The depth and scale of the anger which have been provoked by Archbishop Connell's remarks on contraception, family life and the relationships between parents and children are not difficult to understand. Not for the first time, the man who presides over the country's most populous diocese and whose personal nature is gentle and humane, has failed to appreciate the immensity of hurtfulness which can be caused by ill-chosen words or by not recognising the struggle which parents and families undertake in order to make the best of things in an imperfect world.
The ideal which infuses Humanae Vitae is an attractive one which Archbishop Connell was endeavouring to describe. But the world does not permit everybody to attain it. People have to work hard to earn a livelihood. Increasingly, young couples find themselves facing an immense struggle to secure a place to live. Even families on good incomes find themselves slipping into cycles of borrowing merely to clothe, feed, educate and provide health care. The ability to plan one's family or to space one's children with reliability and safety is very often the key to a successful balancing of needs.
The availability of reliable contraceptive methods gives so many of today's families the means to avoid the crushing strains which made the lives of earlier generations - women and children in particular - a bed of pain and sorrow. Archbishop Connell clearly has no concept of the immense hurt which his words have conveyed to the innumerable parents who use and have used artificial contraception while establishing homes, with children well-provided for and in an environment of happiness and security. Children in such families may not "belong to the family in a personal sense", he says, while "a properly personal relationship becomes problematic". There is "insincerity" in the love of couples who have practised artificial contraception while the "contraceptive culture" has led to children "who experience resentment against a parentage based on power".
This is simplistic and dangerous nonsense. Hundreds of thousands of happy, well-adjusted children in homes throughout this country testify to the fact that the Archbishop does not know what he is talking about. If there were a sentence or two in Dr Connell's address which acknowledged the struggles of many parents to provide properly for their children and to build good homes, often in the face of immense odds, the thrust of his words would not be so wounding. Even if he felt it appropriate to express an adverse moral judgment on the actions of so many parents, he might have acknowledged the pressures which can occur in family situations.
But there is no recognition of the gap between the ideal world which Dr Connell envisages and the realities which life throws up. It is possible to feel some sympathy for a church leader who is clearly anguished about what he sees as a crisis of moral compliance among the faithful. But if the response is cruelly to marginalise conscientious parents, along with their children, that sentiment must yield to censure. An apology will not undo the hurt which has been caused. But it might make it easier for those members of Dr Connell's flock who believe that notwithstanding the stigma which he has visited upon them, they can still have a place within their church.