Position Papers - April 2015 by Position Papers

A review of Catholic affairs

Dawn Eden on why chastity is the ultimate rebellion In Passing: The most lethal fault line in the modern world Is there significant media bias in Ireland? Marriage, Family & Society Book review: The Great Reformer Film review: Run All Night

Number 488 April 2015

€3 £2.50 $4

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):

Number 488 - April 2015 Editorial

Letter to the editor Neil and Anne Dean

In Passing: The most lethal fault line in the modern world Michael Kirke

Is there significant media bias in Ireland? Rev. Patrick G Burke

Nowadays, chastity is the ultimate rebellion Dawn Eden

Equality and confusion Brenda McGann

Marriage, Family & Society Bishop Kevin Doran

There is always hope Siobhan Scullion

Book review: The Great Reformer Rev. C. J. McCloskey

Film review: Run All Night John Mulderig

Editor: Assistant editors: Subscription manager: Secretary: Design:

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

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 Gemini Printers, Plato Business Park, Dublin 15.

Editorial

the beginning of this month we slip from the 40 days of Lent into the 50 days of Easter, and those extra 10 days are very significant. They serve to remind us that for the Christian the tribulation of Lent is only a transitory phase and that the joy Easter is what is permanent. Joseph Ratzinger (in his book Seek That Which is Above) explains the scriptural significance of the number forty: it “signified the age of the world: it is an intensification of four, which recalls the four corners of the earth and hence the brokenness, the finite, incomplete and toilsome nature of all earthly existence.” The fifty days of Easter on the other hand “helps us experience Easter as the feast of feasts, as the basic reason for all celebration and joy”. Whereas other great feasts in the Church’s calendar have a week of celebration (rounded off by an eighth day to make the octave), the Easter octave is a week of weeks: seven times seven days, rounded off by the feast of Pentecost. In a particularly beautiful Easter discourse, St Augustine explains the significance of these two liturgical seasons of Lent and Easter. Lent, he says, signifies the present life, beset with trials and troubles, whereas Easter “signifies the happiness that will be ours in the future”. Because there are these two periods of time – the one that now is, beset with the trials and troubles of this life, and the other yet to come, a life of everlasting serenity and joy – we are given two liturgical seasons, one before Easter and the other after. The season before Easter signifies the troubles in which we live here and now, while the time after Easter which we are celebrating at present signifies the happiness that will be ours in the future. What we commemorate before Easter is what we experience in this life; what we celebrate after Easter points to something we do not yet possess. This is why we keep the first season with

fasting and prayer; but now the fast is over and we devote the present season to praise. Such is the meaning of the Alleluia we sing.

Editorial

We only pass through Lent on route to Easter for we Christians, in the words of St John Paul II, “are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song”. We are not a Lenten people and it is quite incongruous that there would be “Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter” (Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 47). It is incongruous that a Christian would live immersed in a permanent “Lenten" sadness (the Cross of physiological depression is a completely different matter) because Christ’s resurrection is the assurance of God’s definitive defeat of evil. Those who don’t enter into Christ’s resurrection have no such assurance. And we see this profound non-Christian pessimism all around us in what is a culture of death insofar as it judges death to have the last word over the life of man: “The great pagan sadness of modern man is largely due to his premonition of ultimate disaster.” (Francis Stuart Campbell [pseud, of E. R. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn], The Menace of the Herd: Procrustes at Large). How important then the Easter Octave is for us, to drink in the truth of words we sing in the ancient Easter hymn: Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat! (Christ conquers, Christ reigns, Christ commands).

Thank you for your publication’s recent articles in defence of

Letter to the editor

the institution of marriage as nature intended it to be. It makes a sharp contrast with some of the very false reasoning on the issue which we have been provided in the Irish media generally. In response to The Irish Times editorial of February 9 on the Meaning of Marriage, we sent a letter to the editor there (published on February 12), observing as follows: You followed a line of reasoning finishing with a conclusion that “Marriage is no longer primarily about creating an environment for the rearing of children, though for many people it will do so.” This unsupported statement clashes with people’s everyday experience. In our family three of our children have got married during the past six years and already we are expecting our eighth grandchild later this year. we see our children’s friends regularly having children and also the children of our own friends doing the same. While readily acknowledging that they love one another it is glaringly obvious that they want to have children. Clearly it is normative for the vast majority of young couples, allowing for the fact that some couples are unable or unwilling to do so. These young people form new extended families which further form communities and ultimately the future of Irish society. That is why Article 41 of the Constitution “pledges to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is based and to protect it from attack” as they contribute to the long term welfare of society and to the common good. This is the true meaning of marriage. Yours etc  Neil and Anne Dean

In Passing: The most lethal fault line in the modern world by Michael Kirke

Fault line creating a desert

whatever packaging it is presented to us?

In the culture wars it is not recommended to the defenders of life that they use the Nazi holocaust as a parallel to the holocaust of the living unborn. This is primarily a matter of strategy or tactics. The accidental details of the horror of the holocaust which took place in the Nazi death camps are so visceral that in the public imagination it is incomparable with anything else in human history. Inviting comparisons is thought to be ridiculous – if not downright obscene.

Both of these evils have their root in one great evil: the denial of humanity. Both of these evils also share a common characteristic which mark them out in their own time, the characteristic of banality which was highlighted for the world in the case of the Nazi holocaust by Hannah Arendt. The entire Nazi project for the extermination of the Jews – and others – was based on a view of the human race which raised

But is it? Are there not strong parallels? Is evil not evil in

the Aryan embodiment of that race to a level which placed all other Nazi-classified embodiments on an inferior level. The Semitic peoples it placed on a level where their very humanity was denied. Their very existence was a threat to humanity and for that reason they warranted extermination.

On the foundation of this false and unexamined principle – which with each day that passes science shows to be more and more false – they have built the narrative that all those who oppose abortion are bent on denying women their fundamental rights. This ideology has now asserted itself across the world and established the right in law in countless jurisdictions to terminate the lives of millions on the basis of denying the humanity of children before birth. Sleepwalking, millions have subscribed to this ideology – just as millions of Germans were half asleep as millions of their fellow human beings went to their deaths in the camps.

Am I exaggerating if I say that those who adhere to the ideology of choice now prevailing in many of the world’s national jurisdictions, and who are driving the practice of abortion through this ideology, share this same common denominator. In both cases, at the heart of their doctrine is a denial of the humanity of their victims. The pro-abortion movement, under the specious pretext of defending the rights and best interests of women, have built an ideology which not only denies but which has also closed off all debate on the essential humanity of the child awaiting delivery from its mother’s womb. This radical misunderstanding of humanity is one of the great fault-lines dividing the peoples of the world today.

What is the difference? I see none. There may be accidental differences, but for those who identify themselves as sharing their humanity with, on the one hand, the Jewish people, and on the other, with children from the moment of their conception, palpable evil is the common denominator which they share. It is here, contemplating this evil, that we also become aware

that the truth of Arendt’s description of the evil of the Nazi atrocities as banal also applies to the evil stalking our world today.

acteriation of Eichmann as an exemplar of what she described as the “banality of evil”. There is perhaps less agreement now* over whether this can be properly applied to the person and career of Adolf Eichmann himself, but the idea that much of the evil in the world is perpetrated in the most banal circumstances rather in spectacular and sensational ways is hard to deny.

In 1961 Arendt covered the trial, in Jerusalem, of Adolf Eichmann following his kidnapping on a street in Buenos Aires. He received a death sentence and was executed by hanging in Israel. Her reports appeared in The New Yorker and were later published in book form after his execution as Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1963. For all sorts of reasons the book inflamed debate over the holocaust. One of those reasons was her char-

Arendt rejected the overblown rhetoric of the chief prosecutor, Gideon Hausner, who portrayed Eichmann as a sadistic monster. She insisted that Eichmann was no more than a colourless bu-

Kermit Gosnell saw himself as an ordinary man, a doctor just doing his day’s work.

reaucrat, a shallow operative who had had “no motives at all”. Acting out of “sheer thoughtlessness”, Eichmann “never realised what he was doing”, for he worked in a system that made it “well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel” that what he was doing was wrong, she maintained

or boyfriends their girlfriends. It is everywhere and the world has just become accustomed to it all. Thankfully the horror that was the Nazi holocaust is now universally recognised – excepting some pockets of nutty, if still abhorrent and dangerous, antisemitism. The same is not so with the modern horror of abortion. The blinding god of Individualism has dulled the consciences of millions into accepting this human sacrifice as just one more event on the daily round. Those entrusted with the promotion and protection of the common good have just nodded their heads in agreement, buying the lie, the lie which is at the heart of both holocausts, that the victim being sacrificed is not human. In this holocaust they have swallowed the deception that the object of their violence is just a clump of cells (which we all are), a “foetus”, not worthy of the name “child”, and fit only for the incinerator – if the so-called quality of life of those on whom it depends for its life, seems to require it.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It now seems probably “no” in the particular case of Eichmann. But there is no question that the “system” for which he worked – and helped create – had many operatives, cooperating agents, sleepwalking participants in this great evil for whom their participation was banal, ordinary and mundane. It is in just the same way that acceptance and, in some cases, participation in the culture of death which is abortion, is banal, ordinary and now just a part of everyday life. Such is the routine way in which doctors – like many Kermit Gosnells – daily propose to mothers that they would be wiser to abort the child they are carrying; or socalled counsellors advise and facilitate the same; or parents advise their pregnant daughters,

It is that very banality which makes us dull and restrains us from comparing this holocaust with the other. Let us tell the truth and call this what it is, a holocaust of the most horrendous proportions, a human sacrifice to the false gods of m o d e r n i t y, m o r e t e r r i b l e than Moloch, Astaroth, or others of the ancient world who demanded young lives as sacrifices. When enough people in the world eventually accept the truth that its victims are human beings, we will hang our heads in shame that it was allowed to go on for so long.

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.

*See Bettina Stangnethâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined life of a mass murderer reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement, February 27, 2015.

Is there significant media bias in Ireland?

by Rev. Patrick G Burke

is one of the common complaints of those labelled, by themselves or others, as traditional or conservative that the mainstream media has a liberalleft bias. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence to indicate that this suggestion is something privately accepted by a large number of journalists working in the United States, even though it is not publicly acknowledged by the industry itself.1 Given the dominant position globally of American culture 1

and the influence it has on Ireland one would be forgiven for assuming that a broadly similar situation prevails in this country. Ideally, one would hope that a serious study of the issue would be undertaken by a broad spectrum of social scientists from the academic community of our nation to prove or disprove this hypothesis. However, given the demonstrated liberal-left bias that exists within that community one would

http://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101/journalists-admitting-liberal-bias-part-one

wonder would the appetite exist to undertake such a study;2 or indeed how likely would it be that that community would be to produce a study critical of a bias that is not only similar to its own, but that indeed its work serves to create and support.

during the chosen time on the issue; all but one of them were in favour of the bill. The results of this â&#x20AC;&#x153;snapshotâ&#x20AC;? of a short period of time, while being far from scientific evidence, go beyond demonstrating a prima facie media bias on this particular issue; it indicates that there is a near total consensus. Obviously, it could be argued that PLC's study is likely to betray its own conservative/ traditionalist bias; however, the raw number of thirty-three in favour versus one against is a simple fact that is difficult to argue against.

In the absence of rigorous and reliable scientific study, we are left with making the best of the information that is available. One such piece of work is the study done by The Pro-life Campaign (PLC) last month of the media coverage surrounding the issue of abortion.3 In it they examined all the stories published over a two-week period in Ireland's national papers dealing with the issue of abortion. That their study indicated a definite media bias on the issue will come as a surprise to no one; but the extent of that bias should definitely be a shock. Thirtyfour articles were published

Looking beyond the PLC study we are left in the realm of anecdote and impression. For example, the media treatment of the appallingly sad story in 2012 of Savita Halappanavar, an expectant mother who died in a Galway hospital leaves little doubt as to where the Irish media stood on the story, given that

https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D14-00108_preprint.pdf 3

http://prolifecampaign.ie/main/5547-2/

it was introduced to the people of Ireland with sensational claims that her death was the direct result of Ireland's refusal to legislate for abortion. In fact, Ms Halappanavar had died from medical mismanagement, primarily as a result of those in charge of her care failing to treat her sepsis properly. Her life could have been saved by the administration of antibiotics at the proper time and her death had nothing to do with abortion. An independently chaired HSE report confirmed this. It named many mistakes in the way this woman was cared for in hospital, all of which were factors in the circumstances which led to her death. Abortion or its nonavailability was not one of them.

availability of abortion on demand, media awards were given to the journalists who â&#x20AC;&#x153;brokeâ&#x20AC;? the story, and the name of Savita Halappanavar continues to be invoked by the media in the cause of further liberalising Ireland's abortion laws. A further worrying aspect of the bias in favour of abortion is the failure by the Irish media to report on, or to i n v e s t i g a t e a d e q u a t e l y, stories that portray abortion in a negative light and might be used to persuade people that abortion is not always and everywhere a universal good. Examples of such stories would be the one of the tragic death of an Irish woman in London as a result of a botched abortion at around the same time as Ms Halappanavar's death,4 or the revelations that Irish agencies referring women to the UK for abortions advised them to lie to their GPs should complications subsequently arise and claim

The objective truth concerning her death did little to change the way the story was portrayed in the media. Not only did the majority of stories continue to assert her death was due to the lack of 4

http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-dies-travel-uk-abortion-1002940-Jul2013/

they had had a miscarriage received only the most cursory media attention.5

Other issues involving dramatic social change receive similar treatment, but I think the point has been sufficiently made that the media displays a significant bias when it comes to issues championed by the liberal-left side of the political/social spectrum. This evident media bias should be a matter of grave concern for all in society. There is nothing wrong per se with an individual newspaper or other media outlet having a particular slant on things; real danger however, arises when there is a consensus within the industry. It is not a healthy thing for a democracy that the views of one particular end of the spectrum have an overwhelming control of the organs by which the majority of public debate takes place in a modern society. The difference between a totalitarian regime where the control of the media is firmly in the hands of the state and

Internationally, at much the same time as the Savita case was under the full glare of the media spotlight, the truly horrific trial of Kermit Gosnell was taking place in the USA. Gosnell was a late-term abortionist operating in Philadelphia; it was his practice in instances where the child survived his attempts to kill them in the womb and were born alive to end their lives with a scissors. Gosnell was convicted of three counts of murder in May 2013 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.6 His case, which one might have expected to attract sensationalising headlines, in fact received scant attention across the USA, and practically none at all in Ireland.

http://www.catholicireland.net/hse-facilitating-cover-plc-claims/

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trialshould-be-a-front-page-story/274944/ 6

a modern Western democracy where the media rigorously conforms to a selfimposed liberal-left orthodoxy is one of degree rather than of kind. The result is largely the same, that opposing view points are suppressed, severely restricted, or otherwise minimised.

degree of balance is restored to the reporting of sensitive and controversial issues in Ireland.

The public interest involved in ensuring that one small group within society should not be allowed a dominate the means of public discourse should be obvious to all. The prima facie case that such a situation currently exists in Ireland at the very least warrants further study. Given that it is unlikely that our academic community will instigate this, it is to be hoped that some private foundation or donor might might be found to fund the needed research. Should this confirm the hypothesis that a serious bias does exist within the Irish media, it might be then be used as a basis to lobby the state to intervene and introduce some form of regulation to ensure that a

ABOUT THE AUTHOR The Rev Patrick G Burke is the Church of Ireland rector of the Castlecomer Union of Parishes, Co Kilkenny. A regular contributor to Position Papers, he was formerly a broadcast journalist with the Armed Forces Radio and Television Network. He blogs at thewayoutthere1.blogspot.ie

Nowadays, chastity is the ultimate rebellion by Dawn Eden

Wagner’s opera Tannhäuser, a medieval minstrel returns to his village, seeking healing and salvation after having wasted years as the willing slave of Venus. But when his former neighbours learn where he has been, they tell him he has forfeited all hope. Once a man has tasted Venus’s delights, they say, he will never get her out of his blood. Modern-day Tannhäusers are all around us: men and women addicted to pornography; singles seeking love through sex; and spouses desiring pleasure to the exclusion of procreation. Our Catholic faith teaches that a way

of forgiveness and restoration is open to them. Yet all too often we give them up for lost, speaking of chastity as if it were a virtue reserved only for virgins. In doing so, we effectively buy into the culture’s lie that slaves to pleasure will never be able to find freedom in Christ. It doesn’t have to be that way. Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen described a state of disillusioned satedness that he called “black grace” – a kind of fed-upness that could open the way for the “white grace” of conversion. Many who have bought into the lies of the sexual revolution find themselves con-

fronted by the darkness of this black grace. If the truth about chastity is presented to them, they can attain transformation in Christ. I know, because that is what happened to me. During the 1990s, as a young Jewish rock journalist living in New York City, I spent my days interviewing bands for MOJO magazine and my nights haunting nightclubs in outfits calculated to offer onlookers an epidermis buffet. Today, I am a postgraduate student of theology at a Catholic seminary and author of The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfilment While Keeping Your Clothes On. I look at my life and it is as though Marianne Faithfull were transmogrified into Mary Whitehouse. What happened? My conversion began in 1995 when a Los Angeles rock musician I was interviewing on the phone mentioned he was reading a novel, The Man Who Was Thursday, by an author I had never heard of, G K Chesterton. I promptly purchased a copy, figuring it would help me chat up the musician when he came to town.

A line in the first chapter jumped out at me: “The most poetical thing in the world is not being sick.” That was my black grace moment. At the time I read those words I was trapped in a vicious cycle. Lonely because I was not loved, I offered myself to “lovers” who did not love me. Chesterton forced me to recognise what I had been trying to suppress: how deeply I longed to experience healing, to have my life ordered from the top down, to know the poetry of not being sick. With time (and more Chesterton), I began to experience the white grace of conversion. But reluctant to put myself under the authority of any particular denomination, I tried to walk the Christian walk on my own. I soon discovered that changing my beliefs wasn’t enough to change my habits. It was clear that all the desires I had ever indulged had failed to bring me closer to the love I sought. And it was likewise clear that the only way I would ever receive such love was if I learnt

how to give it properly. But how was I to learn? A Catholic friend who saw I was struggling gave me a book that quoted liberally from The Catechism of the Catholic Church. There I found my answer: developing the virtue of chastity would show me how to love others as God loves me (CCC 2347-48). Chastity was not about shutting human love out, but rather about letting divine love in. It meant letting God reshape my desires to align them with his will for my happiness.

In the new Catholic edition of The Thrill of the Chaste (revised from the 2006 edition, which I wrote before entering the Church), I focus on the “yes” of Church teachings, because one can’t understand the various “no”s unless one first understands the overarching “yes”. For example, one can’t understand why the Church teaches against contraception and same-sex marriage until one first understands that married love is by definition freely willed, total, faithful and fruitful (see Humanae Vitae 9). Admittedly, chastity is not the in thing. But in a society that has ceased to be Christian, that is what makes it so very interesting. Here in the West, Christianity had a good, long run as the prevailing culture and is now once again the counterculture. Pope Francis gets this. That is why, when he speaks about chastity, he uses the language of rebellion. Addressing young people on the theme of the diocesan World Youth Day 2015 – “Blessed are the pure in heart”

– he urged them to “rebel against the widespread tendency to reduce love to something banal, reducing it to its sexual aspect alone … [Rebel] against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes you are incapable of responsibility, that believes you are incapable of true love.” In Wagner’s opera, Tannhäuser seeks to extricate himself from Venus’s embrace because he senses, however faintly, that something vital is lacking even in her most enticing delights. Francis encourages us to have faith that our Tannhäusers, too, can reach that point of black grace: the searing recognition that the no-strings-attached “love” that they expected to fulfil them was, in fact, only an impoverishment of what love is supposed to be. But they need our help. We can start creating a chaste counterculture by ceasing to treat our “hard teachings” as though they were bitter pills bearing only an accidental connection to the heavenly banquet. Chastity is not an inconvenient footnote to

the Good News. It is the Good News, showing that the arms of Venus are no match for the heart of Jesus.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dawn Eden’s books, The Thrill of the Chaste (Catholic Edition) and My Peace I Give You: Healing Sexual Wounds with the Help of the Saints, are distributed by Alban Books and available through amazon.co.uk. This article first appeared in the Catholic Herald magazine (March 13) and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the editor and author. Between June 8 and 11, Dawn Eden will be speaking at various venues in Ireland. More information available from the editor.

Equality and confusion

by Brenda McGann

Citizens of the Irish Republic, at the edge of Europe, have a choice to make in a few monthsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; time which will have far reaching consequences for generations to come. They are being asked to change the Constitution off their State to allow for the legalisation of marriage between couples of the same sex. The advocates for this change claim that justice is on their side on the basis that the equality of all humans, regardless of their sex, demands it. This is very flawed reasoning and consequently a very flawed a basis for such a radical change to an institution that has

been the norm for millennia, and across all cultures. By this timetested biologically based understanding of marriage, defined as a contractual bond between a man and a woman, human society has been well served from time immemorial. It has provided the bedrock and the biological framework to guarantee the future of generation after generation and give them stability, underpinned by complementary love and a commitment to permanence and faithfulness. But I ask, what do we mean by â&#x20AC;&#x153;Equalityâ&#x20AC;? in the context of this institution? We know that 2+ 2 equals 4. That is a given mathematical

formula not prey to the dictates of choice. If we think about the relationship between a man and a woman, united as one in what we call marriage, a whole range of consequences and potential consequences follow. These consequences – children, their needs, the needs of society, the good of the married couple – are the reason for the State’s legal underpinning and regulation of marriage. Just as we know what 2 stands for, and that when taken together with another 2 it gives us a consequence which is 4, so when 2 is added to something else called 3, we get a different consequence, which is 5. When man is in sexual union with woman it is the ideal for society and its needs, and this is called marriage. No other human relationship under the sun has such profound consequences for society. Claiming that human equality requires other relationships to be given this definition simply makes no sense, either in logic or in biology – or in justice. Equality so understood will be a short road to anarchy. Recourse to the value of equality as a basis for redefining marriage is flawed because it is us-

ing it as an absolute when and where it cannot be used as such. For example, who out there chose when to be born, where and to whom? I can think of only one Person in the history of the human race who chose when, where, and to whom to be born. Thus, the circumstances of our birth are far from equal and the environmental factors et al that flow from this fact are far from equal across a plethora of criteria that surely beg to be considered … if we are to be consistent in meeting the meaning of “equal”. Thus, I will certainly vote NO to this proposal on the basis of its flawed premise. I bear no ill to those persons with homosexual tendencies and agree their needs for emotional and financial stability should be met. My understanding is that these are already catered for in the Civil Partnership Bill. I consider this reason, based on a notion of equality, for the change to the understanding of marriage to be very misleading and dangerous for our children, grandchildren … and humanity at large. Newton’s Law “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” has not changed. We mess with the laws of nature at our peril. We already see the problems caused in the physical

environment of the universe when our abuse of same became unbalanced. There is also an ecology of the environment of the human person which is built into the laws of human nature. Each one of us has had to have a father and a mother in order to be born … there is no other way. A man is not equal to a woman in his make-up but man and woman are equal to one another in their human dignity. Their complementarity has the awesome potential to give birth to a new born baby. This fragile vulnerable human infant, mewling and squealing, is utterly dependent on the care of his/her parents to survive; and thrives the more the parents love one another in a committed stable relationship that is unconditional in its selfgiving to each other. Pope Benedict turned Descartes’ famous dictum “Cogito ergo sum” ( I think therefore I am”) on its head with his insertion of the letter “r” “Cogitor ergo sum” ( I have been thought of therefore I am). Let us protect the “relational” aspect of the human person for the future by voting NO to this referendum to change the meaning of marriage!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brenda McGann lives in Dublin. She has worked as a secondary school teacher in Ireland as well as a stay at home mother.

Marriage, Family & Society by Bishop Kevin Doran

Thank

you for the invitation to speak to you this evening on the theme of Marriage, Family and Society. You won’t need me to remind you that we are gathering against the backdrop of the proposed referendum to redefine the meaning of marriage in the Irish Constitution. In a referendum citizens are asked to decide on what is usually a complex point of law or social policy. One of the concerns about referenda is that, while attempts are usually made on all sides to simplify the issues, many people still find themselves in the “don't know” category. The reality is that in most referenda held in my lifetime, the turn-out has been less than 50%. It has always seemed to me to be unwise and unsafe to change the constitution when less than 50% of the population vote, because this means, by definition, that less than 50% of the population want to see change. My personal hope would be that, on a question of such significance as the meaning of

marriage, people reflect carefully on the issues involved as well as on their own personal experience, and make a judgement which is based on the facts. I hope that people would regard this as sufficiently important that they would turn out in large numbers to vote. What I hope to do this evening is to reflect with you on what I believe are the key questions at issue in this debate. What does the Catholic Church say that marriage is? I am speaking to you this evening as a Catholic Bishop, so it seems appropriate that I begin by saying a few words to you about what we, as Christians, believe about marriage. Christians see the universe as the result of a coherent plan brought about by a loving God. One of the earliest expressions of this faith is the account of creation, told in symbolic language. Central to this account, is the natural distinction between male and female and the truth about the love of man and woman, who are “companions”,

made of the same “substance”, equal in dignity, but yet in a very real sense different. God’s plan, revealed in Scripture, is that the man leaves his father and mother and becomes “one flesh” with his wife; that man and woman should "increase and multiply".[i] This places procreation alongside companionship as the two principal purposes of human sexuality. In Christian marriage, a man and woman commit to one another that they will be faithful all the days of their life and that they will accept from God the children God may give them and bring them up in accordance with the law of God and of the Church.

and who cares for the life that he gives. Jesus Christ is not only present in their relationship but, through them, is present to others. There are, of course, other kinds of friendship and relationship which reflect the love of God, and which bear witness to great generosity and care, but marriage is unique. Having said all of that, I want to be very clear in saying that the referendum debate is NOT about defending a uniquely Christian or Catholic vision of marriage. Not an invention of Christianity

Marriage is not an invention of Christianity or indeed of any religious tradition. The reverse in “Sacrament” means a “visible fact is the case. Primitive socisign”. Through their commitment eties recognised the to life-long fidelity, together uniqueness of the with the openness to male-female relanew life and the reI want to be very clear in tionship, written in sponsibility of care, saying that the referhuman nature. Rehusband and wife, endum debate is NOT ligious faith helps male and female, about defending a men and women become a visible uniquely Christian or to make a connecsign of the love of Catholic vision of marriage. tion between their God who is always marital relationship faithful, who gives life

and their relationship with God, but it does not fundamentally change the meaning and purpose of marriage, which was already well established in most cultures long before the arrival of the mainstream religious traditions. There were, common to almost every culture, certain characteristics associated with marriage. It was faithful; it was associated with the birth and upbringing of children and it was between a man and a woman. Gradually it also became clear to people that it could only be entered into freely. It is worth remarking that, by contrast with other species, the upbringing of human children is a long-term project. Psychologists tell us now that, while young people reach physical maturity in their early to midteens, their arrival at intellectual and emotional maturity takes much longer. The faithful relationship of husband and wife is a key factor in providing the young with a stable environment in which they can grow to maturity.

You donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have to be a Christian to recognise the truth about human sexuality; the joy of it and the heartbreak of it. Reason allows us to see the contribution that faithful marriage offers to society through the stability that it brings to society and to the lives of children. Sexuality extends beyond biology, but the bodily dimension of our sexuality is itself instructive. While technology can circumvent the laws of biology, it cannot overcome the reality that only a man and a woman can be parents to a child. The reproductive processes of the human body themselves bear witness to the essential connection between our male-female sexuality and the gift of life. As St. Paul once wrote, people who do not know the law of God, are often aware of a law written in their hearts, on the basis of which they make their judgements of conscience (Romans 2:14).

Why does the Church get involved in debates on public policy? In a culture of “live and let live”, it is sometimes asked “why can’t the Church stay out of these debates on public policy? The Church exists in civil society and is legitimately concerned about the impact that proposals to redefine marriage would have on society and particularly on the lives of children. If the State redefines marriage to mean a relationship between any “two persons without distinction as to their sex”, that changes the meaning of marriage for everybody. Such a change would mean, among other things, that a child’s right to be brought up by his mother and father will no longer be protected in our law. Just as the Church will speak out, and quite rightly, on other issues of public policy, such as homelessness, poverty and racism, so the Church will seek to make its voice heard on what it considers to be a radical change in the meaning of marriage and family in this country. It is also relevant, perhaps, to

say that priests provide a voluntary public service as civil solemnisers. It seems perfectly reasonable that we should express our concerns on a matter which significantly affects the meaning of what we do when we solemnise a marriage. The proposed wording for the referendum The government proposes to add to the Constitution a declaration to the effect that “marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex”. The distinction as to sex goes to the very heart of marriage, and this distinction refers to the way in which man and woman complement one another on every level of their being. The word sex actually has its origins in the notion of distinction. If the distinction between the sexes is to be considered irrelevant to something as fundamental to society and to the well-being of the person as marriage, then we must surely ask ourselves what is the relevance of sex to anything at all? Why would we even

bother to register our children as male or female? Gender-free marriage leads inevitably to a genderless society and this seems to me to be a rather bleak prospect. It is precisely because they are different, that a married couple enrich one another’s lives in a unique way. The insights of modern psychology confirm what people have always known, namely that boys and girls need the rich diversity provided by healthy relationships with male and female parents. A recent independent poll, commissioned by Accord, shows that this is the view of a significant majority of those polled. Pope Francis expresses this very well: …this complementarity lies at the foundation of marriage and the family, which is the first school where we learn to appreciate our talents and those of others, and where we begin to acquire the art of living together. For most of us, the family is the principal place in which we be-

gin to “breathe” values and ideals, as we develop our full capacity for virtue and charity. At the same time, as we know, in families tensions arise: between egoism and altruism, between reason and passion, between immediate desires and longterm goals, and so on. But families also provide the environment in which these tensions are resolved: this is important (Address to the Humanum Conference, Nov. 2014). What about “marriage  equality”? All people are equal before the law, but that equality does not mean that people are all the same, or indeed that their needs can always be met or their rights vindicated in the same way. In its teaching on marriage, the Church simply wishes to point out that a same-sex relationship, however loving it may be, cannot be equated with marriage, because marriage is oriented, among other things, to procreation and parenthood.

To focus exclusively on the equality of the two adults concerned, without taking into account the nature of their relationship risks undermining the equal dignity of others concerned. If, for example, being married means having the “equal right” to have children, then the extension of the meaning of marriage to include samesex couples, leads inevitably to the conclusion that: that it would become discriminatory to suggest favouring a mother and father relationship over other combinations of adults. This would have particular significance in the field of education; the protection of law would be removed from the unique relationship of a child to his or her mother and father; that children may be specifically “reproduced” by Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR), in such a way that they are knowingly deprived of the opportunity to be raised by their parents, or even to know them.

Human rights apply to all people, regardless of race, nationality, religious belief, gender or sexual orientation. In its laws, the state is obliged to respect human rights such as the right to life and liberty and freedom of association. The European Court of Human Rights confirmed as recently as July 2014 that there is no human right to same-sex marriage. The Church does recognise that people who have lived for many years in committed relationships have certain rights associated with those committed relationships, and which should be reflected in civil law. These include inheritance rights, rights related to the shared home, the right to be taxed collectively if they so choose and the right to be designated as next of kin. Some of these rights are, and others could be, included under the heading of “civil partnership”. It is important to be clear, however, that these rights must apply to people because they are people, and not simply because of their sexual orientation. It would be totally unjust to say that two men would be regarded

in law as next of kin for medical purposes because they were a same sex-couple, but that this would not apply to two other people who had shared a home and a life for many years, in a committed relationship, but they were not a “same-sex couple”.

constitutional change would also, by definition, redefine parenthood and all of these other relationships, which are genetic as well as social.

A TD belonging to one of the government parties asked recently “What Harm Would it Do to be Nice to People”? If it were simply a case of being nice, of course, it would do no harm at all. But the referendum is not just about being nice, or compassionate.

Many politicians and commentators would want you to believe, of course that the referendum has nothing to do with children, because all that stuff about children and parenthood will already have been dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill. This simply doesn’t make sense.

To re-define marriage, as proposed in this referendum, actually means abolishing marriage as we know it and replacing it with something else. Not only would marriage no longer, of necessity, be between a man and a woman, but the unique relationship between marriage and procreation would disappear completely from the definition of marriage. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts and uncles all matter. In redefining marriage, this proposed

The “Children and Family Relationship Bill”

As you will probably have heard today that Bill is to be published on Thursday, and I am quite certain that there will be some very good and necessary things in it. The Government has, however, already flagged a number of provisions which, if enacted, will undermine the family founded on marriage, particularly in so far as it seeks to enshrine in the law a separation between the genetic dimension of parenthood and the responsibility for the upbringing and care of chil-

dren. In so far as this will include the possibility of same-sex couples adopting children, or having children via AHR and being regarded legally as the parents, it seems to me that the Government is prejudging the outcome of the referendum. It was announced also today that some of the more contentious issues of Assisted Human Reproduction, including Surrogacy are now to be siphoned off and they will form another piece of legislation which will come later. Obviously the government feels that these things are too hot to handle just now and would quite likely turn people against the referendum. As a recent Supreme Court case on surrogacy demonstrates, the involvement of donors creates a very real confusion about who is actually the father or the mother. The courts can make a judgement as to who will be recognised as the lawful parent, but they cannot resolve the basic confusion that is introduced into the family relationship. At a time when the state purports to be enshrining in its legislation the best inter-

ests and natural rights of the child and emphasising the rights of adopted children to know who their parents are, this proposed amendment completely undermines those rights. As I have already mentioned, the government would like us to believe that these things have nothing to do with the referendum to redefine the meaning of marriage. The reality, however, is that, if we say that people of the same sex can lawfully marry, then there is no basis for saying that they cannot have children. When we enshrine something in the Constitution, we are not just saying that it is lawful, we are saying that it is the ideal. In much the same way, it is certainly possible for two men to parent a teenage girl, but few would suggest that is the ideal. There are very few children available for adoption, so it follows that same-sex couples who want to have children will, for the most part, rely on Assisted Human Reproduction. The Catholic Church in Ireland has consistently pointed to the need for legislation around the area of

Assisted Human Reproduction. Our concern, however, would be that such legislation should focus on children as persons in their own right, rather than on the need of adults to have children.

family, the Catholic Church along with many others, would argue that the adoptive parents should always be one man and one woman in a stable committed relationship. Other unanswered questions

Does the same problem not apply to all Adoptions? No. It is not the same. Difficult circumstances sometimes mean that it is not possible for a child to be brought up by his or her birth parents. Adoption is a legal process by which the adoptive parents offer a home and loving care to a child who would otherwise have to live in institutional care. Their decision to adopt is a very generous one, which responds to an existing need, but it doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t change the fact that the child also has natural parents. In recent years, great emphasis is placed on preparing both the adoptive parents and the children for the possibility that the child may some day wish to trace and establish a relationship with the natural parents. In order to replicate as closely as possible the relationship of the natural

There quite a few other things that the state seems not to have considered. All family law in the state is based on the understanding that the family is the essential building block of society and it is for that reason that the state pledges itself to defend the institution of marriage on which the family is founded. A change in the meaning of the marriage such as is proposed in this referendum would have significant knock on effects on the whole spectrum of family law. Let me give you one example. Civil law, like the law of the Church regards consummation as an essential condition for the validity of marriage. It is clear what that means at present, but what would consummation mean in a relationship between two men or two women? The French solved this problem by

simply deciding that consummation is no longer required for marriage to be valid. So what then is the difference between marriage and life-long friendship? The place of homosexual people in the Church and in society Love demands that we respect the dignity of every human person without exception. That is why the Catholic Church clearly teaches that people who are homosexual must always be treated with respect and condemns without reservation words or actions which are intended to injure, ridicule or undermine homosexual people. The Churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s point of view on the redefinition of marriage is not about homosexuality. It is about the meaning of marriage. Everybody is welcome in Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church. Those who are baptised Catholics have a unique right to participate in the life of the Catholic Church, to pray together, to celebrate together and to serve together. Catholics, irrespective of sexual orientation,

also have responsibilities within the community of the Church. These include the responsibilities of worshipping God, of witnessing to the Gospel and of working together for justice and peace, to mention but a few. Many people who are of homosexual orientation live faithfully as members of the Church alongside their heterosexual brothers and sisters. Many struggle with the demands of chastity, as do many heterosexual people. That does not change the reality of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s love for them; nor should it make them any less welcome or less free to participate in the life of the Church. Would Ireland not be completely out of step? There have been at least 37 referenda on this subject so far. 34 of these have taken place in various American states and three in Europe. In 34 referenda out of 37, a majority voted to reaffirm the traditional view on marriage as between a man and a woman, even in liberal California. It is true that some governments, without public

plebiscite, have legislated to extend the definition of marriage to include gay relationships. In so far as Ireland extends protection to the family founded in marriage, it may well be out of step with some other countries. The question is whether it is more important to protect the family or to be like everybody else. I believe that it would be very foolish and irresponsible to change the constitution simply to be like everybody else. This is the text of an Address by Bishop Kevin Doran, given at the Sligo Park Hotel, February 17, 2015. It can be found on the Elphin diocese website: www.elphindiocese.ie.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR This is the text of an Address by Bishop Kevin Doran, given at the Sligo Park Hotel, February 17, 2015. It can be found on the Elphin diocese website: www.elphindiocese.ie.

There is  always hope by Siobhan Scullion

four year son is a little obsessed with superheroes at the minute, just like every other boy his age. It’s Spiderman this and Batman that, even Superman gets a look in too. Along with Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and some others who I have no idea what to call. I know absolutely nothing about superheroes and since his father and I aren’t going to let him watch the films of the above mentioned men, he has to settle for gleaning any possible information about them from the pictures on more sensible items like pyjamas, sticker books, socks and shower gel. Recently he came to me with a question about these superheroes. I was expecting one of the usual: what type of powers do they use, who exactly are they fighting, why do they wear

masks…but this question wasn’t one of the usuals. The following exchange occurred: Four year old: “Mammy, where are the superheroes in real life?” Mammy (caught completely unawares and absorbed in cleaning the bathroom): “Erm, well, I don’t really think superheroes exist in real life son?” Four year old (with facial expression depicting puzzlement and slight tinge of panic): “But if there are no superheroes, who will fight the bad people?” Mammy (lost in silence until she comes up with some kind of credible answer to the credible question): … Eventually I had to answer him with something but I was struck by his perception of the world at only four years old. In his mind, bad things happen but good

people fight against it and order is restored. He is counting on superheroes and I can understand how it would be slightly worrying to think that if superheroes don’t exist, then evil will ultimately reign. I couldn’t in good conscience lie and tell him that Spiderman actually does exist or that Batman is coming around for tea this evening. But this little mind wanted an answer to a question we all ask; who will overturn evil? Perhaps the super heroic ability to overturn evil exists in all of us, not by shooting spiderwebs or lifting whole buildings with one arm, but by the very fact that we are ordinary people committed to doing good. And I’m not talking about spectacular deeds of bravery or valour but a constant and persistent commitment to doing what is good and what is right. Not because we feel like it all the time, but because we know it is the best thing to do. Evil is overturned when we decide to lift ourselves out of our own little bubble and do things for the good of others. Even when it costs us. When we see the things happening in the world and we

know it is not for the common good, it can be hard to know exactly how to feel or what to do: war, famine, martyrdom, persecution, abortion, euthanasia, destruction of marriage and the family… These are the things happening in the world and they are not far away but rather on our doorstep. We can’t bury our heads in the sand about it. If we have decided to take our Catholic faith seriously, then these are issues we have to face. As Christians, we are not removed from society; we are society. Living a life of faith in God does not mean this world and the problems it may face is something we have to just endure. No, we bring our faith into the very fabric of our lives and relationships with others, not to judge others or the choices they have made, because we are not perfect, but to show others that a life removed from God does not bring happiness. Unfortunately something that can tamper the superhero in us is the sense that there really isn’t any point. Who are we to do anything? Who are we to have the hope that we can change anything? We can have

one of two reactions. The first? Sure, the world will just keep on ticking and if evil things are going to happen then who am I to do anything about it? Who am I to get in anybody’s way? It’s maybe not for me, but it’s probably going to make someone happy so hey, live and let live eh? The second? Lament. The world is messed up. What’s the point nowadays anyway? The news is so negative, people misunderstand each other and refuse to tolerate not just opinions but even their fellow man. People are living their lives completely contrary to what natural law has intended. The world has shut God out and people think they are invincible. It’s the end of the world as we know it. I’d wager we’ve all experienced both of these reactions but neither is helpful. I have often found it helpful to remember that one of the greatest weapons evil has over us is despair. When we despair, we lose hope. And when we lose hope, we have shown that we thought everything could depend on us. Then we realise that we aren’t capable of fixing everything and then we give up. It might be easier

said than done but we have to live life with hope and never allow ourselves to give in to despair. We don’t hope in ourselves and what we can do, but in the fact that He never loses battles. In a few weeks we will celebrate the most magnificent triumph of Easter. It’s a good time to pray for hope and to ask fervently for it, so that in us, people will see the happiness that comes from being a child of God. Maybe not a cool superhero power that my four year old would approve of, but I reckon it’s a pretty good start.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Siobhan Scullion is an Arts graduate of Queens University Belfast and a regular contributor to Position Papers.

Book review:â&#x20AC;¨ The Great Reformer by Rev. C. J. McCloskey

The Great Reformer: Francis and the making of a radical Pope, Austen Ivereigh (Henry Holt, 2014).

For

many, our Holy Father, Pope Francis, is still a puzzlement, to use the words of the song from that great musical The King and I. If you are among them, this is the book you have been waiting for to really understand where he is coming from. Well-known British Catholic journalist Austen Ivereigh has researched his subject and conducted dozens of interviews with

no axe to grind to present our current pope. The author does a fine job of helping the reader understand the complicated history and contentious politics of Argentina, a very Latin-American country, so foreign to the American or English mind. He correctly paints Pope Francis as a man on a mission to reform the Curia; however, Francis also wants to make the Curia more efficient to better serve a growing global Church in this stillnew millennium, one that may (perhaps sooner than we might think) see the reunion of Christianity into one flock shepherded by the successor of Peter.

In this book, you will learn much about Catholicism in South America, past and present. Because Pope Francis is the first Jesuit pope in history, you will also learn much about his joys and sorrows in the Society of Jesus. St Ignatius of Loyola's order has done so much good in the Church and the world, but some believe it, too, is in need of reform, and who better to tackle that job than a fellow Jesuit? Ivereigh covers Jorge Bergoglio’s life from birth to his election as pope. It has been a life full of challenges, sufferings and serious persecution from the Argentine government and even his brother Jesuits. All the while, Bergoglio was growing in holiness – and having mystical insights that helped him direct his life to work with the poor, even as cardinal and archbishop of Buenos Aires.

nalist, “his belief is primitive, undiluted: God is sovereign, the devil is active, and the power of prayer can act as a vehicle of God’s grace”. The writer concludes by quoting Pope Francis: “‘Listen up,’ Francis told thousands of people in St. Peter’s Square on Pentecost. ‘Listen up: If the Church is alive, it must always surprise.… A church that does not have the capacity to surprise is a weak and sickened and dying Church. It should be taken to the recovery room at once!”’

Ivereigh traces the current Pope’s worldview to his willingness to go back to the essentials of the Gospel. “Despite his powerful intellect, his political mind and his theological sophistication,” writes the British jour-

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fr. C. John McCloskey is a Church historian and Research Fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington DC.  Website: www.frmccloskey.com.

Film review:  Run All Night by John Mulderig

Even

as it showcases some fundamentally positive values, though, director Jaume ColletSerra and screenwriter Brad Ingelsby’s acrid film garners such a high body count and traverses so gritty an urban landscape that their tale of conversion winds up being too sordid for the casual moviegoer. Liam Neeson stars as burnedout New York hit man Jimmy Conlon. While he may have escaped legal retribution for the long-ago string of rub-outs that gained him the tabloid nickname “The Gravedigger”, Jimmy is a remorse-driven drinker dependent for survival on the charity of his lifelong friend and under-

world patron Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris). The casualties of Jimmy’s killing spree, undertaken at Shawn’s direction, include his relationship with his law-abiding son Mike (Joel Kinnaman) from whose family – Genesis Rodriguez plays Mike's wife Gabriela – Jimmy is completely estranged. Yet when Mike, a limo driver, is targeted for death after accidentally witnesses a multiple murder carried out by Shawn's headstrong son and heir Danny (Boyd Holbrook), the lad has no choice but to turn to Jimmy for protection. With both crooked cops under Shawn’s control and the city's

honest chief of homicide, Det. John Harding (Vincent D'Onofrio), on their trail, Mike and Jimmy go on the run. The chase becomes even more challenging for the duo once Shawn adds ruthless gun-forhire Andrew Price (rapper Common) to the array of adversaries hunting them.

able, the yield on that score is more routine than abundant. The film contains much harsh and sometimes bloody violence, drug use, a few vulgar sexual references, about a dozen instances of profanity and twice that number each of rough and crude terms. The Catholic News Service classification is L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R – restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Initially resigned to his own damnation – he and Shawn talk in oblique terms of their shared eternal doom – Jimmy eventually comes to yearn for some measure of personal salvation. He's also shown to be at pains to keep Mike on the right side of the law and, in particular, to prevent him from spilling blood. Along with the odd religious detail, such as a crucifix or a portrait of St John Paul II hanging in the background, a consistent theme of confession, though it’s rendered in purely secular terms, reinforces the vaguely Catholic context of the proceedings. As for the possible aesthetic rewards awaiting those adult patrons for whom this frequently visceral odyssey is suit-

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John Mulderig is on the staff of Catholic News Service. This article first appeared on www.catholicnews.com has been reprinted with the kind permission of Catholic News Service.

PROGRAMMES EACH YEAR IN FEBRUARY & OCTOBER. See website.

Nazareth Family Institute Pre-marriage preparation. Marriage enrichment, restoration & healing. Dates of marriage preparation weekends: May 8 2015 - May 9 2015 Jul 3 2015 - Jul 4 2015 Sep 25 2015 - Sep 26 2015 Venue: Avila retreat centre, Donnybrook, Dublin. Extended course: A seven week course by arrangement with the course directors Course directors, Peter and Fiona Perrem 01-2896647 For more information see: www.nazarethfamilyinstitute.net