Michael Kelly
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin During the visit of Pope Francis in 2018 the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar gave a first-rate speech to the Pontiff in Dublin Castle. In contrast, Francis’ input was weak and he was let down by his speechwriters on such an important topic as Church-State relations in contemporary Ireland. Mr Varadkar’s speech was something of a lap of honour for liberal Ireland: the Pope’s nose was rubbed in more than a few examples of where the country has departed from Catholic principles.
Interestingly Mr Varadkar spoke of the need for a new covenant between Church and State. There was precious little by way of detail, but the new Archbishop of Dublin – whoever he is and whenever he is appointed – will be in the driving seat in articulating the Church’s approach to such a new relationship.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has made it clear that he wishes to resign within a few weeks. April 8 – Spy Wednesday – is his 75th birthday and the day he is due to submit his resignation to Pope Francis.
As it stands, there is important unfinished business on Archbishop Martin’s desk: the transfer of the ownership of land from a religious to a civil trust upon which the new national maternity hospital is to be built. Abortions and other procedures contrary to Church teaching will be performed at the new hospital.
According to reports, Archbishop Martin has given the transfer his consent. His permission is not enough, however, as the value of the property exceeds €3.5 million.
This means that the Holy See must also approve the transfer. It looks like the Vatican has not accepted Archbishop Martin’s recommendation and there is something of a stand-off between the Religious Sisters of Charity who own the land, the Dublin archdiocese and Rome on the issue. There is speculation that the matter will only be resolved when a new resident gets his feet under the table in Archbishop’s House.
Strategists
Dr Peter Boylan is the former master of the National Maternity Hospital. A leading proponent of abortion, he is one of the strategists behind the new hospital. He understands the problem better than most.
He has acknowledged that “permission is required by the Vatican to alienate the land, that is, put the land and all the property into a civil structure that is going to allow the building of a maternity hospital in which sterilisation, IVF, abortion…are carried out” (Newstalk, November 12, 2019).
It has been argued in support of this move that procedures contrary to Catholic teaching are already being carried out at Catholic hospitals in this country. That’s beside the point: they shouldn’t be. This partly depends on whether the good effects brought about by the provision of the land are proportionate to the material cooperation in evil that is involved in donating a hospital where abortions etc., will be carried out.
In the St Vincent’s hospital case, two leading Irish theologians, Fr Vincent Twomey SVD and Fr Kevin O’Reilly OP, have called upon the Holy See to refuse permission for the transfer. This could only be on the basis that they consider the transfer to be a serious form of material co-operation in evil. Fr O’Reilly has gone so far as to describe giving such permission as “an unconscionable act”.
The Holy See’s hesitancy is entirely understandable. If permission is given for the transfer of the St Vincent’s property it could have ramifications for the Church globally because the same or similar moral dilemmas are arising all the time. The Holy See needs to act not only consistent with Church teaching but also consistent with decisions it has already taken elsewhere.
Last November, at the same time as the row over St Vincent’s Hospital was raging in Dublin a similar debate was underway in Flensburg in Germany. There, a new hospital has recently been established out of two existing hospitals, one Catholic, the other Protestant. The new hospital will be under ecumenical trusteeship. The Protestants felt the new hospital could provide abortion. Predictably, the Catholic Church has stood firm: no abortions at the new facility. It is holding this line despite the fact that the hospital is to receive millions of euro in public funding.
Last year, in the run-up to the federal elections in Australia, the Labour Party proposed making abortion provision mandatory at all hospitals that receive public funding, including at Catholic hospitals. They backed down under pressure, including from the Church.
The Morrison government, despite many objections, is now introducing legislation to protect religious freedom, including the protection of the ethos of Catholic hospitals. Though such hospitals are in part publicly-funded, their right not to perform abortions and that of healthcare professionals to refer patients to abortion providers will be upheld.
***
Two years ago, Pope Francis personally gave an ultimatum to the Brothers of Charity in Belgium who had approved euthanasia under certain circumstances at their psychiatric clinics.
He told them to desist or risk sanctions under Canon Law, including excommunication. He demanded they sign a letter stating that they “fully support the vision of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has always confirmed that human life must be respected and protected in absolute terms, from the moment of conception till its natural end”.
Specifically, in the case of the proposed St Vincent’s transfer, there is another matter: whether or not a Church body should be transferring its multi-million share of hospital property without insisting on it benefitting first and foremost public rather than private medicine?
It seems that Church policy in Ireland in relation to publicly-funded services is being defined ‘on the hoof’. There is no evidence that Church authorities have developed principles coherent with Church teaching and best practice in the Church elsewhere which serve to guide particular decisions in circumstances as they arise.
Public purse
Take the case of ACCORD, the Catholic Church’s agency that prepares couples for sacramental marriage and provides counselling to married couples. ACCORD receives more than €1 million annually from the public purse.
Two years ago, in order to qualify for this funding under new regulations it agreed to extend its counselling services to same-sex couples. Was this wise in terms of the mission of the Church? Could the State’s demand have been challenged in terms of religious freedom or religious discrimination? Has the Church’s compliance in regard to ACCORD created a precedent that will have to be followed in other contexts?
Or take the case of Catholic education. Several schools that have been built, owned, and heavily subsidised by Catholic parishes for decades have been divested of their Catholic patronage since the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in 2012. If it weren’t for the resistance of local communities far more schools would have been divested by now.
A policy of divestment might be a step forward for the mission of the Church if the schools remaining Catholic were to be left free to operate as such. Yet there is no evidence of any concessions in this regard. The Church is struggling to implement its own teaching in regard to sex and relationships education in Catholic schools where the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and teacher unions are calling the shots despite how ideologically-opposed their positions are to the Catholic Faith.
Admissions policies that are unfavourable to the Catholic Faith have been introduced by legislation and a reform of the primary school curriculum is underway that will see faith-based religious education separated from the core curriculum and treated as a second-class subject with reduced hours on the timetable. And all of this in schools under Catholic patronage.
True
The same is true when it comes to selecting teachers and school principals. In many instances interview boards have been very reluctant to require evidence of a developed understanding and meaningful commitment to a Catholic school’s ethos.
The boundaries in terms of religious freedom have never been tested. It has simply been assumed that to favour candidates openly and actively supportive of the Catholic Faith would be unjustly discriminatory.
Mary Immaculate in Limerick is the only teacher training college in Ireland still under Church governance. Recently, its future as a Catholic institution has been cast in doubt by its president’s refusal to provide a course in Christian ethics that was requested by the Irish bishops’ conference. This is despite the fact that it is constituted as a Catholic college, the Bishop of Limerick is the chair of its governing body, and other bishops serve as trustees.
In all instances Church leaders seem to have assumed that because a Church body is publicly-funded it cannot insist on its ethos being protected. Thus, Church leaders either surrender and settle for continuing with a merely nominal existence as a Catholic entity, or, decide to jettison ownership and control.
This is not the case elsewhere. In other jurisdictions, a modus vivendi results from respectful dialogue and negotiation in which the Catholic Church presents itself and is accepted as a partner in ensuring plurality of provision. Generally, the high quality of provision is also respected and appreciated. Catholic hospitals, schools and universities worldwide are considered among the best.
Public funding is rarely resented because Catholic institutions are clearly understood as providing a service not first and foremost to the Church but to society.
At the moment in Ireland the approach in regard to our publicly-funded Catholic institutions seems to be Lent all year round. We seem to think we have to continue to put on sack-cloth and ashes for the sins of the past instead of confidently, and at times, robustly protecting and promoting the distinctiveness of what the Christian understanding of the dignity of human life in the realms of education, healthcare, the social services and so on.
Never was the Christian understanding more needed in such sections of society than it is now.
The next Archbishop of Dublin has his work cut out for him.