Paris Murders

Recent events in Paris have been traumatic and dreadful. We must remember all those who died in our prayers, as we pray for their families, for the Jewish people and for the people of France.  Many are marching in Paris today to remember those who died, the press will probably give it a lot of coverage.

That said, we must remember that Charlie Hebdo was a vile publication. It abused the right to free speech to ridicule and attack those who did not agree with them, particularly men and women of faith - the Muslim faith and the Christian faith. It is no example of the right to free speech since it sought to silence those it did not agree with through deeply offensive cartoons.

I believe in the right to free speech, for all, but it must exist within the suite of all other rights, and among those rights is the right to believe in God and to have that right respected, together with the right to our good name - the right to be a believer without being demonised for it.  However, as we listen to the usual suspects speak about free speech, and Voltaire's famous quip is being bandied about: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", I realise that many of those who are quoting it do not really believe it. If they did they would not censor conservative, pro-life, Christian, pro-natural marriage supporters. And that censorship is certainly in place. 

Again we must pray for all who were killed, some of them will probably need those prayers badly, if they made it. Violence is never the answer to being offended: prayer, forgiveness and determination to do what we can to build a more just and respectful society are the answers to that.  We must also recognise that Europe is facing serious threats, and so far she has been in denial. She needs to take a good hard look at what has happened in the last number of years. This is not merely a question of immigration, it is a question of values and of faith. 

Young people are being radicalised - why? There is a spiritual crisis and they are looking for something to believe in, something to live for, and, yes, even something to die for (as strange and extreme as that sounds). Liberal, permissive, jaded secularism is not filling the gap - the drug-induced, orgasm-fueled dream of the Sixties is not doing it for the youth of today - they've had that ideology pushed in their faces all their lives and now they are rebelling. If the bloodshed is to be stopped, and even greater bloodshed prevented, a different response is needed, and for that Europe may have to go back to discover the true nature of her soul.

Christians In The Military

Fr William Doyle,
Jesuit Mystic and Military Chaplain

One of the things Catholics can be most proud of is the heroic ministry of our military chaplains, particularly in times of war.  Many of our priests have been killed on the field of battle as they brought the sacraments and consolation to soldiers as they died.  Indeed Catholic chaplains have been acknowledged by many as being the one who took the greatest risks and were always to be found by their soldiers' sides in the heat of battle.  

 

A number of such chaplains are now on the road to beatification as the Church discerns that they were sanctified through their heroic ministry and laid down their lives out of love for those they served.   Among these we find the Servant of God Fr Vincent Capodanno, and the Servant of God, Fr Emile Kapaun, who was recently honoured by the US government and who may be beatified soon as a miracle has now been attributed to him.  Of our Irish chaplains, Fr Willie Doyle, killed during the First World War, is the most universally honoured and invoked, although, strangely, a Cause has not been opened for him.

 

It seems this admiration of Catholic chaplains, and Christian chaplains, may well become a thing of the past, in the US military anyway, as some who see their ministry as a threat to secular values seem to be having their way in the Pentagon.  According to Fox News, Christians in the military, chaplains among them, are to be prevented from speaking about their faith for fear that they may be proselytising.   Reports say that this will become a crime in the military and those accused of it will find themselves before a court martial.   There is even talk of "treason". 

 

Is it possible that we are going back to the days of Ss Sebastian, George and the other soldier saints who were persecuted and convicted as treasonous simply because they were Christians?  I hope not.  Someone somewhere in the US military must have some common sense; let's hope it will prevail.

 

And let's hope our lot in power do not get to hear of this, they might get some bad ideas, and let's face it, they've had enough of them as it is.

The "Problem" Of Catholic Education

As many of my Irish readers are aware the patronage of schools in Ireland is being discussed at the moment.  Ireland, unlike many other countries, has a very liberal approach to patronage of schools.  According to our Constitution parents are the first educators of their children and they are entitled to school their children according to their ethos and the State must support that.  In practice this means a group of parents who share a common ethos or religion can set up a school and as long as it adheres to the general curriculum and standards laid down by the Department of Education, the State must finance that school.  It is very liberal, tolerant and open; it allows Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and yes, atheists, to have their own schools so their children can be educated in their chosen ethos.  It even acknowledges the rights of parents to homeschool, something which is coming under threat in some countries.

Here is the article in the Irish Constitution which acknowledges and guarantees this right:

42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

However it seems this liberal approach to education is too much for our liberals – they want to impose a “one size fits all” model: secular state schools in which all the children of Ireland will be educated. Or at least that’s what I understand Senator Ivana Bacik and her friends are looking for.   For my non-Irish readers, Senator Bacik is a Labour senator and one of the most prominent members of the pro-abortion and radical secularist movements in Ireland. 

 

At the moment the vast majority of schools are under the patronage of the Catholic Church, simply reflecting the fact that, up until now, the vast majority of Irish citizens were Catholic and wanted a Catholic education for their children.   As religious affiliation is changing, naturally schools become an issue.  Atheist or secular parents now want an atheist or secular ethos in their children’s schools; that is fair enough and our Constitution supports them.  However, while some have formed new schools which the State is financing, in some parts of the country there are not enough of them, so they must send their children to Catholic schools.  Those schools accept the children, they are excused from religion classes and their parents wishes are respected.

For some, however, that is not acceptable.  Some atheist/secularist parents try to get the school to change its ethos, and on national level, many secularists want to get the Church out of schools altogether: instead of setting up their own they want to take the Catholic schools and make them secular and non-denominational.   In some cases that might be possible – where secular parents are a majority in a locality then I think the Church should relinquish the local school.  However, if the majority of parents in an area want a Catholic education, then under the Constitution they are perfectly entitled to have it and the State must support it.    Senator Bacik wants to see the end of the Church in education and wants to create system of schools with no religious ethos at all. If people want RE for their children, it can take place after school or on Saturdays or Sundays, she says.  There are a number of problems with this.  

First of all it is inadequate and narrow, not the diversity liberals talk about so much.  Indeed the proposition is illiberal and monolithic. 

Secondly it takes education out of the hands of parents and puts it into the hands of the State.  Unfortunately this is happening in practice in many areas of education, yet the Constitution sees education as the preserve of parents, the state is only there to support it.  This proposal seems to be another step in the State’s growing power over its citizens. 

Thirdly, it is naïve to think that a school will not have an ethos – every school has an ethos.  When these state schools are established an ethos will have to be chosen and there is little doubt that if there is no room for religion that ethos will be secular and perhaps even atheistic; and let’s call a spade a spade – secularism is not neutral as its defenders try to maintain, it is highly ideological.  Supporters of these schools say they will respect religion but not favour one, but we know from experience this approach becomes very judgemental of faith, and of one faith in particular (guess which one!).  This will of course contravene article 42.2  as it may violate the consciences of Catholic parents. 

Finally, the proposal is unconstitutional as it deprives parents of their constitutional right to educate their children in schools of their choice.

I support the provision of schools for the children of secular and atheist parents, as I support the provision of schools for Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims.  Given the change in demographics the Church may well relinquish schools where there are not enough Catholics in an area.  If a parish had two Catholic schools and only one was required, then the second could well be relinquished.   This may also benefit Catholic schools and allow us, in this secular age, to deepen our ethos and our identity as Catholics.  Ironically, as we see in other countries, even when lots of secular schools are available, a Catholic education is in great demand and you even find that secularists are desperate to get their children into the Catholic schools.  That may well happen in Ireland, but if it does, the seculars should be directed to the state schools: Catholic schools will have to tighten up their admissions policy.

Of course the way the government can change the educational landscape is by a Constitutional referendum, but I think the parents of Ireland, once they understand the liberal nature of the Constitution on this issue, will not pass it: I think the government knows this and this is why, it seems to be, they are trying to slither their way around the Constitution and put a secular state schools system in place.  But if they try to make those schools the only ones permitted in the State surely that would be unconstitutional and open to challenge.

At the moment the Church is in dialogue with the government over this issue.  Great care must be taken by our negotiators, they must be aware of our constitutional rights and not sign them away no matter how sweet the agreement may seem.  Ultimately until the constitution is changed, the government’s hands are tied.  If we have to relinquish schools, we must negotiate a tightening of our constitutional rights and ensure government interference is kept to a minimum, particularly in the area of admissions policy and ethos.  Not exactly a time for horse trading, but the time to squeeze as much as we can out of the government in order to protect ourselves and our freedom.  The Lord's advice comes to mind: "as innocent as doves and as shrewd as serpents".  An important thing to remember is that we are no longer dealing with friends and not to presume we can trust them.

However, reflecting on what I am hearing from Senator Bacik and her friends it seems to me that here we may have another example of government trying to dilute the rights and freedom of its citizens at the behest of the secular liberal agenda.  And of course the illiberal intolerance of the liberals is once again exposed.

The Holy Troublemaker

Today's feast is one which should warm the hearts of all our priest-preachers - the memorial of the great St John Chrysostom, he of the "golden mouth" who inspired the people and was a thorn in the side of a corrupt and sinful Imperial Court.  He was a particular scourge for the haughty Empress Eudoxia. 

St John was a brilliant man, he could have had a shining career in the service of the empire, but he chose to become a priest, and as such gained renown for his holiness and his preaching. He was extremely well educated and so his sermons were brilliant.  He did, however, have a bee in his bonnet: he saw, correctly, that Christians were not living as well as they should.  The Roman persecutions had ended a generation before and it seemed Catholics had become too comfortable, as tends to happen when peace is restored.  When he was elected Patriarch of Constantinople in 398 he had the position to promote genuine reform, and he had great success.  The ordinary people loved him and came to hear his sermons.  Many of them changed their lives and began to live the Gospel. 

However, when a bishop or priest preaches reform, some people are not happy, and when the secular authorities are nominally Catholic and living scandalous lives, then problems soon emerge. So too with St John: the Imperial Court was appalled at his preaching - it felt the sting of his tongue as he railed against the vices which were commonplace in the palaces.  The empress was particularly offended both by the sermons and John's lifestyle - he was very ascetic and not inclined to come to her extravagant banquets - indeed he condemned them and said they were a waste while people were poor and starving.  His work on behalf of the poor showed her up, and so she decided to get rid of him. 

In a manner we are all familiar with, Eudoxia summoned the Council of Bishops and had John deposed as Patriarch in 403 and sent him in to exile.  As he left the city he was surrounded by the people in tears. Their sorrow soon turned to anger and the empress, as the one blame, got the brunt of it.  A devastating earthquake also terrified her and she saw it as an expression of God's anger with her for exiling the holy Patriarch: and so she called John back to his See: the people were delighted.

If Euxodia thought John would change, she was wrong: he continued his programme of reform.  In 404 following a wild party in which a silver statue of the empress was unveiled, and other extravagant banquets, John again criticised the hedonism.  Indignant, Eudoxia had him exiled, and this time he would not return.  He died three years later as a vengeful empress was attempting to drive him even further from his people and his See.  In 438 he finally returned, as a canonised Saint, when his relics were translated from the place of his death, Comene, to Constantinople.

The story of St John is a timely one.  We too have rulers who are nominally Christian, yet live lives that do not conform to the Gospel and run their countries in a manner which is repugnant to the Christian faith: some of them are actually putting measures in place to persecute Christians for adherence to Christ's teaching, as we see in the push for gay marriage in the UK and abortion in Ireland.   Yet we have these same rulers rubbing shoulders with the Pope or handing out John Paul II Awards.  Perhaps we need a John Chrysostom to point out the inconsistencies to these leaders.

St John preaching against the proud Empress Eudoxia.

In other news, I ask your prayers for the members of the Fraternity in England who will be making their first pilgrimage to Walsingham as the Fraternity.  The pilgrimage takes place on Saturday and Sunday, one of the highlights being Mass in the Slipper Chapel on Sunday morning at 9am.   I hope this will become an annual event for the Fraternity in England.

Time To Say NO!

The committee charged with examining patronage of primary schools has issued its report, and, surprise surprise, it is nothing more than another attack on the Catholic Church and her patronage of schools.  In its recommendations, the report says that religious education should not be conducted in schools, prayer should be changed so as to be more inclusive ie not Catholic prayers, and religious symbols of all faiths should be on display rather than Catholic religious symbols.  Now remember they are not talking about state schools here - they are talking about Catholic schools. 

So to sum it up: the report is recommending that Catholic schools should not be allowed to be Catholic, but rather conform to a secularist, left-wing, relativist agenda.  That's objective for you in modern Ireland. 

Well, the Church's response to this should be very simple: No way, and then just get on as per normal and ignore any efforts the Minister for Education makes to force Catholic schools to conform.  But will the hierarchy and Catholic parents do that?  Certainly the parents of Ashbourne, Co. Meath, will not be impressed.  They are up in arms because the government told them they cannot have a Catholic education for their children. 

This, my friends, is actually unconstitutional in Ireland.  The constitution states that parents are the primary educators of their children and they have the constitutional right to decide what type of education they want for their children and the government is bound by the constitution to support and provide for this.  We have a very liberal constitution when it comes to education here in Ireland, and that's the best way.  Our government and their left-wing secularist allies want to de-liberalise this and force all parents of all religious traditions and none to send their children to the same types of schools - schools which will only cater for secularists and atheists.

 A friend of mine said this morning that the report is deliberately extreme so as to force the Church to compromise.  I do realise that there has been a tendency in the Church here to compromise even when she does not have to.  She relinquishes certain rights in order to reach out.  That may be noble at times, but in the present age with the attack of radical secularism, this is not the time to reach out and compromise - now is the time to fight, and fight hard.   Now is the time to stick by our constitutional rights and tell the government that we will not allow them to take away our liberty here.  The government already has plans for a constitutional convention which will aim at giving Ireland a new constitution - you can bet that the creature they bring to life will be worse than the Frankenstein monster, and the liberties people of faith enjoy in this country will be significantly diminished.  Religious schools will be high on agenda.

Is it not time for the Catholic Church to form alliances with other faith groups?  I have said this before. In Ireland in the past the Church was strong, she had power and could wield that power in the face of governments and politicians.  That was not always a good thing.  Now she has no power, and certainly not with an agressive secularist government headed by a man who wants to break the country's ancient relationship with the Holy See.  Is it not time, then, for the Cardinal, the other Archbishops and Bishops to get talking with other Christian leaders, the new evangelicals among them, with the Chief Rabbi and the Muslims, to form a grand alliance to defy the government?  The Taoiseach and Minister for Education will fob off a delegation from the Bishops, but they will not fob off a delegation of Catholics, other Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religious groups united in a defiant stand against the radical secularist agenda that wants to prevent us passing on the "faith of our fathers and mothers" to our children. 

Catholics, much to the chagrin of radical secularists, are the majority in this country.  United with other Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths, we are the overwhelming majority, and we all want to keep our schools and their individual faith ethos.  If we got together, the government would be very foolish to defy us.  Yes, I'm sure they would try, but by God, if they do not listen to us, come the next election not only can we boot them out of office, but we can wipe their parties off the political landscape.  It was almost done to Fianna Fail in the last election, it can be done again.