heard in the Irish public square. It had to earn that right by putting its views in a way that appealed to both reason and emotion and it had to do this with more than a pinch of passion.

The days of preaching at civil society from the pulpit were gone. The case had to be argued in terms of the common good and, perish the thought, the church had to listen respectfully to the views of others and, in the heel of the hunt, be prepared to change its own views where the argument could not be sustained.

That is not to say that the ramblings of every idiot out there had to be given the same weight as reasoned and considered views. There had to be some element of discrimination as well and this was unfortunately lacking in much of current media coverage.

Pointing out that the Christian traditions agreed on more that they disputed, he felt there was a lot to be said in them coordinating their views in advance when it came to presenting them in the public square. He mentioned a recent presentation he did, along with RC Archbishop Eamon Martin, on the Flesh and Blood campaign. This was about organ and blood donation and it didn't get a lot of media coverage. He figured that if the two Archbishops had instead ended up with fisticuffs the coverage would have been extensive, as the media thrive on confrontation but find the good news lacking in appeal.

The above is only a small part of what the Archbishop had to say and it is in my own paraphrasing. His presentation was compelling and well crafted and the content was inspiring. Definitely one of the highlights of this already excellent lecture series.

Hopefully, the text will appear soon in an issue of Doctrine and Life and you will be able to judge for yourself.

Souvenir poster

Hell & High Water

John Horgan
Click on any image for a larger version

John Horgan treated us to another talk in the Patrick Flynn Lecture Series on last Thursday evening (19/2/2015). His theme was the church and the media with particular reference to the Furrow magazine under the editorship of its founder Canon J G McGarry. His chosen title was "Between Hell and High Water" which well reflects that turbulent period and the delicate path navigated by a progressive priest operating in the hinterland of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid.

The sub-title for the talk was "the Furrow and its context 1950-1977". This period began with Canon McGarry's founding of The Furrow and ended with his death in a motor accident. Horgan's description of the Canon:

McGarry himself could have passed, at first glance, for a run-of-the-mill rural parish priest. But behind a craggy exterior, which could well have fitted into a vacant slot on Mount Rushmore, there lurked a keen intelligence, a highly developed sense of strategy, a gift for language, and an utterly authentic humility which operated, at times, to surprise and even disarm his critics.

I am only too aware of the oppressiveness of this period, and particularly the earlier part of it. In his book "The Irish and Catholic Power", Paul Blanshard documents the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church dictated to the State, and, of course, within the church itself that dictatorship was absolute. In that regard, I was interested to hear Horgan mention the three bêtes noirs bishops of my day. John Charles McQuaid, the conservative control freak who used his excellent organisational skills to capture for the church the civil organisation of his diocese, and to some extent that of the whole country. Then there was Connie Lucey, the gatekeeper, who ensured the highest level of theological orthodoxy imaginable. And finally Michael Browne, former Professor of Moral Theology in Maynooth and subsequently Bishop of Galway, from where he succeeded in annoying the nation. He wasn't known as Cross Michael for nothing.

I was also interested to hear Horgan mention, among others, the progressive theologian Gregory Baum, who had to skirt the Dublin diocese on his visit to this country in the sixties. I mentioned most of these people myself when I was guest speaker at UCD's L&H at a time when there was still some hope that the Vatican Council was opening up the Roman Catholic Church and allowing it to catch up on some four hundred years of missed opportunities.

In those days material published under church auspices or by clerics had to be vetted by church censors. The Nihil Obstat was the first step and the process culminated with an Imprimatur. The Furrow carried such stamps of ecclesiastical vetting and permissions up to 1976 when, having consulted the editors of other similar publications, McGarry just dropped the practice, thus declaring, albeit sotto voce, The Furrow's independence. Mind you, I was never impressed with those labels after I saw them on a ridiculous novena to St. Joseph.

McGarry effectively got away with murder in the context of his time. When Horgan asked him how he managed to do this, his answer was: "the thing is you can say almost anything you want as long as you say it with style".

Canon J G McGarry presents the President's Birthday gift
of £100 to Mrs. Bridget Maughan, Lisbane,
on the occasion of her 100th birthday.
(Photo: by courtesy of the McGuire family
Source: Annagh Magazine, Christmas 1978)

McGarry left Maynooth in 1969 to become parish priest of Ballyhaunis (my own father's birthplace) where he was held in high regard for his pastoral care of, and his respect for his parishioners. An appreciation, written by Aine McEvoy in 1978, on the first anniversary of his death, is replete with tributes from sorrowing and grateful parishioners, particularly the old and the infirm. And the thing that comes across most in them is McGarry's caring and his genuine humility.

These tributes reminded me of those that poured in for Fr. Tony Flannery when the Vatican's Inquisition (CDF to you) silenced him. I wondered if the two men might have a lot in common.

Felix Larkin

John Horgan was introduced by Felix Larkin. Felix is co-editor of a recently published book "Periodicals and Journalism in Twentieth Century Ireland - Writing Against the Grain" to which Horgan has contributed a well crafted essay on "The Furrow: navigating the rapids, 1950-77". The essay details a number of McGarry's run ins with the hierarchy, but interestingly enough, a lot of the efforts at censoring The Furrow's clerical contributors came from those contributors' own superiors. Horgan touched on a number of these in his talk.

Both the essay and the talk are a massive tribute to McGarry, a giant of his times, but a man who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.

Souvenir poster

An appreciation by Louis McRedmond August 1977 2nd item on page.

Beating the Odds

Bishop Pat Storey
Click on any image for a larger version

Last evening saw the first talk in the current session of the excellent Patrick Finn Lecture Series in St. Mary's church, Haddington Road, Dublin. I have blogged some of the earlier talks in this series, which was started in 2006 by the then parish priest. The series was named in his honour after his death. Speakers have ranged through bishops, priests, nuns, politicians, academics and philosophers. The standard has been high and the contents no-holds-barred.

This talk was a piece of history of itself. The first mainstream female bishop on these islands talking about her life, hopes and faith in one of the most prestigious Roman Catholic churches in town.

And Bishop Pat Storey didn't disappoint. She recounted her story to a very enthusiastic audience who all clearly appreciated the significance of the occasion.

She originally wanted to be an air hostess like her glamorous aunt, but then she married Rev Earl Storey, vicar of Crinken in Bray, became an Anglican priest herself, commuting to Ballymena, and ended up ministering and living in Derry which she grew to love.

Then she got elected Bishop of Meath and, as she related it, was the only such electee to ever ask for time to consider the offer. It was a big wrench for the family. She would be moving to Maynooth with her husband and they would be leaving their, now adult, children behind in Derry. She took the job and hasn't looked back during the year since she joined "the management" of the Church of Ireland.

Almost eclipsed by the Holy Spirit

She sees herself as an ordinary person devoid of pomposity and dedicated to helping to reverse the church's decline in fortunes and fall in attendances. This is not an end in itself, but she sees it as a necessary element in bringing Jesus's message into people's lives and improving their lot.

She asks the question: why have a church at all? What does it bring to the table? Her answer goes back to basics, to the early church and even that of her own youth. Community. And that is the challenge for today's church - to foster real communities across all age groups.

She gave examples of particular programmes that have been successful in attracting new members, or bringing back lapsed members, to the church. Some of them are based on sharing activities which are not necessarily religious or spiritual as such, but they bring people together in a conducive atmosphere. Spiritual growth can then come further along the road.

The talk was followed by a vigorous Q&A session in which she was asked her views on the appeal of Islam, the training of young clerics, the need for equal participation of women in the power structures of the church, and the lack of protest by Western Christian hierarchies at the legality of burning the Bible in Malaya. Her answers were generally to the point but nonetheless diplomatic.

I was almost tempted to sponsor her for membership of the Association of Catholic Priests, but that would be a bit cheeky coming from someone who, at the age of four, had aspirations to becoming a bishop but now finds himself in the ranks of the unbelievers.

St. Mary's magnificent interior

Souvenir poster of this historic occasion

Untying the Knots

Click any image for a larger version

I have reported previously on talks in St. Mary's, Haddington Road, in what has now become known as the Patrick Finn series of lectures. It is to St. Mary's credit that these talks have been of a high standard and have been followed by a no-holds-barred Q&A session.

Last night was no exception and we were treated to a very interesting talk on Pope Francis, by Paul Vallely, who has researched the pope's life in depth and has written a revealing and authoritative book on the pontiff.

The first thing we learn is that there are two Jorge Bergoglios.

The first was such a died in the wool traditionalist and strict disciplinarian that he totally messed up anything he put his hand to in his clerical roles in Argentina, so much so that he had to be got out of the country. It took three subsequent Jesuit provincials to undo the damage he had done to that order in Argentina.

This man was accused of collaborating with the Argentinian junta and specifically of betraying two members of his Jesuit order to the military who inflicted severe torture on both of them.

This man used his power to quash any attempts to bring liberation theology to bear on the plight of the poor and marginalised.

But somewhere along the way, and with no small help from his sojourn abroad and his subsequent banishment to Argentina's second city, Cordoba, hundreds of miles from the capital, he went through the dark night of the soul and emerged a different man.

The second Jorge Bergoglio

This second man was still a conservative as far as doctrine was concerned, but his whole approach to his mission in life had changed and he now not only embraced liberation theology but became the "bishop of the slums". He threw away the trappings of office and lived a life as close to that of an ordinary person as he could.

It is this second man we now have as Pope. Humble by design, a skillful political operator, and a man who hopes to reform the Catholic church and put it in a position to carry out its original religious mission.

He is sending out ambiguous signals, both to avoid confrontation, and to give himself room for manoeuvre. He leaves Müller in charge of the CDF, gives Maradiaga his head, and tells the USA nuns to ignore the same CDF. Unfortunately, in his wish to avoid confrontation, he is unlikely to undo any of the silencing imposed by the CDF under previous pontiffs, so Tony Flannery's analysis, that the ball is now in the court of the Orders' Superiors, is correct.

Fr. Franz Jalics

He just might have become Pope in 2005, but any possibility of this was effectively scuppered by the circulation of accusations of ineptitude and betrayal. The Cardinals, then assembled in Rome for the Conclave, were reminded of his "betrayal" to the Junta of the two Jesuits under his command, Fathers Yorio and Jalics. Subsequent judgement suggests that while his actions may well have contributed to the arrest and torture of the men, he did not consciously give them up to the military, though he should have foreseen the likely consequences of what he did. When he ordered his Jesuits to pull out of any involvement with liberation theology and cease the social work they had been doing, these two priests refused. He was incensed and got the bishop to revoke their faculties. It appears the military interpreted this as a signal that it would be safe to move against the men and so they were arrested and tortured. Fr. Yorio is dead but (the new) Francis has recently been reconciled with Fr. Jalics who runs a retreat centre in Germany.

Paul Vallely drew attention to the symbolism of Francis's actions. As he remarked, symbolism is very important to a church which has its sacraments. And Francis has been sending some mighty signals, from his eschewing the papal apartments in favour of a flat, to his dispensing with most of the ornaments of papal office. In place of the ornate gold bejewelled crosses of previous pontiffs he wears a pewter cross with the motif of a simple shepherd tending his flock under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

The Pope's pewter cross

So what of the future? Well, it remains to be seen if this man can reform centuries of clericalism and make the universal church relevant to ordinary people.

He comes from a region where the church is growing, and, no doubt, hopes to translate that success from a local into a universal success story.


______________________________________________

Posts on previous talks:

Michael Jackson, John Coolahan, John McDade SJ, Jim Corkery SJ, John Bruton, Margaret McCurtain

Missio et Spes

Another in the series of Patrick Finn Lectures, this one by the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Michael Jackson.

The title of the talk was "Mission and Hope" and as far as I could make out it was about what should be the mission of a Christian church in the world today and whether it was likely to be fulfilled. The talk was described as brilliant by those better qualified than me to judge. I couldn't quite get a fix on it. Perhaps I'd need to have been coming from a perspective of faith rather than that of an unbeliever, or perhaps the Bishop's style is just not my cup of tea.

What I did feel, however, was that the very presence of this Protestant Archbishop in this Roman Catholic church, addressing a Roman Catholic congregation from within the sanctuary, was something very positive.

I have commented elsewhere on what I perceived as the openness of the Church of Ireland, of which I have first hand experience (here and here). The reciprocal openness of the Roman Catholic Church on this occasion must surely be welcomed. It's not all that long ago since my cousin, then a Parish Priest, was complained to his Bishop for letting a Church of Ireland Rector address his congregation from within the sanctuary.

Anyway, what I did pick up was that the Archbishop felt there was a need and a place for a particularly religious mission both at home and abroad over and above the secular humanitarian activities of NGOs and the State. The nature of that mission had changed over time and the challenge now was to ensure that it was relevant to the times we live in and that it makes a positive contribution to the human condition.

Again there was a lively Q&A session in the course of which the Archbishop was asked his view on the Ordinariate created within the Roman Catholic Church, the express purpose of which was to facilitate those Church of England priests who did not want to stay in their own church because it ordained women to the priesthood. The Archbishop considered it a disaster for its likely effect on ecumenism and the long term interest of both the churches concerned.

At the beginning of the talk, the Archbishop had put his audience at ease when he recounted how, passing the church recently, he came face to face with himself on the railings. You too can see what he saw, below.


Click for larger image

Move over, Jesus

Another in the excellent series of Patrick Finn talks in St. Mary's, Haddington Road.

This time it was John Coolahan former Professor of Education in NUI Maynooth, who spoke on “The Forum on School Patronage and its outcomes”. John was the chair of the Forum and you can gen up on his background here.

He started by outlining the remarkable sytem which the British introduced in the 1830s. This was intended to deal with education in a society which was bitterly divided, primarily on religious grounds. It envisaged integrated education (including moral) for all, supplemented by separate modules for religious formation which catered for the different denominations. Technically, this system remained up to independence but in the meantime, for all practical purposes, it had become strictly denominational. After independence the denominational nature of the system was formally recognised. This was a formal recognition that the ethos of the particular denomination in question was to permeate all that school's activities including the curriculum. You can get some good background from John's book here.

So, is there a problem today with patronage and the denominational nature of the system?

In terms of human, legal and constitutional rights there has always been a problem but this was on a relatively small scale. It only began to be recognised in a serious way in 1960s and then only gradually. Individuals and groups of parents started setting up alternative schools but it was a difficult path.

Formal State attempts to deal with it started in the 1990s but lost momentum.

Problems were exacerbated by the Celtic Tiger which contributed to a school population covering a much wider range of faiths and strengthened the trend towards no religion or unbelief.

Now the State has finally got around to tackling it again in a follow-up to promises in the current Programme for Government. The Government established a Forum to consult stakeholders and advise on how to tackle the problem. Its terms of reference were essentially to come up with an approach which built on existing structures to make them, insofar as possible, compatible with the constitutional and legal rights of all stakeholders. You can find the Forum's report here.

John outlined, very briefly, how they were attempting to approach the problem via three categories of schools/situations.

• Areas where there is an expanding population have flexibility as it is likely that new schools will be built
• Existing multischool areas with stable populations will probably need divesting of some sort.
• "Stand alone" schools will have to adapt to a multifaith (and none) environment.

One element which would be present right across the system would be what is known as Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB). The purpose of this is not just to inform pupils about other belief systems but to foster a respect for adherents of such religions and beliefs

He commented that it was remarkable how the primary sector has quietly coped to date with the rapid transition to a multifaith multi-ethnic pupil body. This gives great hope for the future. It testifies to a generousity of spirit and a great degree of common sense in the sector, qualities that will be needed in buckets if the current problems are to be satisfactorily solved.

You will have gathered from reading some of the links above that John appears to be the ideal person to to get the consensus and facilitate the compromises needed on all sides. I have no experience of the primary education sector, other than having come through it in the distant past, but you could feel the respect coming from the audience, many of whom were intimately involved in the sector and are grappling with these problems.

Q&A
There was a lively Q&A after the talk and an equally lively discussion in the Green Room afterwards. I didn't follow all of the remarks due to lack of familiarity with the current state of the sector.

I said that, coming from a 1950s background in primary school, I wondered if John had come across either of the following two issues as stumbling blocks in reforming the sector: (i) the sort of dogma in the Roman Catholic Church typified by the idea that "outside the church there is no salvation" and the RCC idea that it is a cut above the others, and (ii) the issue of ownership, where most of the funding for the real estate had come from the State/taxpayer but the assets were in religious ownership.

In his response it was clear that these issues had arisen, but, at the same time it was clear that, given a constructive approach and a determination to avoid confrontation, they would not prove insuperable in bona fide efforts to reorganise the sector.

A member of the audience pointed out that there was a perception out there that a Roman Catholic teacher would not be capable of imparting ERB due to the strength of their own beliefs.

John responded that this sort of thing was already happening all the time. Teachers are capable of taking a professional approach to this, including absolutely avoiding undermining any child's belief in its own (or parents) belief system(s). Teachers, of all persuasions and none, are doing this every day of the week.

__________________________________________

Posts on previous talks: John McDade SJ, Jim Corkery SJ, John Bruton

Ethics in Politics

This is the magnificent church of St. Mary in Dublin's Haddington Road. When Fr. Paddy Finn came in as Parish Priest he set about heating, lighting and decorating the church, and it is a credit to him.

It was not the only thing he did. He initiated a series of evening lectures which have been of a consistently high standard, of interest not only to Roman Catholics, but to other denominations and even non-believers. He has been honoured by the series being christened from here on in as The Patrick Finn Lectures.

I have attended a number of these and have already blogged on two of them: John McDade and Jim Corkery.

This is the magnificent lectern in the sanctuary, from behind which the lectures are delivered. Appropriately enough the speakers deliver their wisdom off the back of the Holy Ghost.

The title of Last night's lecture was "The Economic and Political Crises in Europe – A Christian Perspective" and the theme revolved around the place of ethics in politics and in the marketplace.

The speaker was John Bruton, former Finance Minister, Taoiseach and EU Ambassador to the USA. He explained that, having been an altar boy in his youth, and being imbued with the sanctity of the sanctuary, he ran the risk of being tongue-tied if he used the lectern, so he chose to deliver his talk from the lay side of the altar rails.

The question he asked boiled down to whether a person's religion, in this case Roman Catholicism, should have any bearing on their participation in politics or in the marketplace.

His thesis was that it is impossible to run a sustainable state or market by regulation alone. If people confined their participation to minimum observation of the law, the whole thing would fall apart. There had to be an added element of trust involved and that is where the ethics came in. For it all to work, most people had to behave reasonably and in good faith. In the case of believers, their ethics usually came through their religious affiliation or belief. So, in the case of Christians, this was the Christian perspective or response.

He was very careful not to imply that the response of non-Christians or unbelievers need be in any way inferior to the Christian one. Simply that the source of the ethics would be different.

Generally speaking people should be held accountable for their actions in this life and should be punished for their misdeeds. But, that done, there should always be an element of forgiveness to follow. People were entitled to a second chance and simply filling the prisons did nothing to improve the quality of society. He did point out, however, that he felt a belief in the next life did bring an extra dimension of accountability into people's actions in this life.

He criticised the more extreme interpretations of "choice" and "freedom" which prevail in many quarters today. He emphasised the constraints which should apply in favour of "community" and "human rights", noting the more recent emphasis on this aspect of "communion" in the Roman Catholic Church. He saw the Mass as a social activity. He instanced the case, in the past, of attendees saying the rosary during Mass as an example of the absence of participation.

The talk was followed by a lively Q&A session, in the course of which Mr. Bruton said he feared the UK could talk itself into leaving the EU, a move which would not be to its advantage at all. He also reminded Roman Catholics that they were not used to having to argue their case in a scientific or rational environment. To an extent hierarchical pronouncements had filled this void, but they would now have to come to grips with the secular environment in which they found themselves. He didn't think that this should be an insurmountable problem, however, as much of what Christianity stood for could equally be argued from a scientific or rational basis.

His comment on the (former) power of hierarchical edicts, and the consequent gaps in the rational armoury of many Roman Catholics, resonated with me.

The longer and more complex version of Mr. Bruton's thoughts above can be found in his contribution to the recent International Eucharistic Congress.

Watch your Back

Reflections on a talk by Fr. Jim Corkery SJ, entitled

“Speak Freely - but watch your back”
Dissent and dissenters in the Catholic Church today
This is one of a series of lectures in St. Mary's RC Church, Haddington Road. The lectures are open to all and are of a high quality. They were instituted some years ago by the Parish Priest, Fr. Paddy Finn, and the series will henceforth be known as the Patrick Finn Lectures in his honour.

Fr. Corkery's talk was subtle and complex and I would need a lot of time and a script in front of me to fully come to terms with it. He was walking a tricky line on a subject that is controversial, sensitive, and positively dangerous for those dealing with it from within the current Roman Catholic Church.

So I am not going to attempt to convey what he actually said. Instead, I will confine myself to setting out what I took away from the lecture. So this is a subjective account for which Fr. Corkery can not be held entirely responsible. [CDF please note]

Traditionally "dissent" has involved people who wish to bring down the institution from which they dissent. But there is now a new kind of dissent within the RCC which aims at redeeming, or improving, the institution itself. The term has occurred with increasing frequency in official church documents from only as recently as the 1990s.

A careful analysis of church documents suggests that it is in order to freely undertake research into matters doctrinal and theological provided this does not result in public dissent. However, in the modern age of mass communications and intrusive journalism, it is very hard, if not impossible, to keep things under wraps, so the private eventually becomes the public.

You might therefore think that the instruction injuncts complete silence where the results of any such research appear to conflict with the current teaching of the church (the mysterious magisterium).

However, if you really put your mind to it, it's not that simple.

In the first place, what is the magisterium. There are varying levels of certainty and compulsion involved in church teaching. There's the truly infallible stuff, requiring the presence of 5 conditions, including the formal declaration of the infallibility of the teaching concerned. The Pope can teach infallibly, under these conditions. And this has only been resorted to twice in church history (the immaculate conception and the assumption). Ecumenical Councils of the church can also teach doctrines infallibly. Then there are the secondary objects of infallibility, which I would term infallible derivatives, which must be firmly accepted and held. And finally there is a whole lot of other stuff, which is less important. This last category would arguably include Humanae Vitae which is an encyclical and belongs to the ordinary papal magisterium.

So if you have a problem you can have a go at limiting the range of the compulsory magisterium. To assist you here, you should bear in mind that earlier church teachings on the acceptability of slavery and on there being no salvation outside the church itself, which were vehemently imposed on the faithful, have, in fact, changed over time. Also, from being forbidden to engage in serious theological conversation with our heretic Protestant brethern, we are now encouraged to enter positive dialogue with them.

If challenging the breadth of the magisterium doesn't work, you can quibble over the question of public dissent. This is where the principle of double effect comes into play. As long as you can show you didn't set out to create a public fuss, you just might be able to construct a workable defence.

As the lecture was given on the 50th anniversary, to the day, of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, I had better not leave that out. One of the features of that Council was substitution of the hand me down hierarchical model of the church with a more inclusive and broader concept of the discerning of truth, with the Holy Spirit not simply revealing the divine will to the Pope in the privacy of his study, but rather operating in a more diffuse manner through the whole church. This is the idea of the church as the People of God and it carries with it the dangerous idea of reception (ie widespread acceptance) as a criterion for establishing truth. Tricky stuff, you'll have to admit. And it was sufficiently vague at the time to allow the Curia and the Pope to effectively ignore the Council and slide back into the old ways. However, now, 50 years later, questions are being asked.

So where does all this leave us. Some brave souls feel that the spirit of Vatican II is capable of being reclaimed and they are attempting to lead the church (including the ordinary faithful) along this path. Sadly, the silencing of many in this community of optimists suggests that those who currently hold the reins of power will not give it up without a bitter fight. They are already resorting to the modern equivalent of the inquisition.

So, in an attempt to confuse the enemy, I have awarded myself a NIHIL OBSTAT and an IMPRIMATUR. I understand, however, that, these days, even possession of valid versions of these splendid artifacts may not be a sufficient defence against Holy Supergag Orders from Vatican HQ.

So, speak freely, but watch your back.