Celebrating a bigger vision of being Irish

 I attended an event today that moved me deeply and filled me with a sense of gratitude that I live in a country which is able to embrace an ever increasing diversity of understanding of what it is to be Irish.

The event was a World War 1 Commemoration of the 100^th Anniversary of the Armistice and it took place in the Salesian College in Celbridge and was organised by the staff and students of the college under the leadership of Kieran McManamon.

The centre piece of the event was the unveiling of a memorial stone in a newly set aside memorial garden to all those from the Celbridge area, regardless of religious affiliation who died during the 1^st World War. Wreaths were laid by members of the Irish Army and Airforce and a senior British Army officer who was representing the British Ambassador. Also present was the Deputy Head of Mission of the Belgian Embassy and a representative of the French embassy, who along with a representative of the Royal British Legion and students from the school  also laid wreaths. Following this a service took place in the School Gymnasium. This was led by Fr Seamus Madigan (Head Chaplain of the Irish Defence Forces).

The service was beautifully put together and included some of the most famous war poetry which was inspired by the 1^st World War. The names of all those on the memorial were read out along with their regiments and also a list of others who while not from Celbridge were associated in any way with the staff and students of the school. I was very moved that my own Great Grand Father, Charles Arthur Cox  who died in the final weeks of the war was included in the list. I never knew him of course but found myself tearing up at his name being celebrated 100 years later in a context and setting he could never have dreamed were possible. (The account of his death is included below).*

The music which accompanied the commemoration was also very moving and included pieces by both staff and students including a haunting rendition by two of the teachers of ‘Christmas 1915’ which tells the story of the Christmas Day football match between the English and German trenches where for a brief interval amongst all the carnage there was peace, albeit short lived.

The service ended with the National Anthem and I can honestly say I have never been so proud of my country as I was today – We have come a long way and it is only right that we finally acknowledge our debt to those who gave their tomorrow for our today.

*Charles Arthur Cox, Royal Engineers, Scottish Regiment.

He died only weeks before the end of the war and is referred to in the official account below as Spr Cox:

During the night of 12/13 October 1918, 416th Field Company completed a floating bridge across the Sensée Canal, which allowed two companies of 1/2nd Londons to cross. At 05.15 one of these companies attacked under a covering barrage and surprised Aubigny-au-Bac, taking many German prisoners but the Germans counter-attacked the following morning, and the companies were withdrawn at dusk. That night a fresh patrol went across the footbridge, despite the Germans being within hand grenade range. The bridge broke, and Cpl James McPhie and Spr Cox, of 416th Fd Co jumped into the water to hold it together. McPhie and his men then set about repairing the bridge after daybreak, while under fire. McPhie and Cox were both mortally wounded, but the bridge held and the bridgehead was maintained until after 56th Division had been relieved by 4th Canadian Division on 14 October. Corporal McPhie was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross.
The division then participated in the Battle of the Sambre and finally the Passage of the Grande Honnelle, before the war was ended by the Armistice with Germany.

Sermon for Sunday 7th October 2018 - The Church after Me Too?

‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner’…. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.’

These verses and the rest of the passage from Genesis from which they are taken are foundational to the Judaeo-Christian tradition but are also among the most controversial and dangerous passages in Scripture!

I am sure there are some of you in this church today who wince at the implication of this passage. Reading it through 21^st century eyes it does appear to suggest that women are derivative of and so lesser than men. It seems to be all about the man and when re read that passage we bring our own context to it.

And that context is one that has changed radically over 2000 years and indeed at an accelerated rate over the last couple of years with the rise of the ‘Me Too’ movement which has created space for women to name the casual and repetitive abuse inflicted on women by men in what is still a very patriarchal society and world. 

That is all too obvious when you listen to the vitriol directed at Dr Christine Blasey Ford by those who refuse to take seriously the issue of sexual abuse in the context of the current Supreme Court appointment procedure in the US – Whether Judge Kavanaugh is guilty or not, the treatment of Dr Ford in some circles shows a deep seated misogyny in the highest echelons of political life

There are so many ways in which we consciously or unconsciously denigrate women – Its not just about sexual harassment & assault in the work place or even rape but also the continuing objectification of women in media and in the extreme form in the world of increasingly pervasive pornography where our young people are learning about sexuality in a very distorted and unrealistic context where women especially are subject to being treated as mere commodities.

And then there is that often hidden world of domestic violence which in my ministry I have had my eyes opened to on more occasions than I could have ever imagined.

And finally look at the levels of fatal violence towards women by men – this past summer especially within the greater Dublin area has been exceptionally grim in that respect.

All of these abuses from the mildest to the most extreme spring from the one source and that is the denigration of the status of women – making them lesser persons and at its extreme non-persons.

That is not the Christian teaching and nor is it the way of Jesus who again and again defied the culture of the day in treating women as equals. He was never afraid to converse with women – he spoke to women with tenderness and respect and on occasion he was not beyond chastising his disciples while acknowledging the wisdom and faith of women over and above his male disciples.

Remember the story of the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet from Luke 7:

Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. ⁴⁵ You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. ⁴⁶ You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. ⁴⁷ Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. 

Clearly Jesus did not consider women inferior and yet the Church has through its history often treated women exceptionally badly and in some cases still does. And it could be argued that that passage from Genesis is part of the reason and part of the problem.

It is also an obstacle for some people – women and men – in coming to faith and so it a passage we need to look at and take ownership of. 

We can’t just read this passage on a Sunday morning and say nothing about it – I have done so previously but things have changed and once you become aware of a problem you can’t ignore it!

If someone who has perhaps been in an abusive relationship or been experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace came into our church today (maybe such a person is here) and hears that passage – what do they hear? Do they find comfort or is it rubbing salt in their open wounds?

Those are the kind of questions we have to ask and the questions that arise when we treat a text that was written likely 2600 years ago during the Babylonian exile as contemporary social science and history.

Genesis is both poetic and full of rich symbolism and meaning but we ironically textually abuse it when we read it as a contemporary text.

The first question we must ask ourselves is what is the context and the answer is Creation and the interrelationships of the various members of Creation with one another and God, so it fundamentally not about power but about relationship. The only power involved is in God’s hands. God saw all that he had made and it was very good.

The Jesuit scholar Dennis Hamm who is emphatic that this passage is not about the hierarchy of men over women says this:

Please attend to the plot of the story! The other creatures were not enough for the Human - Adam needs an equal, a real companion made of the same stuff…..

This is a story about how men and women were made for each other, not about who's got the power. The rib business is also a way of celebrating how the marital union—becoming ‘one flesh’—is a kind of recovery of a union that was meant to be from the beginning of humanity's creation.

We are so literalist and simplistic in our reading of Scripture that we miss the richness of the figurative and symbolic language of Genesis that was never meant to be read literally and we impoverish ourselves and distort our faith when we do so.

Considering the position that Jesus took in his relationships and meetings with women of all backgrounds this seems to me a better way to read this difficult scripture and one which might help us to reclaim the real tradition of our faith.

A tradition which is not about the power struggle between women and men but rather mutual need and mutual dependence where both can flourish and grow.

          If we accept that women and men are truly equal in God’s eyes and that both together express the fullness of humanity then not only is the abuse of women blasphemous but it is also undermining of the dignity of men as it is of woman. Every one of us here, male or female was nurtured in our mother’s womb and an essential part of our humanity comes from that early and formative experience of pure love, the first relationship of our human lives.

          So back to Genesis – These are our Scriptures, they are our story and we are responsible for the way in which they are presented to the world – When they become an excuse for the oppression of any group within humanity and we do nothing then we too are tainted with that distortion.

I will finish with an extract from the Christian Aid Report: ‘Of the same flesh: Exploring a theology of Gender’ (2014)

It said this:

‘Christians believe that our being made ‘male and female’ is a gift of God, and should be experienced as joy for humankind. When gender becomes a weapon of oppression then something is badly wrong.’

Something is badly wrong and we are part of the solution.

Amen.

GAFCON 2018 - NO LOVE! - NO REALLY NO 'LOVE'!

I’ve just been re-reading the final statement from GAFCON 2018 ‘Letter to the Churches’ and something occurred to me - There is no love in it - and by that I mean that in a document which extends to 8 A4 pages and 2,782 words including the glossary there is not one single instance of the word ‘LOVE’ in it!
To be sure I wasn’t mistaken I downloaded the letter into my word processor and searched for ‘love’ and the message came back ‘word not found’. There is of course predictably plenty of ‘sin’, ‘hell’, ‘judgement’ and frequent references to ‘sex’ ‘sexuality’ homosexuality’ etc. In short lots of sex but no love!
That said I cannot even begin to comprehend how any organization that claims to be rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ can produce such a comprehensive and lengthy rallying call to the churches and fail to mention LOVE! I will not insult any who read this as to why this is not just a fundamental omission but is in fact indicative of a movement that has set aside the heart of the Gospel and threatens to undermine the witness of Anglican Christianity which has always based its breadth and generosity on that of Jesus Christ rooted in God’s Love.
With Saint Paul surely any affirmation and call to faith must be explicitly about LOVE.

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal 1 Cor:13:1

Good Friday Alcohol Ban Lifted - A Good Decision

I welcome the decision to rescind the Good Friday licensing laws. As a priest of the Church of Ireland I am convinced that no religion should have its devotional practices enshrined in secular law! I am all for the protection of freedom to practice a particular faith, but not to the extent that sanction is imposed on those of other dispositions. I think in time this judgment will come to be seen as a positive step both for people of religious affiliation and society at large. We are not children and as mature citizens we do not need the State telling us we can't have a drink in a pub on Good Friday.

Many including myself will aim to abstain from alcohol during this Lent, but that is my decision and it is none of my business if others prefer to do otherwise.  Those for whom this observance is important might find it all the more meaningful when it is a matter of choice not law, and calls on them to witness in the face of the prevailing culture. After all Jesus was counter-cultural so why do we Christians want our faith assimilated into the secular order?

In the context of this issue many people have repeatedly raised very valid concerns about the centrality of alcohol in Irish life and its particular association with sport. Others have pointed out that Good Friday is one of the few days in the year when pub owners and staff are guaranteed a day off with their families.

These are valid concerns but we should not use Good Friday as a flag of convenience to deal with them. If we are going to deal with the Nation’s alcoholism lets be honest and open about it and not use religion as a Trojan Horse. To do so belittles both religious faith and our democracy.

The Abortion debate - Ongoing thoughts and why I support 'Repeal the 8th'

I am a husband, a father and a Pro-Choice clergyman of the Church of Ireland – I say that without qualification or exception. When it comes to the subject of abortion I am unambiguously supportive of a Woman’s right to choose. It wasn’t always this way! This has been a journey for me and it is only in recent years that I would so describe myself. For most of my life I would have considered my position fairly middle of the road. I had a fairly restrictive view on the right to choose and would only have seen it as an option in the case of rape, unviable pregnancy or a threat to the life or health of the mother.

But I have moved and while I have no regrets it is not always an easy place to be. To declare yourself ‘pro-choice’ is in the eyes of some to self-identify as a heartless baby-killer who has no regard for the life of the unborn. This could not be farther from the truth but there are some who stop listening as soon as they hear the phrase ‘pro-choice’ and issue their summary judgement and sadly very often accompany it with a large dose of personal invective.

I imagine that the people I want to talk to have already tuned out but on the off chance let me say a little about what it means for me to declare myself ‘pro-choice’.

I don’t like negative declarations of identity but sometimes it is important to say what you are against as well as what you stand for, so let me start with the negatives:

I am not in favour of abortion on demand

I am not in favour of abortion as a form of contraception

I am not in favour of abortion as a form of genetic selection (This is particularly personal to me as the parent of a young adult with special needs who some might have opted not to carry full term if they had known the likely outcome of the pregnancy)

And now to the positives:

I am in favour of prioritising the life of a mother over and above that of a fetus that has the potential to become a living breathing human being but has not and may not achieve that potential. (I do not therefore believe in the equal right of the fetus and the mother to life). Part of being a human is making difficult choices and this is I believe one of those choices that has to be made. To refuse to make such choices is a denial of the complexity of life.

I believe that if I am to take seriously the priority of the life of the mother I must take into account all the circumstances of her life and to respect the decision she makes as to the continuance or the termination of a pregnancy.

I believe that as a man I am genetically limited in the judgement I can make as to how any woman should respond to an unwanted pregnancy. I can only speculate as to how different this debate might be if we men had to undergo the experience of pregnancy and childbirth

I believe that the doctor patient relationship is paramount and that there are too many amateurs including churchmen like myself interfering in a domain where we do not have competence

I believe that there is a basic dishonesty at the heart of the abortion debate in that we already have abortion in Ireland but we choose to export women on a lonely and dangerous journey so that we can maintain our ‘righteousness’

I believe as a Christian (and I know that here I am probably loosing some of you) that a woman’s role in childbearing and childbirth is a co-creative role and that her yes matters – The Virgin Mary herself said yes to the child that was within her but what if she had said no? If her assent was truly voluntary then she could surely have said no but she chose otherwise – but she still chose!

The choice of a woman to host a pregnancy is not in my opinion a once off event but a continuing process in which her assent is required at every stage – Anything less defines a woman as a mere vessel and that it seems to me is abusive of the integrity of her humanity.

I believe that I have to fundamentally trust women with the integrity of their own bodies and to respect their judgement even when I may be uncomfortable with the outcome. Anything less than this absolute trust is enslaving of their basic humanity and integrity and ultimately undermines mine as a child of a woman who chose to say 'yes'.

That is why despite the fact that I am not ‘pro-abortion’ I am unashamedly ‘pro-choice’ – It is not about me, but the women who have to deal with all the pain, joy and complexity of pregnancy and childbirth – They are the beginning and the end of this issue and their choice must be respected and supported.

Sermon for Sunday 22nd October 2017 - God's Provision Not Direct Provision!

Sermon 2 for Sunday 22nd October 2017

"My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest" - Our Lesson reading from Exodus Chapter 33 this morning - The Lord is speaking to Moses and reassuring him of his ongoing commitment to his people who are wandering refugees in that in between place where there is no sense of home or security or safety.

          I wasn't actually going to preach on the Old Testament today but something happened to me yesterday that changed all that.  I wasn't expecting it - but it happened and it rendered what I had prepared to say today completely superficial and shallow and I had no choice but to start again.

          I was attending a conference called RUBICON (click here for more info) organised by the Rector of Rathmines and Harolds Cross Rob Jones and Greg Fromholtz who is the coordinator of our diocesan young adults ministry. The venue was The Sugar Club on Leeson Street.  It was a very varied and stimulating programme which featured among other things a panel discussion on the Refugee Crisis and Direct Provision in Ireland - Among the contributors to the panel were representatives of Oxfam, Christian Aid,  Jesuit Refugee services and the Department of Justice.

However, and with no disrespect to the other panellists the most moving and powerful contribution came from Thiru Guru a refugee from Sri Lanka who shared his heartbreaking story with us both in a compelling narrative and also in poetry which quite honestly reduced many of us (myself included) to tears. The most tragic part of his story was that his pain didn't end when he got to our shores but that it had only begun as he got sucked into the inhumane and soul-destroying reality of Direct Provision which robs people of any sense of purpose and their lives of any meaning. He talked of a barbaric regime where supervisors in these centres told the refugees that they were lucky to have shelter and food and met dissent with a transfer to another centre where they knew nobody and had to begin again. He could not work - he could not choose or cook his own food - he had no space that was his own

- he was in a room with a Christian, a Hindu, a Bhuddist and a Muslim and no account was taken of their various religious needs  and he was still dealing with grief and trauma that he had experienced before he arrived in Ireland. He was a professional - a prominent journalist and as the years went by and forbidden to work his skills declined and he could no longer even spell properly. In a poem which he had written himself he talked about himself as a bird that had forgotten how to fly. Direct Provision had robbed him of who he was and what he could contribute to our world.

          And it wasn't just him - he talked of the men he shared a room with year after year and how they were good men who wanted the best for their families but as time went on they changed - they were changed by the hell that they were living in and became bad men - fighting, turning to drugs and crime - their lives destroyed - no going back. 

          In the same panel discussion the representative from the Dept of Justice who seemed to be a genuinely good person trying to do the right thing (against all odds) still introduced herself with the disclaimer that she had no role in making the policy on Direct provision - She knew that we have created a system of cruel and continuing dehumanisation and we all share responsibility as citizens of this state. There is no future in the blame game - It is time to put an end to this barbaric policy.

          Many have said it and after yesterday I am convinced that it is true  that Direct Provision will be seen by generations to come as the Magdalene Laundries of our time, and maybe even worse. It is hard to convey just how horrific Thiru Guru's account was - but out of all the hurt that we as a nation had added to he was able to respond with the most beautiful and yet heartbreaking poetry in which he spoke of his sense of loss and bereavement which was to our shame only added to by his experience in this land of ours.

Later on in the day we listened to an inteview with Ellie Kisyombe, an incredibly passionate and engaging young woman who is an activist and the founder of Our Table, a community-driven, non-profit project aiming to highlight the need to end Direct Provision in Ireland.  Their goal is to facilitate change through conversation over food. Their pop-up café in Temple Bar is a first step towards a permanent Our Table restaurant. It provides paid employment, training and links to future employment for people previously in Direct Provision, as well as information for those still living within the system.  Elie is a refugee from Malawi where her family were involved in politics at the highest level and was forced to flee when her father and uncle were assassinated.

She became an activist and by her own admission was full of anger but somehow managed to change this into a force for good despite the additional abuse of living for almost a decade in direct provision. She is determined to build a successful business on this island and I believe that she will succeed but  she also points out that if our current Taoiseach's father was treated as badly as she has been by our nation then it is unlikely that Leo Varadaker would be our Taoiseach - It was not a party political statement but rather an observation as to how we welcome the stranger in our midst. Ireland of the welcomes it seems is a dim and distant memory and that should matter to us as Church who follow one who welcomed all to himself.

These Refugees are the modern day children of Israel - of all faiths and none but from our perspective surely all children of God. We are called to be more than spectators in this - We are called to be present to these people in real and genuine acts of welcome so that they too can experience God's care and protection and make those words of our lord to Moses a present reality:

"My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest"

The current Refugee Crisis is the greatest challenge our church and our country  faces in the present age. Our Lord himself was incarnate in this world as a refugee - If we cannot respond in a meaningful way to the current refugee situation in our world then we may very well forfeit the right to call ourselves Christian - It doesn't get any more serious than that! That is where we are today - how will we respond?

The National Maternity Hospital controversy

The current controversy surrounding the new National Maternity Hospital bewilders me. There is no denying that the current facilities at Holles Street are severely compromised by a site and a building that is not fit for purpose. The argument for co-location is utterly compelling and makes complete sense in terms of a vision for holistic care for women and babies at a critical and vulnerable time in terms of their health and wellbeing. On first appraisal the site at St. Vincents seems to be a great fit and added to that the provision of a site at no cost to the taxpayer is a hard offer to reject but reject it we must!

For me this is not about clerical abuse reparation or the perceived potential for the Sisters of Charity to gain financially from ownership of the proposed new hospital. Despite all the widely acknowledged abuse that took place in ecclesiastical communities and institutions (including my own Church of Ireland) I do believe that this country owes a huge debt to the religious who provided hospital care and health provision at a time when the State was not equipped to do so. It is all too easy to focus on the horror stories and ignore the vast majority of cases where the religious provided exceptional and exemplary care.

However times change and that is especially the case in terms of maternity care and services. I have no difficulty with the notion of a Catholic maternity hospital which provides services in accordance with Catholic moral teaching or indeed a hospital under Protestant governance which does likewise but when it comes to the 'National Maternity Hospital' then it is surely reasonable to expect that such a hospital would not be subject to the specific and by their very nature exclusive requirements of any one religious or sectional interest group.
We have had numerous assurances that regardless of ownership and membership of the board of the new hospital, the Sisters of Charity will not stand in the way of practices that are in direct contravention of Catholic moral teaching such as IVF and sterilisation. As to the future prospect of legalised abortion there is no explicit assurance but it is surely totally fanciful to expect a Catholic hospital to allow such procedures to take place on its campus. As others have already noted it would be a world's first were it to happen!

The reason we and all those involved must reject this proposal is about integrity, and integrity matters! The State cannot with integrity hand over  a new 'National Maternity Hospital' to a body that cannot possibly with any integrity sign off on the provision of services that are in direct contradiction with its own absolute ethical rules (not guidelines but rules) but are simultaneously legal in the State.

Similarly the Catholic Church should not be expected to compromise on its core teachings, even with the noble intention of providing a much needed co-located facility for women and babies. With the best will in the world it is a bad fit and the likelihood is that it will only become more difficult with the almost inevitable increased legalisation of abortion which a 'National Maternity Hospital' will and should provide regardless of religious opinion. If the Catholic Church is to maintain its absolute opposition to abortion then it can surely have no association (no matter how tenuous) with a facility which provides such services.

We need a new National Maternity Hospital but this current proposal is beyond rescuing or rehabilitation - Time to move on!