David Quinn
We might fault Desmond Connell for his methods, but we cannot fault his sense of duty, writes David Quinn
Commentary on the death of Cardinal Desmond Connell has been dominated, understandably, by the abuse scandals that came to light during his time as Archbishop of Dublin. Who Des Connell was got lost in the commentary. In a way, he was reduced to a one-dimensional figure, defined only by his response to the scandals.
Fr Damian McNiece, who worked alongside him when Desmond Connell was Archbishop of Dublin, remembers him fondly. In a personal reflection on the Dublin diocese’s website (www.dublindiocese.ie), he remembers his kindness, his humility and his sense of humour.
He describes him as a “Victorian gentleman”, and I think that has it exactly right. Des Connell was born in 1926, the same year as my father, but he hearkened back to an even earlier era. I seem to remember that he liked the novels of Anthony Trollope, who wrote the Barchester and the Palliser novels in the 19th Century.
Desmond Connell loved history. It was his first love, not philosophy, the subject he taught at UCD. I also seem to recall being told by a contemporary of the cardinal that he wanted to study and teach history, but John Charles McQuaid told him to study and teach philosophy instead. He had incredibly deep knowledge of the French Revolution and its consequences.
In a way, Cardinal Connell suffered several dislocations. He was born out of time. I don’t think he disliked teaching philosophy, but he would have preferred to teach history, and he was given a job – heading the biggest diocese in the country in the middle of a storm – to which he was ill suited. But every inch of the way he tried to do what he saw as his duty and to do God’s will as far as he could discern it.
Scandals
He also found himself ‘between the times’ in that society’s values had changed massively by the time he became Archbishop of Dublin in 1988 compared with when he was born and raised. The Church overall finds itself in this position.
Aside from the scandals, Cardinal Connell found himself in deepest trouble when he challenged the very strong individualism of the present time.
For example, in 1999 he delivered a speech defending Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical which reiterated, to enormous controversy, the Church’s opposition to artificial birth control.
Most bishops won’t go near this topic with a 10-foot barge pole and Cardinal Connell was nothing if not brave in addressing it. However, he made a hash of things because, along the way, he suggested that parents who plan their children may come in some way to regard them as products, not gifts, and so may love them less.
He also got into hot water when he said it was a ‘sham’ for President Mary McAleese to receive Communion in a Protestant Church, Christ Church Cathedral to be precise, back in 1997.
He was reminding people that the Catholic Church forbids intercommunion, that is, Catholics and Protestants receiving Communion together.
When he used the word ‘sham’, many people believed he was referring to Protestant Communion itself, but he wasn’t. What he meant is that it was a ‘sham’ to pretend there was communion (as in unity) where none existed.
The Catholic Church believes receiving Communion together is a sign of unity already achieved. Protestants are more likely to regard shared Communion as a step along the road to unity. In my opinion, both positions are defensible.
These two controversies, while seemingly very different (one being about birth control and the other about intercommunion), actually had something in common, namely whether individual Catholics can decide the rules in these matters for themselves, or whether there are certain binding moral and communal obligations they must adhere to come what may.
What Cardinal Connell was doing was pushing back against the individualism which would leave it all up to the individual, as though the individual is the final arbiter. Cardinal Connell was saying that certain things are wrong in themselves, regardless of what the individual may think, and that Catholics should pay more attention to what their Church has to say about certain matters.
Harm
This very much had him swimming against the tide and it also has the Church swimming against the tide. We live in an extremely individualistic age. People hate being told what they can and can’t do. They want to live by the rule, ‘do as you like so long as you do no harm to others’. This is far less demanding than the commandment to treat others as you want to be treated.
There are many Catholics, including many clergy, who will say that the trouble Cardinal Connell attracted by his defence of certain teachings of the Church shows that sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. They will argue it is better to be silent about the teachings that are most counter-cultural and instead emphasise the teachings that go with the flow, the teachings about helping the poor, for instance.
To my mind, it is not either/or. We must do both. The Church must offer a counter-cultural witness as well. Cardinal Connell sometimes attracted even more trouble than was necessary because he could be very maladroit in his choice of words. He had a tin ear for these things.
However, while we might fault Desmond Connell for the way he went about defending certain Church teachings, we cannot fault his sense of duty in doing so. Nor should we forget that he was a great defender of the right to life when that wasn’t popular either.
In the meantime, it has become even more unpopular, but this only reinforces the need to offer a strong counter-cultural witness when need be, and the need is strong today.
Swimming against the tide is hard, uncomfortable work, but if the tide carrying you in the wrong direction, nothing else will do.