Religious and political sectarianism has for so long been a curse on life in Ireland that it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this long-awaited report of the subcommittee on sectarianism of the Church of Ireland's General Synod.

The sub-committee was set up in 1997 to "initiate an examination of church life at all levels, to identify ways in which the church may be deemed to be accommodating to sectarianism and as a means of combating sectarianism". We welcome the report and see it as setting benchmarks for the future of the Church of Ireland.

It begins with theological considerations. If these reflections were to permeate and inform the preaching, practice and actions of the church, the question of "accommodation to sectarianism" would no longer arise.

At the core of this section (pp 174ff) is the acknowledgment of the provisionality of all "knowledge of God", of the paradox of God "at once knowable and at least partially intelligible to human reason" but at the same time "ultimately unknowable and beyond the reach of human intellect".

The report is specific (p175): "Where God is open, sectarianism rejects, where God forgives, sectarianism stores up revenge, where God would unite, sectarianism divides." (p176): "Sectarianism would appear to represent the absolutising of the provisional, in which a church/community/party or nationality is put in the place of God." In other words, sectarianism is a form of idolatry.

The report is unequivocal that there is now a gulf between the Church of Ireland and the loyal orders in theology and in practice. For many years our church has been committed to furthering good relations between different church traditions.

The report notes that the scriptural traditions of the loyal orders are markedly Old Testamental, and selectively so, with little of the prophetic concerns for justice and mercy, whereas the Church of Ireland concentrates on the New Testament and the life and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. It also questions the right and the ability of the Orange Order ". . . to support and defend the Protestant religion".

The report questions the concept of the "Protestant religion" denying that there is a single body of doctrine which is "Protestant". To talk about "defending the Protestant religion" would seem to imply that the Roman Catholic Church is not part of the Christian church.

We welcome the report's realistic view of what is happening at Drumcree. It is precise: after deeply regretting the Church of Ireland being caught up in the continuing bitterness and lawlessness ". . . we confess that in the circumstances regret is not sufficient and must be combined with resolute remedial action".

If the church does not promote tolerance, dialogue, co-operation and mutual respect, it is, the report says, promoting sectarianism. Sadly we do not find anywhere in the resolutions anything that could be described as "resolute remedial action".

Resolution 1 is welcome, that only the flag of St Patrick or the Anglican flag should be flown on church buildings on specified religious occasions. We suggest it is an obligation of those who reject this resolution to explain to the rest of the church why the flying of the Union flag on Orange occasions is important to them as Christians, bearing in mind that the established Church of England does not permit such flags.

Resolution 2 is a public recognition that formulations such as the 39 Articles, which are part of our heritage, were composed in a climate of extreme religious intolerance. "It regrets that words written in another age and in a different context should be used in a manner hurtful to or antagonistic towards other Christians."

The resolution states that "the Church of Ireland seeks the visible unity of the church". Other churches have grasped the nettle and have rewritten their historic documents. We regret that the report declines this way forward.

Given the thrust of the report on the differences between the Orange Order and the church, it is difficult to understand why resolution 3 has taken the form which it has. We have already seen the refusal of the Portadown lodges to respond to the Primate's request for pledges.

The core of the resolution lies in the request that the rector and select vestry should withdraw their invitation in these circumstances, but it gives no indication of how the lawful authority of the church might be invoked in the event of a refusal by the rector.

The report should be the first step on the long and painful road of self-examination. The General Synod's response will be crucial. In certain critical areas, the church has a chance to make its position unequivocally clear and to show puzzled members and observers throughout the world where it stands on issues which affect all its members and have profound consequences for its credibility as a Christian church.

Mr Brian Fitzpatrick is honorary secretary of Catalyst