Dear Editor, I read with great interest the interventions of my learned brother Prof. Tom Whelan. Fr Tom is very right that the local Catholics in these territories need the priests ‘ten times more than we do’. I am very much aware that my brother being versed in liturgy knows more than I do that one of the pillars of liturgy is ‘Sacrifice’.
It is because the priests are needed in their home countries that they can be sent to support Church in the west, not only in Ireland. The spirituality of sacrifice for what you need most is well expressed in the widow’s mite (Mark 12: 41-44). Jesus was more pleased by the widow who had given the little pennies, though she needed it more than any other – so is the missionary approach to the west from the young Churches. I don’t want to call them mission territories because every corner of the earth, including Ireland, is a mission territory. In upholding this argument, I am sure that the priests who went from our shores for missions, were also needed here. You do not give what you don’t need or the surplus, then the spiritual idea of ‘donation’ is contradicted.
Closing parishes and institutions is not the solution for the future, it is a negative approach. An Irish retired missionary priest feels that there is in fact no crisis of priests, but an unequal distribution. If we still resist the need for missionaries in our country, the Church will continue to shrink. The question should be asked as to why we have a crisis of vocations and of priests? While the churches are being amalgamated, you see new housing constructions springing up! A priest is not only for administering a parish and sacraments, but I also think it is more than that. I want to make it clear that having priests does not rule out the need for a synodal Church whereby the laity is central in the running of the Ecclesia. All in all, I think my learned brother used professional and clerical lenses to advance what he thinks the laity need at this moment? We need to train the laity, but no doubt it is more than urgent to find a system of evangelisation in Europe not to lose the little we have.
Yours etc.,
Fr Charles Lwanga Kaweesi OCSO
Portglenone, Co. Antrim
A consistent life ethic on immigration
Dear Editor, I warmly welcome Archbishop Dermot Farrell’s recent comments warning against polarisation and his strong condemnation of racism. Keeping the Archbishop’s words in mind, it is important that those concerned about media bias on other issues do not simply dismiss concerns about the treatment of migrants as a ‘liberal’ or left-wing case. Many readers may feel, for example, that those who oppose abortion or euthanasia are treated extremely unfairly in the mainstream media. It does not follow that concerns about hostility to those applying for international protection applications are invalid, even if these concerns come from these same media outlets.
When making judgements and decisions on the subject we should remember that ‘migration management’ has in recent years included actions that are not compatible with a consistent life ethic such as the treatment of migrants by Libyan authorities.
Yours etc.,
Joe Curran
Artane, Dublin 5
Calling for ‘No’ vote on referenda
Dear Editor, The wording of the first upcoming referendum in March is so vague that it relegates the traditional marriage and family to being just one of many imaginable combinations of relationships. That traditional marriage was instituted by God is no longer seen as important even though the preamble of the Constitution acknowledges God and his supremacy over everything. I say that for anyone who believes in God and in the importance of the traditional family for society, a firm ‘No’ should be the response; and the shepherds should be calling for that at this point and not just leave the campaign to dedicated, pro-family lay groups.
However, and sadly, for decades now the shepherds have been pandering to people in all sorts of irregular unions with a fake pastoral charity that tries to affirm them in their situations. True pastoral charity, by contrast, would instruct people on God’s unique design for marriage and the family and point out to them gently and caringly the immorality of their situations so that they might be able to regularise them and be able to live in a state of grace.
The second referendum, then, reduces the mother in the home to being just another carer even though, to my mind, she is the most important person in society and is irreplaceable. It is she more than any other person who moulds the next generation into being secure, capable, happy people of maximum benefit to both Church and society. Thus I would call for a ‘No’ vote on this also and instead demand that the state live up to the commitment at present in the Constitution to give mothers who wish to stay at home the salary they need to do that.
Yours etc.,
Fr Richard O’Connor
Rome, Italy
Upholding the dignity of every human life
Dear Editor, In her article ‘Little acts of love will see us through the Blue Mondays’ [The Irish Catholic – January 11, 2024] Breda O’Brien refers to the ‘Repeal’ referendum and the effect of its result on the morale of the people who uphold the dignity of every human life. She goes on to say: “I am immensely proud of the efforts family and friends made during the Repeal campaign. Yes, we lost but the rout would have been more comprehensive without the courage of thousands of people.”
With admirable humility she says nothing of the courage she herself displayed in the pro-life battles in a far-from friendly media atmosphere. In an increasingly secular society, we need to keep her final words in mind: “Ultimately, everything is in the hands of God. Let us be grateful that in him the victory is already won.”
Yours etc.,
Fr John Joyce SPS
Kiltegan, Co. Wicklow
Clarity needs to be found on NGOs and referenda
According to the most recent figures, 164,922 people in Ireland are employed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with a combined turnover of €13.9 billion. Some €6.2 billion of that comes from the taxpayer. To put that in perspective, NGOs – lobby groups, advocacy organisations and charities – employ roughly the same number of people as the agri-food sector in Ireland.
The Government spends almost as much public money funding NGOs as it does on housing, and more than the budgets of the Department for Justice and the Department for Transport combined.
That, perhaps, explains in part why Minister for integration Roderick O’Gorman was displeased – to put it mildly – at the suggestion in recent weeks that some State-sponsored organisations such as the 90%-state funded National Women’s Council of Ireland (NWCI) were reluctant to support next month’s referendum proposals. The NGOs, the minister insisted, would have to explain themselves.
Unsurprisingly, ultimately no explanation is necessary since, after the minister’s intervention, the NGO-sector by and large has come out in support of both referenda.
There is no suggestion, of course, that the minister put direct pressure on the groups. But it does raise the interesting question as to how independent NGOs are when they rely almost entirely on the Government of the day to fund them from the taxpayers’ purse. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
There is a potentially a more troubling aspect of the involvement of State-funded NGOs in political campaigns. The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that it is illegal to spend taxpayers’ money promoting one side or the other in a referendum campaign. To what extent are NGOs, many of whom wouldn’t exist without State funding, actually free under the law to involve themselves in political campaigning without falling foul of the so-called McKenna Judgement?
It’s clearly a thin line, and one that should be clarified by the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO).