Coming Back In From the Cold...?

Diplomats accredited to the Holy See

Well, it seems the Irish government is reversing its decision to close the Vatican embassy: according to reports the Cabinet has approved the reopening of a smaller embassy to the Holy See.  The reason given: "This will enable Ireland to engage directly with the leadership of Pope Francis on the issues of poverty eradication, hunger and human rights", a spokesperson in the Department of Foreign Affairs has said. 

This is to be welcomed, although it does not take to a genius to work out that the announcement is made at a time when the country is preparing for the local and European elections and at a time both government parties fear they may well be facing the loss of many seats. Are politicians that obvious? Yes.

I think we all know why the embassy was closed in the first place - and it had nothing to do with finance and little to do with child protection issues: it was a political decision, pure and simple, one aimed at the Catholic Church by a certain party. However, as they have probably found out, without a resident ambassador at the Holy See, Ireland is somewhat out in the cold when it comes to networking and gaining information. 

The Holy See is one of the best listening posts in the diplomatic world, where the host country makes few demands on the diplomats accredited to it, treats them well and provides an easy and friendly forum for networking to take place.  Given that the Church is present in every country in the world and she is regularly updated by nuncios, bishops, priests and laity in those countries on various situations and issues, resident diplomats have access to information their own foreign embassies may not be able to get.  The Church is also one of the world's largest charitable organisations (if not the largest) and so any country's work in the era of poverty, human rights can only benefit from a close diplomatic relationship with the Holy See. 

Ireland has excluded itself from most of this, and I know that while the civil servant appointed as non-resident ambassador has been doing Trojan work to keep channels of communication open with the Holy See, it has been difficult and Ireland has been the loser.  

The plans to reopen the embassy will begin, I presume, although the date of its actual opening is not yet decided.  Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin has welcomed it, as have groups who have been campaigning against the original decision.   It is good news, but I would not see it as a gesture of reconciliation with the Church or with Catholics: it is, in my view, a purely pragmatic decision and it may well be an effort to coax back some Catholic votes: some commenters are calling it a stunt. 

I wonder if this decision has anything to do with the revelations which emerged during the Vatican's testimony at the UN a few days ago: that Pope Benedict had dismissed almost 400 priests in two years as part of his work in dealing with child abuse?  These revelations certainly contradict  what Taoiseach Enda Kenny said in his personal attack on the Pope in the Dail a couple of years ago.

Endless Possibilities

Ireland's new resident ambassador to the Holy See?

Here's a story for you (you can't make these things up!).  A Vatican university - the Urbaniana, is hosting a conference on tattoos - I kid you not!  Story here.  They have teamed up with the Israeli ambassador to the Holy See who, it seems, is an expert on inking oneself.  Entitled "Into The Skin: Identity, Symbols and History of Permanent Body Marks", the conference is examining tattoos in various cultures and pondering over their significance. Interesting.  You see, being Catholic is not as boring as one would think.  And as for that ambassador, it sounds like he would be great company for a dinner party.

You know, if the Irish government had any imagination at all, instead of closing the embassy to the Holy See they could appoint an interesting character who could engage in such cultural activities with the Vatican and show the world that the Irish are not as miserable as we are made out to be in these difficult times: that we can smile through a crisis, after all we have had plenty of practice!

Now here's an idea for Minister Gilmore and his allies over at Foreign Affairs: pop over to Temple Bar (that's the bohemian quarter of Dublin for those who do not know) and find an expert on piercing.  Send him or her over to Marks & Spencer to buy a suit, stick him/her on an Ryanair flight with a few tins of beans, and set him/her up in a tent in front of the Villa Spada.  Bingo!  A resident ambassador on the cheap!  And then let him/her organise a conference with the Urbaniana on piercing and its cultural significance, with, perhaps, a few practical workshops thrown in for the laugh.

I tell you, our government's tensions with the Holy See would evaporate overnight!  Indeed, all things are possible to those who try.

Time To Reassess Relationships

Prior to the General Election, Enda Kenny with Bishop Leo O'Reilly of Kilmore and others.

With Enda Kenny digging in his heels and refusing to admit he went too far in his criticism of the Holy See, it might be no harm for the Church in Ireland to begin to look again at the relationship with exists between the Catholic Church and the state which is the Republic of Ireland.  Speaking with fellow priests, a number of issues have come up which might need serious consideration.

First is the nature of the relationship between the two.  There is no doubt that for many years there has been an unhealthy relationship between the Church and the state.  Prelates of the Catholic Church had too much power over secular affairs and this has led many to see the role of a bishop in terms of power and control rather than as pastor and father.  A bishop is supposed to govern, teach and sanctify - ultimately  his role is above politics, nor must he let politicians use his office to promote themselves.  As Irish politicians gang up on the Church, they forget that many of them were happy enough to use the Church and to be seen in the company of the local bishop and clergy in order to win the votes of the flock. I saw it myself as recently as the last election when candidates turned up at Mass times to "say hello" to the priest in full view of parishioners.  

The Church is meant to be prophetic, and must have the freedom to challenge secular authority when necessary.  That is very difficult when one is compromised by too close relationships with the people in government.  Being prophetic requires a healthy distance, mutual respect, but also confidence to stand up to the state when necessary.  Separation of Church and state is absolutely necessary, but that does not mean, as secularists and politicians tend to think it means, the Church being subject to the state: she is not subject to the state - she must respect the state, and her members must obey the laws of the state in so far as these laws do not contradict or offend their faith.  However, the state must also respect the Church and her freedom, a freedom that is not confined to any one territory or the gift of any one government: the Church in Ireland, for example, exists within two jurisdictions: the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Given recent developments, it is time for the Church to examine how we proceed.  It may be that under the present government we will have many difficulties with the state and we may have to wait until the present Taoiseach is replaced or until another political party is elected to govern before Church-state relations are improved, that may take time.  But it is time for reflection.  One suggestion that has been made is that it is time for a Concordat between the Church and the Republic of Ireland. 

Many secularists in Ireland would be appalled at that idea since they think Concordats are signs of a close relationship.  Actually the opposite is true.  A Concordat normalises relationships and puts down in writing the nature of the relationship between the Church and a particular state so there will no longer be any misunderstandings.  It will safeguard the rights of Catholics within the territories governed by a particular government and ensure that the Church does not have undue influence in the state and that servants of the state do not have undue influence in the internal affairs of the Church.   Concordats set the boundaries and that is important particularly when the Church has to deal with hostile regimes as in the case of Nazi Germany, and who knows perhaps even in the case of a Fine Gael/Labour ruled Ireland.  The Church has a good record of respecting its part in Concordats, however problems tend to arise when the state, having committed itself to an agreement, wants to wriggle its way around that agreement, so problems might still emerge if a Concordat is made with an Irish government that wants the freedom to break the Concordat when it suits it.  Strong local bishops would be needed to make sure the state is respecting the boundaries. 

All areas of Church-state relations will come under scrutiny if it is decided that a Concordat is necessary.  One area which certainly needs attention is that of marriage.  At the moment Catholic priests serve as civil registrars or recognised solemnisers of civil marriages - when a Catholic priest marries a couple he does so as a minister of religion and as a representative of the state. Perhaps it is time for us to look at this and see that the time has come for this arrangement to come to an end. 

As in many other countries, even predominantly Catholic ones where the Church and state are on very good terms, Monaco for example, when a couple marries they have separate civil and religious ceremonies. Perhaps it is time for the Catholic Church to adopt that model - to conduct only Catholic ceremonies and let the state conduct the civil ceremony.  In Ireland the Church saves the state a fortune in personnel by the present arrangement and if the Church were to withdraw from this arrangement the state will be required to employ many more registrars to conduct civil wedding ceremonies, which may be costly unless they can persuade certain qualified citizens to do so voluntarily.  That issue of expense for the state is not the Church's problem.  Given that the Taoiseach and the government has many supporters in the criticism of the Vatican, I'm sure many of these supporters will only be too happy to give up their time to conduct civil wedding ceremonies free of charge.  I realise that there may be an inconvenience for couples, but I think genuinely Catholic couples will understand.

There are other issues which need to be examined, among them, perhaps the whole idea of permitting state funerals in the Catholic liturgy, providing Catholic Mass for state occasions and gatherings.  Even, for example, the practice of allowing the Blessed Sacrament to be reserved in the president's residence, a privilege not normally accorded a lay person.  And while the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in a chapel, Aras an Uachtarain (the president's residence) is a state property, so there may be an issue of reserving the Sacrament in a place where the Church has no jurisdiction.  A chaplain is normally provided for the president; that can continue I suppose, if the individual president requires one.  All these issues, and more, probably need to be looked at. 

UPDATES: Good article by Rory Fitzgerald of the Catholic Herald on Enda Kenny's speech.  I see Kenny is defending his attack by saying he is a Catholic and wants the Church to be above reproach: if that's the case, he has yet to demonstrate  that he is willing to listen and take on board what the Church has said in its report. As a Catholic is he willing to admit that perhaps he made a mistake and that the Holy See might just be telling the truth?

Garry O'Sullivan has a very good article in this week's Irish Catholic in which he describes Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore's reaction to the Vatican report as "back of the trailer diplomacy".  Thanks to Fr Burke for this link to The Thirsty Gargoyle which has a splendid post on the Vatican's document and the Taoiseach and Tanaiste's response.

They Just Don't Get It 2

A few tit bits.  In conversation with a friend today, as we discussed the government's reaction to the Vatican's response, she said: "The government asked the Vatican to answer questions, and that's what the Vatican did, and now they are not happy because they do not like the answers".  That sums it up well.

Good articles.   The Irish Catholic has a good editorial on the report, reiterating that Kenny's allegations are completely unfounded.    Catholic Culture News also has a good piece on its website.  One of the few voices defending the Church in Ireland as many others are silent, David Quinn has been speaking on a number of programmes: here is his interview on Vatican Radio. 

They Just Don't Get It

How will the Taoiseach and government respond to the Vatican's report?   Well if the newspapers are any indication, there will be no attempt to pull back on the unfounded allegations thrown at the Vatican.  The Irish Times has an article exploring this.  It seems the media, finally getting over the shock has found its mantra: "the Vatican just don't get this".  The Times's editorial is trying to give the impression of being balanced in its reflection, but fails - as expected.

I think this will be the government's response at the end of the day.  They are shocked, I think, at the Holy See's refusal to take the attack lying down.  Irish politicians and the media have got used to bashing the Church and getting away with it.  Whenever they attack the Church in Ireland, for the most part, Irish Church representatives have been silent and even fearful.  When politicians and media mention child abuse, which they tend to do most of the time when dealing with Church issues, the Church here tends to draw back.  Kenny expected this to happen, but the Holy See was not going to play that game: the truth is on their side and they were going to get the truth out.  As it is becoming very obvious ,as opinions leak out from members of the government, if I may quote Jack Nicholson, they can't handle the truth.  So all we will probably get is the usual liberal mantra, wheeled out when there is no defence: "The Vatican just doesn't get this!"

How ironic, if ever there was a mantra to describe the media and political elite in this country it has to be that very phrase.   What do they not get?  Well first of all they don't get the fact that child abuse in an Irish problem and the incidences of child abuse outside the Church is far greater, as Caroline over at the St Genesius blog points out. 

Why do they not get this?  Because they know that to look at abuse in Irish society will open a can of worms and expose many people, including, no doubt they fear, many of their nearest and dearest.  There is already a cover up of child abuse and protection of abusers in Irish society: we know all too well of the media's attempts to protect certain personalities.  Ironic really, for all the talk of mandatory reporting, I wonder how many of the movers and shakers in Ireland's elite really want it?  It might just put them in a difficult position.

They also do not get that the Vatican is not to blame for child abuse in Ireland. They do not get that Enda Kenny's defamatory speech was wrong, stupid and ill-judged.  They do not get that they are isolating Ireland diplomatically not only from the Holy See, but from other countries that can see the reality of the situation. 

Personally I do not believe the government will take this report on the chin - they will not apologise, as they should.  Enda Kenny will not withdraw his remarks - he sees himself as the great hero of Ireland because he has managed to convince some people in Ireland that what he has said is the truth.  He has dug a hole for himself and he will keep digging, and his party colleagues and coalition partners will be there to lend a hand.  I am sure that many in Fine Gael, and perhaps even Labour, realise that they have gone too far, but by gum they cannot back down: can't let the Catholic Church win this one! 

Archbishop Martin has now challenged the Taoiseach to give full details of the incidents of the Vatican, we must come right in behind him and demand an explanation.  We must not allow Kenny to wriggle out of this. Speaking with many people yesterday at the day's retreat, there are many out there who are deeply ashamed of the Taoiseach. 

UPDATE: On the Pat Kenny radio show Labour's Pat Rabbitte has called the Vatican's response as "pettifogging detail". 

Patsy McGarry of The Irish Times on Pat Kenny show is rehashing old news - well done Patsy, ignore the report, just keep banging on with the old, worn out arguments which have already been answered time and time again.  He's defending Irish bishops and saying Rome stopped them from dealing with the issue effectively.  They just do not get it.  As far as I can see, it seems the Irish media are creating a fog to distract from the Vatican's devastating response.  Surprise, surprise - journalistic standards my eye! 

Oh no! Gina Menzies is on now!  She is defending the government's plan to force priests to break the seal.  She says the Seal is not inviolable because it only came into force in 1215. And this lady calls herself a theologian! 

Vatican Response To "Cloyne Report"

The Vatican has released its report in response to the Cloyne Report and the accusations of Enda Kenny in the Dail.  Caroline over at the St Genesius blog has the text in full.  Or read it here on the Vatican website.  There is a good summary from the Vatican new service.  The Irish media are revving up to launch its attack.  We await a response from the Taoiseach, who will not be pleased. We also await a response from our bishops.

In summary, a quick digest of the summary:

On the Cloyne Report:

"The Holy See wishes to state at the outset its profound abhorrence for the crimes of sexual abuse which took place in that Diocese and is sorry and ashamed for the terrible sufferings which the victims of abuse and their families have had to endure within the Church of Jesus Christ, a place where this should never happen. It is very concerned at the findings of the Commission concerning grave failures in the ecclesiastical governance of the Diocese and the mishandling of allegations of abuse. It is particularly disturbing that these failures occurred despite the undertaking given by the Bishops and Religious Superiors to apply the guidelines developed by the Church in Ireland to help ensure child protection and despite the Holy See’s norms and procedures relating to cases of sexual abuse. However, the approach taken by the Church in Ireland in recent times to the problem of child sexual abuse is benefitting from ongoing experience and proving more and more effective in preventing the recurrence of these crimes and in dealing with cases as they arise."

On the infamous letter sent to the bishops:

"The Holy See’s Response addresses in detail the various charges made against it, which seem to be based primarily on the Cloyne Report’s account and assessment of the letter addressed to the Irish Bishops on 31 January 1997 by the then Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Luciano Storero, concerning the response of the Congregation for the Clergy to the document Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (the Framework Document). The Commission of Inquiry asserts that this response gave comfort to those who dissented from the stated official Church policy and was unsupportive especially in relation to reporting to the civil authorities.

The Holy See wishes to state the following in relation to the response of the Congregation for the Clergy:

The Congregation described the Framework Document as a “study document” on the basis of information provided by the Irish Bishops, who described the text not as an official document of the Irish Bishops’ Conference, but, rather, as a “report” of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious, recommended “to individual dioceses and congregations as a framework for addressing the issue of child sexual abuse.”

The Irish Bishops never sought the recognitio of the Holy See for the Framework Document, which, in accordance with canon 455 of the Code of Canon Law, would have been required only if they intended it to be a general decree of the Conference binding on all its members. However, the lack of recognitio itself did not preclude the application of the document’s guidelines, since individual Bishops could adopt them without having to refer to the Holy See. This is, in fact, what generally happened in Ireland.

The Irish Bishops consulted the Congregation to resolve difficulties relating to some of the content of the Framework Document. The Congregation offered advice to the Bishops with a view to ensuring that the measures which they intended to apply would prove effective and unproblematic from a canonical perspective. For this reason, the Congregation drew attention to the requirement that these measures should be in harmony with canonical procedures in order to avoid conflicts that could give rise to successful appeals in Church tribunals. The Congregation did not reject the Framework Document. Rather, it wanted to ensure that the measures contained in the Framework Document would not undermine the Bishops’ efforts to discipline those guilty of child abuse in the Church. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind the decision of the Holy See in 1994 to grant special provisions to the Bishops of the United States to deal with child sexual abuse in the Church. These provisions were extended to the Bishops of Ireland in 1996 to assist them to overcome difficulties that they were experiencing at that time (cf. Part Six of the Response).

Meeting canonical requirements to ensure the correct administration of justice within the Church in no way precluded cooperation with the civil authorities. The Congregation for the Clergy did express reservations about mandatory reporting, but it did not forbid the Irish Bishops from reporting accusations of child sexual abuse nor did it encourage them to flout Irish law. In this regard, the then Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in his meeting with the Irish Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo (Ireland), on 12 November 1998 unequivocally stated: “I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice and charity towards all.” It should be noted that, at the time, not only the Church but also the Irish State was engaged in efforts to improve its own legislation on child sexual abuse. To this end, the Irish Government organized an extensive consultation on mandatory reporting in 1996 and, after taking into account the reservations expressed by various professional groups and individuals in civil society – views broadly in line with those expressed by the Congregation – it decided not to introduce mandatory reporting into the Irish legal system. Given that the Irish Government of the day decided not to legislate on the matter, it is difficult to see how Archbishop Storero’s letter to the Irish Bishops, which was issued subsequently, could possibly be construed as having somehow subverted Irish law or undermined the Irish State in its efforts to deal with the problem in question."

On Enda Kenny's accusations:

"While the Holy See understands and shares the depth of public anger and frustration at the findings of the Cloyne Report, which found expression in the speech made by the Taoiseach, Mr Enda Kenny, in Dáil Éireann on 20 July 2011, it has significant reservations about some aspects of the speech. In particular, the accusation that the Holy See attempted “to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago” is unfounded. Indeed, when asked, a Government spokesperson clarified that Mr Kenny was not referring to any specific incident.

In fact, accusations of interference by the Holy See are belied by the many Reports cited as the basis for such criticisms. Those Reports – lauded for their exhaustive investigation of sexual abuse and the way it was managed – contain no evidence that the Holy See meddled in the internal affairs of the Irish State or was involved in the day-to-day management of Irish dioceses or religious congregations with respect to sexual abuse issues. Indeed, what is impressive about these Reports, and the vast information that they rely upon, is that there is no support for these accusations.

In this regard, the Holy See wishes to make it quite clear that it in no way hampered or sought to interfere in any inquiry into cases of child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne. Furthermore, at no stage did the Holy See seek to interfere with Irish civil law or impede the civil authority in the exercise of its duties."

Concluding remarks:

"The publication of the Cloyne Report marks a further stage in the long and difficult path of ascertaining the truth, of penance and purification, and of healing and renewal of the Church in Ireland. The Holy See does not consider itself extraneous to this process but shares in it in a spirit of solidarity and commitment.

In a spirit of humility, the Holy See, while rejecting unfounded accusations, welcomes all objective and helpful observations and suggestions to combat with determination the appalling crime of sexual abuse of minors. The Holy See wishes to state once again that it shares the deep concern and anxiety expressed by the Irish authorities, by Irish citizens in general and by the Bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful of Ireland with regard to the criminal and sinful acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and religious. It also recognizes the understandable anger, disappointment and sense of betrayal of those affected – particularly the victims and their families – by these vile and deplorable acts and by the way in which they were sometimes handled by Church authorities, and for all of this it wishes to reiterate its sorrow for what happened. It is confident that the measures which the Church has introduced in recent years at a universal level, as well as in Ireland, will prove more effective in preventing the recurrence of these acts and contribute to the healing of those who suffered abuse and to the restoration of mutual confidence and collaboration between Church and State authorities, which is essential for the effective combating of the scourge of abuse. Naturally, the Holy See is well aware that the painful situation to which the episodes of abuse have given rise cannot be resolved swiftly or easily, and that although much progress has been made, much remains to be done.

Since the early days of the Irish State and especially since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1929, the Holy See has always respected Ireland’s sovereignty, has maintained cordial and friendly relations with the country and its authorities, has frequently expressed its admiration for the exceptional contribution of Irish men and women to the Church’s mission and to the betterment of peoples throughout the world, and has been unfailing in its support of all efforts to promote peace on the island during the recent troubled decades. Consistent with this attitude, the Holy See wishes to reaffirm its commitment to constructive dialogue and cooperation with the Irish Government, naturally on the basis of mutual respect, so that all institutions, whether public or private, religious or secular, may work together to ensure that the Church and, indeed, society in general will always be safe for children and young people."

This is what many of us expected.  I imagine the government will be furious that the Vatican should reject the accusations made by the Taoiseach and also the interpretation Judge Yvonne Murphy, the government and the media have put on the letter.  As I said before this letter was a warning to the bishops to follow the correct course of action with regard to Canon Law so abusers could not appeal to Rome and get off on a technicality.  It is also rich of the government to take offence at the Vatican's hesitation to support mandatory reporting when the government at the time shied away from it because of lack of support, while various organisations and professions, chief among them the legal and counselling professions and social workers, share the Vatican's concerns with regard to mandatory reporting, ironically for many of the same reasons. 

UPDATE:  While the Taoiseach is off studying the Vatican's reponse, we may have indication of how the government will respond thanks to the initial reactions of Tanaiste, Eamon Gilmore, leader of the Labour Party.  He seems to dimiss the report by calling it "legalistic and technical".  I presume as keeping the coalition together will be foremost in his mind, perhaps the Taoiseach will take the same line.  He has already made it clear that he neither rejects nor withdraws his accusations made against the person of the Holy Father and the Vatican.

UPDATE 2:  Eamon Gilmore on RTE news has toned down his reaction.  Seems someone must have had a chat with him.  The Taoiseach looked shell shocked on the news - he won't comment.  Interestingly, he was attending a Mass at the Curragh Army Camp when the report came out.  Ironic.

UPDATE 3:  Good article and summary by Gerard O'Connell on Vatican Insider; worth reading.  Archbishop Martin's response here; he hopes the Vatican's report will help heal the diplomatic rift.  I hear from my sources and people in diplomatic circles that there is a view among many that Ireland has done herself a lot of damage diplomatically thanks to Enda Kenny's attack.  I am told that other countries seem be "very surprised", at the very least, at the lack of professionalism and diplomatic ability demonstrated in the Taoiseach's Dail outburst.  The Vatican's clear explanation of its position in this response will be carefully noted by other countries, as will the government's response. 

That Letter

Other issues and work have kept me from commenting on "That Letter" which RTE and the media have been trying to use to crucify the Church again.  I did not see the documentary on television, but I have heard all about it and have read alot of the commentary since. 

To an open mind it is obvious that RTE is trying to make hay where there is little grass, and their bias against Christianity is blinkering their objectivity leading them to make claims which do not stand up either logically or in justice, but then what is new?

You have probably read excellent articles on the situation: Jimmy Aiken, as always, hits the nail on the head, and John Allen has a very good, objective piece.   But there is also an excellent blog posting by Fr Gabriel Burke which is well worth reading, particularly for my Irish readers.  Reading his piece it I am reminded that the media's concern for the abuse of children seems to be limited as they appear fairly unconcerned about the deaths of 200 children in state care in the last ten years, and as Fr Burke points out, no resignations, no demonstrations on the streets and no great stunts by victims' groups to highlight it.  Of course as many know the real spectre of abuse in Ireland is hidden beneath a veneer of respectability and ideology and it will be extremely difficult to scratch the surface of the problem - and that problem has nothing to do with the Church.   

The Church is now doing what it can to deal with the problem - in fact we now have the strictest Child Protection policy, and that policy is the number one issue in the Church (sometimes leaving other vital issues of Church life and catechises on the back burner).   However, having listening to alot of commentary on the issue of the Vatican letter, I hope some in the Church in Ireland are not using it to get at the Apostolic Visitation, as a means to undermine it and force it in a particular direction.  There is talk that, like the media, some mischevious persons in the Church are also trying to make hay where there is little grass in order to keep a certain ideological status quo in place.  Tisk, tisk, tisk....