OPINION
TRINITY NEWS December 1, 2009
ROUND UP AOIFE CROWLEY
ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS
COUNTRY ROCKED BY CHURCH SEX SCANDAL THE COUNTRY has been disgusted by the Murphy report, published last week. In the Irish Independent, Patrick Costigan calls for criminal investigations into the Gardaí and others who “colluded and conspired to aid the Catholic Church in covering up their crimes of child abuse and child rape.” An official Papal apology has also been called for. In the same paper, Seamie Clarke writes, “this holocaust of innocence has left me wondering does the God I believe in even exist.” In The Irish Times, Fintan O’Toole comments on the comparatively low incidence of reporting to Gardaí by communities, saying that the Church used their power over society to do “precisely what paedophiles do to the children they abuse. They convince [society] that they are the guilty ones.”
ACADEMIC STUDIES
SHOCK REPORT: STUDYING CAN AFFECT YOUR GRADES LAST WEEK The Guardian reported that according to a new US study, there is a “causal effect of studying on grade performance”. This shock report may come as a surprise to some students who were unaware of a possible correlation between the two. The study’s main conclusion is that having a roommate who brings a video game to college can affect how many hours one studies, which can in turn affect one’s grades. For these insights, the study was awarded the Berkeley Electronic Press’s Arrow Prize in Economic Analysis & Policy. Glad to see money is being well spent in academic research. STUDENT GROUPS
HAVE YOU GOT BALLS? ASKS NEW OXFORD GROUP A NEW men’s group in Oxford University has provoked outrage. Called “Man Collective — Oxford”, they are seeking to promote discussion of masculinity and male mental health services. Their leaflet asks “Have you got balls? Literally. If you have, how does that make you feel?” Writing in the Belfast Telegraph, Christina Patterson responds that “Probably, one is tempted to answer, [having balls makes you feel] like most of the other people who have passed through Oxford’s hallowed portals over the centuries, and most of the people who run it, and most of the people who have been educated in it, and who have gone on to run the legal system and the financial system and the country.” POLITICS
FITZGERALD SHOWS NO CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT WRITING IN The Irish Times, former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald writes that, “Once this Government has taken the necessary first steps to start undoing some of the damage inflicted on our economy, it would be better for it to be replaced.” He believes that the current administration is damaging our international reputation, as well as failing to accept their share of responsibility for the crisis we find ourselves in. The country needs a government in whom they can trust. Meanwhile, in The Sunday Times, Bertie Ahern is quoted as saying that he trusted Ben his cat more than most of his peers in government. He goes on to say, “If I wanted to set out a rumour in Leinster House, all I had to do was say it to certain people.”
17
Sex and the celibate The issue of religious celibacy has taken centre stage once more in recent weeks thanks to the departure of a priest in a rural parish, but the issue extends back far further than that. Ross O’Mahony Staff Writer “WE ARE losing good men.” This was the reaction of Fr. Brian D’Arcy to the news that another Irish Catholic priest was stepping down due to the celibacy rule. Fr Sean McKenna was a priest for twenty-five years before announcing his resignation at Evening Mass two weeks ago in his parish of Ballymagroarty, County Derry. He was leaving because of his involvement in a “loving, beautiful and life-giving relationship” with a local woman, Elaine Curran. Such a relationship violates the vow of celibacy that Catholic priests take before their ordination. Fr McKenna’s decision was not greeted with the condemnation and criticism Bishop Eamonn Casey received when news of his secret affair with Annie Murphy broke seventeen years ago; instead his parishioners commended him, and they even gave him a standing ovation. The question must be addressed then: why won’t the Catholic Church allow its priests to marry? Why does it continue to enforce the doctrine that seems increasingly unpopular, unnecessary and unworkable? The crux of the argument centres around the idea of whether removing celibacy as a requirement detracts or enhances their ability to fulfil their duties as a priest. According to www.vocations.ie, priests look after the day to day spiritual needs of their parish and the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the primary purpose for which priests are ordained. However it is obvious that priests have many other different roles: they are involved in teaching, caring for the sick and dying, missionary work, social work and more besides. It is a multifaceted role requiring a multitude of skills and abilities. The numbers going into the priesthood have declined to a trickle in comparison to the flow of young men
of only a generation ago. The reasons put forward for such a decline could not even begin to be listed in this piece, let alone be explained. It would be fair to say that celibacy is one such reason. Despite a massive public relations campaign by luminaries such as Pope Benedict XVI, George W. Bush, the Jonas Brothers, Jessica Simpson and Britney “Oops!... I did it again” Spears, celibacy is not popular, not widespread and not mainstream. Priests were not always forced to be celibate. It is not even a part of Church dogma or doctrine, but rather it is a Church discipline which could be reversed tomorrow if the Pope so wished. Many of the early Church leaders were married. We know that Peter, the Rock of Christ, had a wife. St Paul recommends marriage for Church leaders in his first letter to Timothy. It was still permitted up until the First Lateran Council held in 1123. Critics of celibacy and many historians would argue that one of the reasons for the implementation of this rule was to ensure the retention of Church property by preventing the existence of heirs who would look to claim some of their father’s wealth. It also helped increase the authority of the Popes and the obedience of priests to Rome. This is certainly one reason which no longer has much relevance. The Protestant churches have not had widespread problems with their system of married clergy and the financial issues involved. There have been protests that the cost of providing for a family is more than the Church can afford, but the salary for a priest in the Dublin Diocese stands at close to €33,000, while the average industrial wage is €32,000, on which many people manage to provide for a family while also having to pay a mortgage or rent. The repeal of the celibacy rule has long been discussed; in 1967 Pope Paul II spoke of celibacy as “a dazzling jewel” but conceded that “it is not required by
The no wives club. The Pope refuses to tackle the issue of married priests
the nature of the priesthood”. He upheld celibacy still, as have all his successors despite opposition and criticism even from within the ranks of the Church. So if even a Pope will admit that celibacy is not essential to the nature of priesthood, how can it be argued that making it a choice would hamper their ability to fulfil their responsibilities? Those who would lift the ban argue that it would bring manifold benefits to the priesthood, to the Church and to the community. On a practical level it would give priests a greater understanding and knowledge of the issues affecting his parishioners, enabling them to be more responsive to their needs. The experience of love, of the intimacy of married life and the experience and support of it cannot be underestimated. To criticise the Catholic Church for hypocrisy is almost expected; the spate of recent scandals have shown a huge disparity between its teachings and the actions of some of its priests and other members. Unfortunately when it comes to the issue of priestly celibacy there is again a difference between preaching and practice. The Catholic Church has married priests. Any married priest in the Anglican Communion who decides to convert and become a Catholic can continue to serve as a priest and keep his family. Also, Eastern Rite Catholics, who come under the authority of the Pope, allow married men to become priests, but not bishops. It is true that most of those who are married are not given parish work. Often they serve in schools or the chancery. This recognises that there
are different roles which suit different individuals with different experiences. The role of a bishop is to manage the placement of priests to areas he feels best suit them. One would think such a role would be aided by new priests with new experiences joining. Why is it that there is a dichotomy that suggests celibate priests are good priests but married priests would be bad or defunct – are the two roles mutually exclusive? It has been said that the role of a Catholic priest is more demanding than any other job, profession or lifestyle and that it would be impossible to combine it with married life. Yet aside from the fact that Protestant clergy manage it well, there are comparisons with other roles - that of a doctor, nurse, garda, firefighter and more besides. In his sermon on the feast day of St Lawrence O’Toole, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin spoke of the need for the Church to repent and renew itself, but addressing recent debate and criticism he stated it was “too glib to think that change in the Church will come about primarily through debate in a secular environment about church discipline … especially concerning marriage and conjugal morality [which] have different meanings in society and in the Church.” Intransigence such as this is expected from the Church, which reforms itself when only it is ready and sometimes too late. As all too often, its teachings on the matter are distinctly black and white but its practices are somewhere in the grey.
The price of the euro Jonathan Wyse Staff Writer ms A FEW months ago, David McWilliams ms offered his solution to Ireland’s problems by suggesting the abandonment of the me Euro. It is true that Ireland can only become her competitive again by repricing itself, whether ver, through deflation or devaluation. However, the Maastricht Treaty outlines no route for countries to leave the monetary union. ost The transition mechanism is the most pic difficult aspect of the debate, but a topic which has remained relatively untouched so gh, far by any commentators. First of all though, note that devaluation is no panacea. oss According to the IMF, total gross te, indebtedness of Irish residents (the State, nal the banks and the non-financial personal on and corporate sector) stood at €1,671 billion hat at the end of 2008. It should be stressed that uld this is external debt, i.e. money that would nd be owed by Ireland after the devaluation and on denominated in foreign currency. Devaluation eal could add hundreds of billions to the real burden of this debt, most of it private. de: Other ancillary concerns include: ce, loss of political credibility and influence, ate transactional costs in trade, exchange rate rm uncertainty for businesses, short-term eal brain drain and emigration. Increased real fuel costs will definitely hurt Irish citizenss – nce possibly considerably given our dependence sts on imported energy. There are also the costs of conversion to the new punt within the economy, which are not insignificant to any degree. uld Furthermore, the new currency could be open to aggressive manipulation by speculators. Although this is difficult to predict in the current financial climate, it could have disastrous consequences for investor confidence.
ng The main benefit would be increasing eeconomic activity in the state, as Irish labour our b rts becomes competitively priced. Irish exports w ess would become attractive and relatively less eexpensive. This would also happen within the he E ful Euro, but probably only after a long and painful p period of deflation and unemployment. en Deflation will increase the real burden o nt’s of Irish debt anyway, as the government’s lliabilities will only start to be paid back in eearnest once the country is back working ng aagain. Note that much of the money has been en rraised through sale of long-term bonds. h a Thus, the Irish people are faced with m hin mountain of real debt either way. Within E en European monetary union, the real burden iincreases gradually until deflation reprices ces IIrish labour – hitherto suffering high gh u eal unemployment. With abandonment, the real b burden explodes immediately but with an aaccompanying boost in economic activity and nd eemployment right now. It might sound good, od, b but is the latter option even possible? n’t The Maastricht Treaty certainly doesn’t tthink so. There would be nothing to stop op a sovereign state disagreeing. The main ain o nce obstacle is preventing capital flight. Since tthe measure will be introduced in order to iinitiate a devaluation, nobody will want to h his hold their assets in the new currency. This p ity. poses the biggest threat to the practicability. A uro Any sensible individual will shift their euro ssavings to another bank until after the he cchange-over, outside the state. nk Irish banks couldn’t survive such a bank rrun, and this would precipitate insolvency. cy. H bly Higher interest rates couldn’t possibly ccompensate for the currency devaluation on rrisk, as savers would much rather wait until ntil aafter devaluation to convert. The banks also lso ccouldn’t borrow in the inter-bank markets, ts, b ed because these debts would be denominated iin another currency.
Consequently, the Irish banks w would be paying exorbitant rrates to compensate for d default risk, while the rreal burden of this debt eexploded with devaluation. L Lack of available capital iin the financial markets aand the existing risk of d default compounded m make this an expensive iimpossibility. The alternative is that tthe Irish government b borrows this money, possibly ffrom other central banks. T The scale of the borrowing w would be enormous, and the ccredit-worthiness of the Irish g government is questionable even now. T gh This seems difficult to imagine, even though tthey would be paying most of this money back ack aafter devaluation. The catch is extremely ely h high interest rates to attract money into the ccountry, which creates entirely new problems ms ffor the nascent economy. ons Taxpayers would also be losing billions o nt. on the deal, in real burden of repayment. E External euro-denominated debts and lliabilities would also have to remain as such. ch. IIrish banks would be losing yet more money ney tthrough devaluation on their net external nal lliability, which is not insignificant. The tab b is p picked up by the taxpayer. ust Meanwhile the markets would only trust tthe new currency if they believed that the d devaluation was a singular event, but thiss is ccontingent on the devaluation being sufficient. nt. IIf it was underestimated even slightly, the ccapital markets could produce a financial cial ccrisis, as happened with Mexico in the 1980s. 0s. T This is not unlikely given the scope for p rsh political interests to prevent sufficiently harsh
devaluation. Another suggestion includes the s simple reintroduction of the punt as legal t tender at a fixed conversion rate (through m measures like public-sector pay and taxation), a and deserves consideration. There is also t Argentine model, whereby the banking the s system is intentionally destroyed through r redenomination. Ireland is confronted with a painful period o high unemployment, deflation and falling of p purchasing power of consumers. It may e endure for many, many years. Meanwhile, t the attractiveness of our exports to our m major trading partners, the US and the UK, i depreciating along with their respective is c currencies. The worst is yet to come. It might b time to start seriously considering all be p policies in the state’s arsenal. Jonathan Wyse Sch. blogs as The Free Marketeer at http://thefreemarketeers. w wordpress.com/