I suppose I should confess. I get the occasional e-mail from All Hallows, although I wouldn't claim a special relationship. It is true that usually they want me to do something for them, like giving a talk, and where possible I try to facilitate them, writes Breda O'Brien
As a mere columnist and teacher, and not a member of government, I suppose I will be safe from Liz O'Donnell's ire. I am not entirely sure why Liz thinks that All Hallows is so sinister. It's bursting with lay people, many of them mature students, studying theology and pastoral ministry. Lots of them are able and articulate women, who are well capable of casting a critical eye on aspects of church policy.
Given that Liz stated, as someone with "irreconcilable differences" with the church, it will be in terminal decline until "it allows the laity in, including women", I would have thought she might approve of All Hallows.
That is presuming that she was not confusing it with Archbishop's House which also happens to be in Drumcondra? Surely not? If one chooses to launch a stinging attack on a symbol of the church, surely one should at least be clear where and what it is? There seems to be a presumption that those with "irreconcilable differences" with the church have a monopoly on anger and disgust at how clerical sexual abuse of children has been dealt with. For those of us still struggling to maintain our faith, the sense of betrayal may go even deeper. Nowhere near as deep as the sense of betrayal felt by those whose desperate sobs went unheard as children. Nothing could compare with that, and the sound will rightly haunt our imaginations forever. But when members of prayer groups, traditionally the most staunch of Catholics, hold silent protests outside the Archbishop of Armagh's residence, you may surmise the depth of the hurt.
It may also surprise Liz O'Donnell to discover that there is a huge amount of discussion within the ranks of committed Catholics over the role of the church in education. Perhaps Liz O'Donnell missed the internal debate on whether churches should sustain involvement in education, because it does not fit the stereotype of the churches maintaining control of everything they can lay their greedy paws on. It may well be a case of "be careful what you wish for".
Church withdrawal from education may be much more rapid than currently anticipated. Nor is that discussion confined to Catholics. This past week, the Irish Catholic reported that the Church of Ireland Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral had called for the end of another special relationship, that is, the higher level of funding that Protestant schools receive in comparison to Catholic schools. The Rev Dr Robert MacCarthy wrote to Minister for Education Mary Hanafin asking her to "investigate to what extent these schools are, in fact, Protestant", given that some of the schools have 50 per cent Roman Catholic enrolment.
As pointed out by historians like Diarmaid Ferriter and Dermot Keogh, the "special relationship" between church and state ended perhaps 20 years ago. Sure, there are manifold contacts between various church bodies involved in education, health and other activities, and the State. However, they are contacts on the same basis as any non-religious organisation would have. Given that there are currently no formal mechanisms for consultation, there has been a very useful debate on how such mechanisms could be established with all the churches and faiths in Ireland, a debate of which Liz appears unaware.
Perhaps someone should give her a copy of Reflections at an Anniversary celebrating 75 years of Diplomatic relations between Ireland and the Holy See edited by Albert McDonnell. It includes contributions by Bertie Ahern, Dermot Ahern and Dermot McCarthy, secretary general of the Department of the Taoiseach, and speeches by Prof Keogh, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and Archbishop Seán Brady.
In the book, Dr Martin suggests we need "new forms of structured dialogue between church and state which are consonant with the Constitution and the praxis of mature, modern, pluralist democracies". He specifically rejects the Catholic Church being given a "privilege which would not be given other religious communities".
He also says he is sometimes surprised to hear Northern bishops note that their discussions with the Northern Ireland Office and administration seem much easier than those held in certain areas with the Dublin Government. Both church and State contributions espouse the classic liberal position of hearing from all voices in society, without excluding or privileging churches.
Liz O'Donnell's list of areas where the church should be precluded from consultation makes fascinating reading. They include IVF, abortion, stem-cell research, family planning in the Third World, adoption, homosexuality and civil marriage. Odd, is it not, that she did not exclude consultation on or support for her own highly laudable aim of increasing Overseas Development Aid, or on justice and fair trade for the developing world? It may not suit those who see stem-cell research as a potentially profitable industry that the church insists on respect for human life from conception.
However, it is that same insistence on human dignity that has driven thousands of religious people to work with the poorest of the poor, and to agitate for their rights. Why is one manifestation of a moral code suitable for inclusion in public debate and another not? And who does Liz suggest fill the vacuum regarding values left by the churches, if they are excluded from dialogue in the public square? Perhaps Ibec, since unlike the cosy relationship with the church and State in the past, the cosy relationship of Ibec and the PDs is alive and well?
The Church of England used to be dubbed the Tory party at prayer. The PDs might be called "Ibec in government", as their ideas have a disproportionate sway in Ireland, including relentless bashing of the public service. Perhaps Liz would prefer an Ireland dominated by the profit motive, where family life must be sacrificed to the Celtic Tiger. She is right about the disgusting mess the church made of dealing with child abuse for years. She is wrong that the solution is a sectarian decision to obliterate the voices of the churches on vital issues.