Concelebration ignored the real differences of belief that exist

ALTHOUGH I must have written about 250,000 words since starting this column over four years ago, I’ve never had occasion to use the Irish word “lúdramán”. Perhaps I shouldn’t use it now either in this, my last column.

But the ecclesiastical antics of Augustinian priest Fr Iggy O’Donovan and his colleagues in the priory in Drogheda bring the word irresistibly to mind.

As readers will now know, Easter Sunday Mass in the priory was concelebrated by three Catholic priests including Fr O’Donovan but also, at Fr O’Donovan’s invitation, the Church of Ireland rector of St Peter’s in Drogheda, Rev Michael Graham. Such concelebration is not permitted by the Catholic Church.

The local bishop, Dr Seán Brady, says there is “a real danger of causing widespread confusion, creating false hopes and creating situations that are open to misunderstanding and manipulation”. His Church of Ireland counterpart, Archbishop Robin Eames, agrees. Such occasions might be well-intentioned but could lead to “misunderstandings and misinterpretations”, according to Archbishop Eames.

Fr O’Donovan, whose outspoken and dissenting views are often heard in the media, is unapologetic. He says he was responding to the Taoiseach’s call for an “inclusive” commemoration of the 1916 Rising. More on that anon.

It should be said at the outset that Fr O’Donovan meant well. He always does. But meaning well is not the point. What matters is whether he and his colleagues, and their Church of Ireland guest, did something that was right, meaningful, inclusive and ecumenical that Easter Sunday morning.

If the celebration of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church was simply a noble expression of hospitality, some kind of symbolic meal which nice people take and share with each other in a gesture of mutual love and solidarity, there would be no problem. We wouldn’t have to worry about bringing Church of Ireland ministers up on the altar.

We could invite all the other Christian denominations as well, including the head of the Free Presbyterian Church.

The thing is, the Catholic Church’s understanding of Eucharist is miles away from all that. It is not just a matter of what Catholics say the Eucharist is. The Catholic faith that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist may well be shared by some Anglicans. But that is not the deciding criterion.

According to One Bread One Body, a document published by the British and Irish bishops in 1998, Catholics say “Amen” to membership of the Body of Christ when they go to communion. That involves more than an acknowledgement of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is an “Amen” to the whole Mass — to membership of the Church, to unity with the Pope, to a shared faith in the teachings of the Church, et cetera. For other churches and Christian communities, the taking of communion may be medicinal — something which brings greater holiness and unity among believers. Catholics see it that way too, but with the crucial addition that the Eucharist is a sign of full unity achieved.

That is why the former Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, was correct when he used the word “sham” some years ago to describe the taking of Eucharist by Catholics in a Protestant church. It was a badly chosen word, of course, but Archbishop Connell was not describing Protestant communion as a sham. He was asking how, if the taking of communion by Catholics is a sign of unity achieved, Catholics could possibly be sincere in taking communion with a community with whom they are not yet in full unity of faith.

SOME people, familiar only with a tabloid take on Church doctrine and religious differences, will find it hard to relate to all that. The “warm and cosy meal” theology of the Eucharist seems more attractive. It has the advantage of not requiring much faith. Yet many sincere Catholics are attracted to that interpretation as well. Why? Because they live in a world of half-belief. They can accept a transcendent, all-powerful God but they can’t enter into the mysteries proposed by their own Church. This isn’t just a problem among lay people, as we can see from the behaviour of the Drogheda Augustinians. Why is it so? Perhaps the sins of Church people, the cynicism of some elements of the media when covering religious affairs, and the failure of the Church itself to provide proper religious education are all part of the explanation.

With the death of mystery comes a readiness on the part of many Irish people to propel their opinions about religious faith into the public domain — without making the slightest effort to inform themselves about the issues involved. Of course, we are entitled to believe whatever we want, and to express our opinions. That’s not at issue. But many of us deny the existence of any kind of theological expertise. We assume, often wrongly, that we know what the Church teaches. We give vent to our contrary opinions. And all the while we maintain we are Catholics. We believe our medical and legal experts of course, because it might cost us to do otherwise. And as mere car users, we wouldn’t presume to lecture a mechanic. But, by God, we’ll have our say on theology.

This leads to stupidity, not wisdom, on a national scale. People may rush to congratulate the ecumenical Augustinians. But in doing so they fail to grasp what would be obvious in the field of politics, namely that individual solo runs rarely resolve conflicts.

The separation of Catholics and Protestants is a painful family dispute dating back hundreds of years, and it won’t be solved by a liberal priest in Drogheda. That doesn’t mean the Churches aren’t working on the problem. All of us can play a part by attending ecumenical gatherings, collaborating with other Christian communities locally, and so on. But those who lead and speak for our Churches must work to bring us closer at institutional level. They don’t have the luxury of grand gestures because they can’t ignore the real differences of belief that exist among the genuinely faithful, as distinct from the tabloid theologians.

Genuine ecumenists must work towards a full inclusivity. Fr O’Donovan told the Catholic Ireland news website that the Rev Graham’s profound understanding of the Eucharist had an influence on his decision to concelebrate with him. He wouldn’t have just any Church of Ireland minister, it seems. But the problem is — who gives Fr O’Donovan the authority to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate ecumenical gestures?

Having separated himself from his own Church authorities, isn’t it a bit arrogant of him to foist his own particular vision of ecumenism, in a Church that does not belong to him and concelebrating a Eucharist that is not his personal property? The crowning irony is that Fr O’Donovan invoked the Taoiseach’s call for inclusive commemoration of the 1916 Rising.

In their enthusiasm to answer the State’s call, the Augustinians departed from their own Church’s traditions and discipline. That’s how the whole thing started of course. Henry VIII demanded similar deference to the state, ahead of the teaching of the Church, by declaring himself head of the Church in England. People like St Thomas More gave their lives rather than swear up to the monarch’s supremacy. One wonders how the Augustinians of Drogheda would have responded.