But what if that sermon was offensive? What would you say or do? Would you worry about your life or the lives of your loved ones against such a rampant sermon?

Hello and welcome to my latest Podcast, it’s good to have you tuning in again! 

Today I am once again going to be talking about a subject that is very close to my heart, the Magdalen Laundries & Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland. In this Podcast I am going to talk about the recent sermon made in County Kerry and its fallout. I shall examine the message from that sermon and compare it to the reality of the Catholic Catechism and another notable sermon given in 1941, and their effects on people’s lives. 

Recently, I took a holiday, spending time away from my campaigning, researching, and working to get ‘A Magdalene Rose’ published. I find that if you are lucky enough to be able to get away on a holiday, it allows you time to breathe clean air, read and reflect on the life you have temporarily left behind. Whilst I was away, I spent some time thinking about all the people I had gotten to know on my ‘Magdalene Rose’ journey, and I thought about their faith and indeed my own Catholic Faith. 

It had always surprised me to witness the deep faith within my Father, particularly as I was to later discover, how that Faith was instrumental in his complete separation from his Mother. As I recall in ‘A Magdalene Rose’, he always drilled into us to never forget “your rilligion”. But, as I was to take my own journey in life, there were many episodes that challenged the core of the doctrine I had been raised within. 

The first notable memory comes from one Sunday mass, where the Parish Priest, a very dear man indeed, and a man who had spent his early life aiding the anti-fascist forces in Spain, read from the Archbishop’s letter about the apparent evils of abortion. He called on the congregation to sign the petition created to support the complete ban on abortion, telling us that he would be holding the petition board as we all left the Church. I remember waiting in the long queue, wondering what I was going to do, watching all before me dutifully signing the petition in front of the Priest. As I reached the front of the queue, I was resolved that I would not be signing the Petition, partly because of one profound experience I had witnessed as a Police Officer and also because I did not think that as a man, I should be so prescriptive towards the actions or decisions of women. As I reached the Priest, he pushed forward the petition, now filled with its many signatures, and I looked into his piercing eyes and said, “No thank you Father, I will not be signing the petition”, and with that I left the Church. In our subsequent discussions, he never raised or spoke with me about my small act of defiance. 

Prior to my research on my Dad’s and Grandmother’s lives, there was one instance that was to finally question my adherence to a Catholic doctrine. By this stage, I was beginning to suspect that my family’s story hid a terrible secret, and I was also beginning to understand the complexities and construction of the law through my studies. Being the dutiful Catholic, one Sunday, I took our youngest child to Mass. The Church was packed and the young curate as part of the homily, read a letter from the Archbishop. The contents offered a deep apology for a priest, who had just been convicted of abuse offences and had been sent to prison. Once the letter was read, the young priest then began to talk about the difficult life that the religious face. He started to weep, calling on those before him to have sympathy for all priests and to offer prayers to support them. Not once did he make mention of any victims. As I sat there, I looked around and noticed that the vast majority were looking at their feet or gazing into the far distance. I felt deeply uncomfortable and wondered how they could be so silent on such a terrible subject and the truly shocking words of the young cleric? I looked at my son, happily playing with his cars and decided there and then that I would not return to this Church and that my son would not have to face a life of indoctrination. I made myself spiritually homeless, but as I came to realise, I was not spiritually bereft. 

As I was sat on the beach, I thought about the many victims and survivors of the so-called Magdalen system and the derivatives of a so-called poor law support. There are many who have told me that they have never set foot in a Catholic Church once they managed to get away from their imprisonment, some escaping far away to foreign shores. But there are some, despite all their experiences, who remain resolute in their Faith to the Catholic Church. They attend weekly, and in some cases, daily masses. Some work alongside nuns and priests, all reminding me very much of my own Father. For those that have chosen to have no engagement with Catholicism, they nonetheless demonstrate a kindness and gentleness to those around them, a humanity borne out of instinct and experience. 

Whilst I pondered on these issues, I was sent a link to some comments made by a Catholic Priest in County Kerry in Ireland, which had shocked many to the core. 

Central to his comments was the notion that whilst democracy and personal choice exists in a secular society, such basic human rights were overridden by Church Law and doctrine. It was held that a failure to follow its Laws, condemned those to damnation in the life hereafter. Not only does his comments reveal the real conflict that exists for Catholics (and it has to be said for all Christian denominations), that once christened, you are subject to two legal systems, Secular and Canon, but that your life must become supplicant to the latter. It also reveals the core problem that exists, even in modern day Ireland, that a State that does not fully embrace secularism, will remain in constant thrall to the religious. This can be seen in the archive papers of Eamon DeValera and in the recent article by Peter Boylan in the Irish Times whose headline effectively declares that “Economics, not faith, at core of new Church State Nexus”. 

The Kerry Priest’s comments were made during a homily in which amongst many things he said, included: 

“Sin…is rampant”. 

That legislation offers the “promotion of abortion” and the “lunatic approach of transgenderism” 

He lamented the “promotion of sex between two men and two women…that is sinful…that is a mortal sin”. 

He offered that the handing out of condoms by the HSE was “promoting promiscuity” 

But as he spoke, it was clear that members of the congregation were disturbed by his comments, shouting out their own, with a number walking out of the church. As they left and as he concluded his homily, he stated: 

“Those of you who happen to be leaving today, God help you, that’s all I have to say to you” 

As I watched and listened to these comments, I thought of a dear friend, who was outed in the 1980’s, in the macho environment of the police service, struggling with his newly exposed life and his Catholicism. 

I also thought of the many transgender people I had met in the late 1970’s as a police officer, struggling with their identity in the conservative English society of the times. Their struggles ranged from simply wanting to live their lives according to their sexual identity, to transitioning, to seeking medical help, some engaging in prostitution to earn enough money to pay for their medical treatments. 

As I thought of these examples and of the priest’s words, I remembered that he had told the congregation that if someone didn’t call out sinful acts, then you were “equally guilty”. Well I guess that through my life, I am guilty as charged under Canon Law? 

I also thought of the many men or women affected by the institutional condemnation of an Irish political and religious society, deprived of all choice, freedom, and of their basic human rights. They call out the offences committed against them, but the religion and state are simply not listening – are these parties equally guilty of allowing a crime to go unanswered in Justice? 

But, despite this sermon, matters became much worse. The Bishop of Kerry apologised to the people for what had happened and apparently prevented the priest temporarily from carrying out mass duties within the Parish. This action was followed by a radio interview on Radio Kerry with Jerry O’Sullivan. This spirited conversation revealed further insights into the logic and background of the comments made in the sermon. In response to questions asked, the Priest made a number of comments, some of which I will share with you; he stated for example: 

That with regards to those who left the Church on that day, “God does need to help them” 

He again confirmed his position on the problem with legislation by stating “Sin is enshrined in legislation” 

On the actions of a secular society, he accepted that Irish Citizens had voted for legal and constitutional changes, but that the “Democratic will of the people is not the criterion for truth…that comes from God and the teachings of the Church” 

On Catholicism’s responsibilities he stated that the “Church’s responsibility kicks in to identify what is sin and what isn’t” 

With regards to gay people, he opined that there was a “small percentage of people whose homosexual orientation may very well be biological”, suggesting that for many, “it’s not nature, it’s nurture” 

The interview then reached into very difficult territory when he offered that “some psychologists, who are very successful in helping people, who thought they had a homosexual orientation, actually to find out they didn’t”. 

This led to a brief and difficult conversation about conversion therapy in which he stated that it had been “very successful in many areas…[but]…the media came down on them” 

With regards to the nature of compassion, he thought that “Compassion to me is a little bit like surgery…you call on a person to embrace the pain in order to experience the healing” 

On the Bishop’s apology, he appeared to suggest that the Bishop was perhaps engaged in a process of appeasing Irish society, adding that “The poor man mustn’t even know the Catechism…he certainly doesn’t know the scriptures” 

When challenged about the lifestyle of Leo Varadkar, the Tánaiste of the Irish Republic and whether he stood the chance of ‘going to hell’ because of his choices, the Priest stated, “Absolutely, if they don’t repent and seek forgiveness…[it’s] contrary to nature…[it’s] contrary to the Law of God” 

The interview followed the breadcrumbs in relation to the handing out of condoms, sexual health and of times past where women and children were locked away in institutions. When asked about the Magdalen Laundries he stated: 

“What about the Laundries…[it was] the best they knew how in those days…a lot of stuff about the Laundries has been exaggerated by the media…like the Tuam babies thing”. 

Following these statements, it was shocking to see how many people offered their support for such views, from across the world, and supported such a narrow view of what constitutes free choice and Human Rights. 

But what I found interesting was the Priest’s reference to the Catechism as the anchor point to support his views. 

The Catechism is if you like a document that not just supports the accepted scriptures of the Church, but also of its Canon Law and the Church-made academic doctrine that is presented as the true Catholic way of living. 

The Priest’s entire rationale appears to be grounded in the latter part of the document, through the use of the 10 commandments, accepted scripture and the academic teachings of the Church. Through this theology, justification is given for man and woman coming together, self-mastery in sexual matters, chastity, and for the condemnation of homosexuality. In this script however, it was interesting to note that whilst the Catechism refers to gay acts as a “depravity” or “disordered”, the Church nonetheless accepts that the number of people who are gay “is not negligible” and it goes on to say: 

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided (2358)” 

Could it be said that the respect called within the Catechism, was present within the Kerry Sermon; it also suggests that we need to look beneath the words of the pulpit, doesn’t it? 

So as I found, within the Catechism, there rests some very interesting aspects, and here I offer a few examples where it states: 

1730: “God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions” 

1731: “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason & will, to act or not to act, to this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness” 

1733: “The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just” 

1749: “Freedom makes man a moral subject” 

1776: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice ever calling him to love and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment” 

1879: “The human person needs to live in a society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature. Through the exchange with others, mutual service and dialogue with his brethren develops his potential” 

1880: “A Society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them” 

1880: “He rightly owes loyalty to the communities of which he is part and respect those in authority who have charge of the common good” 

1881: “Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but, the human person is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions” 

1897: “Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority” 

1898: “Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. It’s role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of society” 

1902: “Authority…must act for the common good as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility” 

1906: “Common good is to be understood the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily. The common good concerns the life of all” 

1908: “It is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family and so on” 

1940: “[Human] Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation” 

So what is demonstrated within the Catechism, is the construct of a society, the dignity of the human being, the ability to make free or moral choices, and of their human rights. 

It was also interesting to note how the Church thinks that any society or community should be organised around them, for example: 

1882: “[On the operation of a Society they say it is necessary]…To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged” 

1883: “Socialisation also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity according to which ‘a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in the case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good” 

Political, isn’t it? 

So at first glance and from the words from the Kerry pulpit, the Catechism may appear to give light to the notion of a religious doctrine on how to live (which incidentally is repeated across the spectrum of world religions), but the document goes much further. 

It presents the very basis of human rights and our expectations of a society that holds them on trust for us. 

But if you look further into the Catholic Catechism, it represents the structure and form of how the Catholic Church would like to see a society operate, and that is brought sharply into focus by their statement that the state should not interfere with them but should support them and use them to coordinate a state’s activities on behalf of its citizens. 

Isn’t that what happened at the formation of the Irish State and in particular in the construction of the 1937 Constitution and what happened in the years ahead? Is it the case that they came first for the least powerful, the women and their children, and are even now, many decades later, the state is providing a state support that is no longer justified in the face of these injustices? 

Is it also the case that religion, sensing its loss of power and influence, now seeks, through some elements, to divide and conquer, publicly isolating those who are vulnerable to the harsh interpretations of the 10 commandments? 

The arguments we have seen and heard these past few weeks on how people should live, seem somewhat hollow, divisive and perhaps designed to appeal to a new Catholic populism or cult? Is this cult of the Catechism engaging in Trump-like strategies, that will weaken or reduce the very concept of Human Rights or indeed fracture society itself? 

The other night, I had the privilege of attending a lecture given by Dr Rowan Williams, the retired Archbishop of Canterbury, on the state of Human Rights in the world. His talk spoke of his lifetime’s work in the advocacy of Human Rights and in his opinion: 

“A Society should be the guarantors of one another’s safety”, the maxim being, “I will be safe if you are safe”. 

He warned against looking at Human Rights as some kind of bank account that you receive at birth, to be cashed in as and when needed, believing that such a view presented a “legal and static” way of what human rights really mean. 

Dr Williams thought that the alternative way of looking at the value of Human Rights was to “look to my neighbour” and “what do we promise to each other”, surely it was in everyone’s interests to create a “mutual responsibility” for each other; he called this the “covenant of security”. 

He was simply representing what a good proportion of the Catholic Catechism speaks to, personal morality, conscience, duty to society, engagement in that society, the dignity and rights of the human person. These are themes that are reflected across the great Constitutions, International Treaties and Conventions which embed those same Human Rights. 

I began to think more about this covenant of security and thought that yes, it was right to respect those who fully practice the doctrine of Catholicism, but equally, they too must respect a wider society and all their choices and indeed those who they would perhaps class as cafeteria Catholics? 

I also thought about the many Victims and Survivors of the Mother and Baby and Magdalen Laundry Institutions and how their incarceration clearly didn’t deliver on this covenant of security. How for example, could Irish people be said to be more secure, if they knew that there were failures of Constitutional protections, against the detention of women and children? 

On my holiday, I read an excellent book about the resistance to the Nazi-regime in Germany. The book tells the stories of a handful of people and presents their heroic fight, their bravery and their ultimate sacrifice for the conviction of their beliefs. It is a deeply emotional book but in the context of this podcast, I cannot now help but wonder how it could be said that they were not living proof of a Catechism, a living spirituality, given that some were not perfect human beings? 

Within its pages, there rests a remarkable commentary in another sermon, given by Bishop Galen in July 1941, in which he stated: 

“Repeatedly and even very recently we have seen the Gestapo arrest highly ranked and innocent people without a court judgement or defence, to deprive them of their freedom and put them in prison. My dear Christians, the imprisonment of so many blameless people, the emptying of the abbeys, the eviction of innocent people of the cloth, our brothers and sisters, compel me to remind you today of the old truth: Justice is a fundamental right. Justice is the basic foundation of our State. The right to life, the inviolability of freedom, is an essential part of the moral order within society. We demand Justice”. 

This sounds to me like the covenant of security, a covenant that should have been afforded to the many thousands of women and children from the Magdalen Institutions; indeed it should also serve as a warning to those at risk from the recent Kerry sermon. As we have discovered in this Podcast, the rantings from a Kerry pulpit, only tells part of a very narrow story, and not the glory or the majesty of humankind and its aspirations. 

If we are to hear more from the proponents of the cult of the Catechism, then it is important not to ignore those words, but to study them carefully, even if you are a practising Catholic, and be ready to speak out against its excesses. It is, as I often say to Consumers, always important to read the detail of the terms and conditions before engaging with any company, and the catechism is in effect, the Catholic Church’s terms and conditions! 

As for my sinful ways, I rejoice in my own humanity and spirituality. My journey has transited from a vision of a heaven of white fluffy clouds, to the creation of a just heaven on earth. I have come to realise that true spirituality reveals a universe far more complex in its construction and one that sits beyond the absolutism of any doctrine. 

Thank you for listening and in the words of the late but great Dave Allen, may your God go with you!

(All Rights Reserved (including the Podcast) – Media please take note, no reproduction in whole or in part, screen-scraping, restructuring or incorporating the whole or part of this blog or podcast without express written permission – © 2022)