fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Catholicism & Politics: Ireland’s Example

People interested in the “Catholic Moment” threads (see here and subsequently here) may be interested to read Russell Shorto’s long NYT Magazine piece from 2011 about the relationship between Church and State in Ireland, in the aftermath of the abuse scandals. (And people who aren’t, keep reading this post … I’m going to get to […]

People interested in the “Catholic Moment” threads (see here and subsequently here) may be interested to read Russell Shorto’s long NYT Magazine piece from 2011 about the relationship between Church and State in Ireland, in the aftermath of the abuse scandals. (And people who aren’t, keep reading this post … I’m going to get to “Downton Abbey” in a moment.) From Shorto’s report:

Over the course of the 20th century, Station Island became a symbol of the way that Catholicism rooted itself in the Irish nation. Politics at the beginning of the century centered on two debates: British rule and religion. There were those — like the playwright George Bernard Shaw and the poet William Butler Yeats — who thought that the potential break with England constituted an occasion for Ireland to cut the strings to the Catholic Church and to embrace a progressive, international sensibility. Others wrapped Irish patriotism together with Catholicism, agrarian traditions and the Gaelic language, and they won the day. Eamon De Valera, the political leader, drafted a constitution side by side with the all-powerful archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid, which gave the Catholic Church a special role in state affairs and which to this day begins with the words, “In the name of the most holy trinity.”

Thus the 20th-century image of “Irishness” came into being: rural, charming, locked in an eternal, tragicomic struggle with the church. The archbishops of Dublin became something like grand inquisitors, wielding great power. The church’s heavy influence on Irish society kept the wider world at bay for a surprisingly long time. Eamon Maher told me that in the 1970s, his parents found it profoundly disorienting when the evening recitation of the rosary suddenly had to compete with American shows like “Dallas,” and “the world of wealth, flash cars and extramarital affairs.” Contraception was illegal in Ireland as recently as 1980, and until 1985 condoms were available only with a prescription.

As secularism advanced in other parts of the world, successive popes relied on Ireland as a bulwark and pushed Irish leaders to keep the church in the country’s structure. In 1977, Foreign Minister Garret FitzGerald noted that in a private meeting, Pope Paul VI stressed to him “that Ireland was a Catholic country — perhaps the only one left — and that it should stay that way” and that he should not “change any of the laws that kept the republic a Catholic state.” That continues to this day, according to Ivana Bacik, a senator for the opposition Labor Party who has been a leader in the effort to extricate the church from the state. As she put it, “In no other European nation — with the obvious exception of Vatican City — does the church have this depth of doctrinal involvement in the affairs of state.”

According to Abbot Hederman, the hierarchy of the church in Ireland believed that the nation had a special role as a kind of citadel of Catholicism: “Ireland was meant to be the purest country that ever existed, upholding the Catholic ideal of no sex except in marriage and then only for procreation. And the priest was to be the purest of the pure. It’s not difficult to understand how the whole system became riddled with what we now call a scandal but in fact was a complete culture. Because you had people with no understanding of their sexuality, of what sexuality even was, and they were in complete power.”

That arrangement has not worked out well for either the Irish Church, nor the Irish State. In fact, the power exercised by the Irish Church to suppress and silence the victims of its priests has all but destroyed the credibility of the Church. It seems to me that those who hope for a “Catholic Moment” in America — and I would count myself among them — have to account for the experience of Ireland. Does a “Catholic Moment” for a political culture make the fate of Ireland an inevitability? Why or why not?
Reading the Shorto piece about how disoriented the Irish are by the destruction of the Church’s authority, I couldn’t help thinking of this essay from Sunday’s NYT Magazine about “Downton Abbey,” in which the author speculates as to why we are so enchanted by a world of hierarchy so far removed from our own. Excerpt:
I’m not the first to observe that for a show set in a world in which people are grouped by their inherited privilege or ineluctable servitude, the popularity of “Downton Abbey” seems paradoxical in these times of Occupy protests and presidential candidates who aren’t concerned about the very poor and who pay less in taxes proportionally than does Warren Buffett’s secretary. Clearly, something about this show appeals to our deepest desires, granting us the cake-having and cake-eating satisfaction of indulging in a fantasy of a bygone era that we’re actually thankful is gone.

… In its own weird way, it’s the perfect show for the present moment; a fantasy in which an enlightened overclass and a grateful underclass look deeply into each other’s eyes and realize that they need each other, that there’s a way for them to live together in perfect, symbiotic harmony. It’s a Hegelian fable in which master and servant recognize their mutual dependence and give in to it, realizing that in the grand scheme they are equal. It’s not so much a portrait of an era as it is an advertisement for an imagined ideal of an enlightened aristocracy whose conservatism included a sense of responsibility, not disdain, toward those dependent on it. Which, at this particular political moment, makes it just about the weirdest thing on American TV.

I’ve never seen the show, though my wife is a devotee. It’s not hard to see why this sort of fantasy is appealing, though. My personal version of it was how I used to see the Catholic hierarchy: as an enlightened overclass — one with problems, aye, but one that could in general be trusted to look after the spiritual and moral welfare of the flock, because they had a “sense of responsibility, not disdain” for us. The abuse scandal demolished that fantasy, and made me wonder why I needed so badly to believe it. The answer, I think, is a profoundly human one: a need for a sense of order, and purpose, and authority, in the face of chaotic modernity. Note well that I’m not talking about the specific claims for authority the Catholic Church makes; those are a different question, or issue. Rather, I’m examining my own very deep need to believe in the goodness of authority, especially religious authority — a need that I now treat with great suspicion, even as I recognize that it exists within all of us.

I think it is by no means the case that authority figures always and everywhere end up treating those under their authority like pawns. I can think of authority figures I have known who have been inspiring leaders — inspiring precisely because those under their authority trusted them to govern well, and compassionately. All societies will of necessity have hierarchies, and authority figures. Is it really so unimaginable why people would pine for leaders, and rulers, who are noble and good? Is it really so unimaginable that people would impute nobility and goodness to the authority figures and institutions they have?

The destruction of the old order by the Great War did not issue in a more humane and just order, not in every place. If I were an Irish Catholic, I think I would be very glad — indeed, grateful to God — that the secular power of the Church had been broken. But what comes next? Something will come. Will it be better?

Advertisement

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Subscribe for as little as $5/mo to start commenting on Rod’s blog.

Join Now