28 November 2011

A Prayer We Don't Say During Advent

You'll be glad to know, I'm sure, that I made it to Pontefract in one piece yesterday, and back too, and that at no point did I suddenly fall over or veer into a hedge. I did sleep ten hours straight once I got back last night, but I think that's just my body saying it's not sick anymore, but it is pretty well drained. The wedding was lovely, anyhow. There are a handful of photos on Facebook. I didn't dance. No, not even to the Macarena, despite having been taught the dance a long time ago by two Mexicans in a supposedly Irish bar in Krakow.

(I say 'supposedly' as there was no indication that it was an Irish bar, and had there been any I'd have avoided it. It was some months later that I discovered it was supposedly such. This could explain the barmaid's blatantly suppressed grin as I haltingly tried to order in Polish, fumbling with the consonants in a rude Dublin accent.)


Game On
Mass was special yesterday, perhaps moreso than usual. There are Masses that stick in my mind, for whatever reason. A million people in the Phoenix Park... my first Holy Communion...  my sister's wedding...  carrying the coffin and reading at my cousin's funeral...  an accidental first Latin Mass... a wedding where the groom's mother, a Methodist minister, said the homily... a Mass where the homily was simplified and translated into Spanish as an impromptu response to our being joined by a tour group of Spanish schoolchildren...  a Mass lit by candles and little more, without even a homily, one Lenten night...  my first Easter Vigil... a makeshift altar in a hut in the Lake District... a friend's baptism and confirmation... praying in the conviction that the remains of St Paul were but metres away... communion by intinction at a Greek Catholic Mass said according to the Byzantine rite in Aleppo... being drawn by the rhythms of prayer to a moonlit Mass among the desert ruins of Palmyra... the beatification of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman in Birmingham... a Mass in memory of Newman a month later in Manchester's oratory-in-formation... being asked to bring up the gifts at an Easter Vigil further north than I've ever been... a priestly friend's homily at the funeral of his own mother... standing beside one of my dearest friends in Westminster Cathedral as for the first time we clumsily said, together, 'And with your spirit'...  having my breath taken away by the sheer theological profundity and force of the most animated crucifix I've ever seen...

Yesterday, for the first time, I heard the Mass properly translated into English.

I've heard it properly translated several times in the past. I've heard it in Czech when I visited Prague the first time. I've heard it in Italian in Siena and Florence and Rome. I've heard it in Greek in Athens, and in German in Frankfurt, and in Spanish in the Syrian desert. And I've heard it in Irish. But I've never heard it translated properly into English, in such a way that the Latin text was rendered properly, in such a way that the original Scriptures could be heard. 

For whatever reason, when the Mass was translated into the vernacular languages back in the early 1970s, the English-speaking countries decided to play a game of their own choosing, breaking from their brethren of other tongues by translating the Mass not with any sense of literal fidelity to the sacred texts themselves, but following a vaguely dynamic equivalence. Sometimes this worked, but sometimes, it really didn't. This really hit me a while back when I was jarred by reading the Gloria in Westminster Cathedral a couple of months back. It wasn't just that the words were different -- some of the phrases were wholly unfamiliar, and the prayer seemed jumbled up.
Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.
We praise you,
we bless you,
we adore you,
we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen
This wasn't the prayer as I knew it. I'd always known it as a simpler affair, several lines shorter:
Glory to God in the highest
and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King,
Almighty God and Father,
we worship you,
we give you thanks,
we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us;
You are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
But then I looked at the Latin, and saw that the new translation was a far more accurate translation of the prayer that the whole Church prays. And I did some digging, and found that the new translation was very similar to the classic Anglican rendering of the prayer, and as it was translated in Catholic missals -- to accompany the Latin text -- until the 1970s. And, what's more, I found that the Irish translation of the prayer even up to this day -- which I would have stumbled through once or twice in my childhood and teens  -- is likewise a faithful translation of the Latin:
Glóir do Dhia sna harda
Agus ar talamh síocháin do lucht a pháirte.
Molaimid thú.
Móraimid thú.
Adhraimid thú.
Tugaimid glóir duit.
Gabhaimid buíochas leat as ucht do mhórghlóire.
A Thiarna Dia, a Rí na bhflaitheas,
A Dhia, a Athair uilechumhachtaigh,
A Thiarna, a Aon-Mhic, a Íosa Críost.
A Thiarna Dia, a Uain Dé, Mac an Athar.
Tusa, a thógann peacaí an domhain, déan trócaire orainn.
Tusa a thógann peacaí an domhain, glac lenár nguí.
Tusa atá i do shuí ar dheis an Athar, déan trócaire orainn.
Oir is tú amháin is naofa. Is tú amháin is Tiarna.
Is tú amháin is ró-ard, a Íosa Críost,
mar aon leis an Spiorad Naomh i nglóir Dé an tAthair. Ámén.
I don't know what was going on in Ireland that we should have wound up with two translations of the Mass in play simultaneously, embodying two radically different philosophies of translation. The Irish translation was not merely faithful to the tradition of the Church, it was translated in such a way that any visitor could fumble through the prayer even without knowing the language, as long as he or she knew the Mass in his or her own tongue; it expressed and aided the diachronic and geographic unity of the Church. But the English translation? Hardly a translation at all, it was a paraphrase, and one which ditched whole clauses for no reason that I can fathom.

And other English-speaking Christians followed us in this? What were they thinking?

We didn't say the Gloria yesterday, of course. It's Advent, and the Gloria is at its heart a Christmas hymn. Advent's about waiting, and doing so hopefully. It's not about rushing to Christmas, but about waiting for it in a spirit of hope and joy. For Christians there's a sense in which it is always Christmas every day, in that we never forget the Incarnation, but at Advent we remember the time when mankind waited in hope for the coming of Our Lord, and so we hold back until Christmas until we join the angels in proclaiming, 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.'

27 November 2011

Time to Start Charming Back the Luxury...

Today's not going quite to plan. Having overslept, my body clearly still trying to make up for the last week or so of illness, I missed morning Mass and have been trying to figure out the logistics of crossing the Pennines and getting to Pontefract for the afters of a dear friend's wedding, while still finding some way of attending Mass on this very special Sunday.

I have it worked out, I think. There's a train at half three, and another one just after four, and then one from Leeds at a quarter past five. I should have plenty of time to wander about Pontefract and find the church there in time for evening Mass before heading off to the hotel and arriving about an hour later than I'd like. Ambitious stuff for a man who's hardly been able to leave the couch since last Saturday morning and currently bearing eight or nine days' worth of stubble, but still. Needs must. Mass matters, as do friends.

Why is today so special? Well, because it's my friends' wedding day, of course, and because today's the first day that the corrected translation of the Mass shall be used in full, and because it's the first Sunday of Advent, after all, a time of hope and of joyful anticipation of Christmas. I always think of Advent as a profoundly English time of year, probably due to having read Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising and seen the BBC adaptation of The Box of Delights when I was a little boy, but the real heart of it, I increasingly think, was rather perfectly expressed by a fellow Irishman.
We have tested and tasted too much, lover-
Through a chink too wide there comes in no wonder.
But here in the Advent-darkened room
Where the dry black bread and the sugarless tea
Of penance will charm back the luxury
Of a child's soul, we'll return to Doom
The knowledge we stole but could not use.

And the newness that was in every stale thing
When we looked at it as children: the spirit-shocking
Wonder in a black slanting Ulster hill
Or the prophetic astonishment in the tedious talking
Of an old fool will awake for us and bring
You and me to the yard gate to watch the whins
And the bog-holes, cart-tracks, old stables where Time begins.

O after Christmas we'll have no need to go searching
For the difference that sets an old phrase burning-
We'll hear it in the whispered argument of a churning
Or in the streets where the village boys are lurching.
And we'll hear it among decent men too
Who barrow dung in gardens under trees,
Wherever life pours ordinary plenty.
Won't we be rich, my love and I, and
God we shall not ask for reason's payment,
The why of heart-breaking strangeness in dreeping hedges
Nor analyse God's breath in common statement.
We have thrown into the dust-bin the clay-minted wages
Of pleasure, knowledge and the conscious hour-
And Christ comes with a January flower.
That was Patrick Kavanagh's 1942 poem 'Advent'. I've always liked Kavanagh, who was a great man for the wink-and-elbow language of delight, even though he lived his own life with his bank of youth having been burgled by Monaghan's stony grey soil.

I liked him when I was in school and though I'm sure I heard it then, it was many years later that I really discovered the sheer profundity of 'Epic'. Now there's a poem...

26 November 2011

A Dangerously One-Eyed View

If Patsy McGarry isn’t sued after his performance on Tonight with Vincent Browne the other evening, he should consider himself a very lucky man.

I only got round to watching the whole programme a couple of days back, having caught the end of it on Tuesday night, and was astounded to see how it began. Early in a discussion on how RTE had came to defame Father Kevin Reynolds in so horrendous a fashion as it did in the summer, and on the consequences of this defamation for RTE, Vincent invited Breda O’Brien to chime in.

Breda is one of the Irish Times’ regular columnists and is with Vincent one of but a handful of people in the Irish media who have repeatedly tried to draw people’s attention to the massive extent to which childhood sexual abuse has been – and may still be – something akin to a national epidemic, having been experienced by more than a quarter of Irish adults. She raised the question of how has it come to pass that the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ seems not to apply whenever priests or nuns are accused of sexual abuse, and why it is that people seem to hugely overestimate the number of clergy who’ve committed sexual abuse; we needed to face the question of how such attitudes had arisen, and what had created this climate of assumed guilt.

It’s important to note that she didn’t shirk the fact of clerical abuse being a reality, or of the Church’s disastrous mishandling of abuse allegations; she agreed that Church authorities had been complicit in abuse through covering it up, and I think went too far in doing so, as the reality is that rather than there having been ‘a cover up’ there has been a tendency to cover up. She accepted Vincent’s point wholeheartedly, without any demurral, before pointing out that there had been no wider acknowledgement of how things had changed within the Church or how this problem is so widespread through Irish society. Indeed, she pointed out how even the likes of Maeve Lewis of One-in-Four have been largely ignored when she’s said that there’s a disproportionate amount of attention paid to clerical abuse, and that this disproportionate focus on clerical abuse is itself detrimental to the interests of the overwhelming majority of Irish abuse victims, being those who’d been abused by people other than clergy.

Essentially she was saying that there’s a double injustice at work, such that innocent priests such as Kevin Reynolds could be shameless accused of rape by the national broadcaster with the apparent approval of the Minister for Justice, and more importantly that the vast majority of sexual abuse in Ireland was being ignored, endangering thousands of Irish children. How this poisonous atmosphere had arisen was a question not just for RTE, but for the media in general, for civil society, and for all of us.


Let the Character Assassination Begin!
At that, the word 'media' acted like a dog whistle and Patsy McGarry, the Religious Affairs Correspondent of the Irish Times since 1997 or so, and a man who I suspect has depended more on clerical abuse stories for his bread and butter than anybody else in Irish life over the last fifteen years, leapt into action:
‘Can I point out also that Breda comes from the Provisional wing of the Catholic Church, and never resists an opportunity to have a go at the media and has been doing this for years, often to the detriment of the emergence of this tragedy.’
Breda pressed him to explain this, pointing out that it was a very serious allegation, and asked him to clarify it. Had Patsy really said that she had been a party that acted in a way that was detrimental to the revelation of abuse, that she had defended the Church in such a way that delayed the emergence of the story? Patsy responded to this by saying that this was indeed the case:
‘I was saying, Breda, that you and other people have found yourself in situations where you have defended the Church in contexts where things happened that were not defensible, that delayed the emergence of this story. [...]For instance, you cast doubt on people like Christine Buckley when she first came out about the abuse in Goldenbridge. There was doubt cast on -- I can't remember all the incidents...’
I’m not entirely sure that Breda did cast doubt on Christine Buckley and others, but assuming for the sake of argument that she did, surely there are two questions that need addressing.
  • First, ought we to accept heinous allegations without recognising any possibility of doubt, or should we treat them with a healthy scepticism? As a historian, my instincts are to doubt and test everything. 
  • Second, did Breda's supposed scepticism in any way hinder the emergence of the story? I think it’s pretty obvious from the figures that voices of caution have hardly held sway in this matter, such that any influence Breda might conceivably have had has been very slight. 
No, unless it can be shown that Breda’s actions had the effect of delaying the emergence of the story, this would have to be recognised as defamation on Patsy’s part; to me it looked like an outright ad hominem attack, designed to discredit somebody who was sitting right next to him and who was likely to take a line contrary to his own. It was, as Breda said, ‘a little bit of character assassination’, and the most perfect example of a phenomenon we now have in Ireland where ‘anybody who challenges the consensus on this and who says there is more than one side to this gets this treatment, gets called “people who have delayed the truth emerging”.’

Patsy accepted that most people vastly overestimate the amount of Irish clergy who are guilty of sexual abuse, attributing this to the fact that since 2005 we have had the Ryan Report into the industrial schools and into how abuse allegations were handled in Ferns, Dublin, and Cloyne. ‘Don’t tell me,’ he said, ‘the media is responsible for the climate in which these awful things have happened! It’s not the media – it’s the abuse that caused this!’


Crunching the Numbers
That sounds very convincing, until you start looking at the figures dating well before 2005, and do so while keeping in mind how the only serious large-scale survey of abuse survivors in Ireland indicates that under 1.7 per cent of sexual abuse in Ireland was clerical. The SAVI Report which established that figure also cited an article which noted that between 1993 and 2000, the term ‘paedophile priest’ had been used 332 times in the Irish Times, while such terms as ‘paedophile teacher’ and  ‘paedophile journalist’ were nowhere to be seen. I’ve scoured the archive since then as best I can myself, and found that of all the articles, columns, and letters published between September 2000 and August 2011,
  • More than 22 per cent of all pieces using the word ‘paedophile’ did so as part of the phrase ‘paedophile priest’. There were 295 uses of the phrase ‘paedophile priest', three uses of the phrase ‘paedophile teacher,’ and still not even one use of the phrase ‘paedophile journalist’.
  • 46 per cent of all pieces that used the phrase ‘sex abuse’ did so as part of the phrases ‘clerical sex abuse’ or ‘clerical child sex abuse’.
  • Almost 49 per cent of all pieces using the phrase ‘child sex abuse’ did so as part of the phrase ‘clerical child sex abuse’.
  • At the time of my search, 89 of the hundred most recent pieces referring to abuse did so with reference to abuse committed or allegedly committed by office-holders in the Catholic Church.
  • In the month prior to my survey, the Cloyne Report, which definitively revealed only that two men had not followed their own agreed policies but had broken no laws, had been mentioned 163 times, whereas the SAVI Report of 2002, which had revealed that 27 per cent of Irish adults had been abused in their childhood, with almost all of them being abused by people who were not Catholic clergy, had been mentioned just 63 times in nine years.
Is the Irish Church to blame for how it's currently viewed? Sure, but it's not the Church alone that's to blame. Are we really going to keep on pretending that the Irish media’s telling the truth on this? It’s not. I’m not saying it's biased, but in its pursuit of what’s probably been Ireland's biggest story in decades, it's developed tunnel vision, and has done so in such a way that innocent people are assumed guilty, the plight of hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens has gone ignored, and the real dangers posed to Irish children now and in the future are hardly mentioned.

Given how magnanimously she treated Patsy for the rest of the programme, and how resolutely she focused on the issues, notably the fact that were it not for the determination of the Association of Catholic Priests an innocent man would have gone to his grave branded as a rapist, I doubt Breda will make this story about herself. The fact remains, though: what Patsy McGarry said was defamation, pure and simple, and if he isn’t sued for this, he shouldn’t just consider himself lucky; he should be profoundly grateful for Breda’s charity and her willingness to forgive. 

25 November 2011

Mister Gove's Wonderful Idea

Maisie Ward, in her 1942 biography of G.K. Chesterton, quoted Chesterton as being deeply troubled by the prospect of the Bible being taught simply as literature. He believed that an obligation to teach the Bible in such a way would put Christian teachers into impossible positions, and that the phenomenon itself raised very serious questions:
‘I should not mind children being told about Mohammed because I am not a Mohammedan. If I were a Mohammedan I should very much want to know what they were told about him.’ 
I thought about this earlier when I read how Michael Gove is planning on giving a special copy of the King James Bible to every school in England, each one prefaced by a brief foreword by his honourable self.

Gove has a habit of coming up with ideas that sound great on paper, but that come unstuck once one thinks them through properly; one might think of his laudable ambition that every eleven-year-old should be required to read fifty books a year, an ambition that’s rather undermined by how government cutbacks have threatened 600 of England’s libraries with closure. This one, I fear, is no different, and Christians and others should take no satisfaction in how this proposal has provoked disquiet from the most predictable of corners.

As you’d expect, the National Secular Society’s Terry Sanderson isn’t overflowing with joy at this idea; he’s asking whether Mr Gove is planning to issue copies of Darwin’s The Origin of Species to all schools, each copy similarly prefaced by the Secretary for Education. Such a proposal, says Mr Sanderson, would be in line with Mr Gove’s wish to promote science and evidence-based education. I’m not sure why Terry Sanderson thinks the Government should be promoting nineteenth-century scientific ideas when science has moved on, as science does, but there you have it. Richy Thompson of the British Humanist Association clearly feels such facetious proposals are below him, and has instead simply criticised what he sees as an unacceptable promotion of Christianity.


Is it that, though? Not to Mr Gove, it would seem. For him, the King James Bible is ‘one of the keystones of our shared culture,’ something that’s about Britishness far more so than it is about Christianity. An anachronistic notion of Britishness, of course, one infatuated with long-discredited Whiggish notions of historical progress and hung up on the idea of the Empire of which the King James Bible was a sort of ‘founding text’, but Britishness for all that.

Perhaps surprisingly, Richard Dawkins is sitting right next to Mr Gove in that Whiggish corner, singing the chauvinistic praises of this particular old-fashioned and inaccurate translation of the Bible, saying:
‘Warts and all, let's encourage our schools to bring this precious English heritage to all our children, whatever their background, not as history, not as science and not (oh, please not) as morality. But as literature.’
Yes, despite the protestations of his fellow travellers in the NSS and the BHA, Richard Dawkins is a huge fan of the King James Bible, which he evidently regards as something which is only incidentally related to Christianity or the Judaism he appears to despise. As he said to Frank Field earlier in the year,
‘I think it is important to make the case that the Bible is part of our heritage and it doesn’t have to be tied to religion. It’s of historic interest, it’s of literary interest, and it’s important that religion should not be allowed to hijack this cultural resource.’
Yep, there you have it. The King James Bible isn’t a religious work; it’s a literary work that just happens to have religious connections, and for it to be read in its proper context is a hijacking. Let that sit for a while.

Indeed, despite his open scorn for its purpose and substance, Richard Dawkins is one of the great public fetishists of the King James Bible, about which he makes some fairly grandiose claims:
‘You can’t appreciate English literature unless you know something about the Greek gods. You can’t appreciate Wagner unless you know something about the Norse gods. You can’t appreciate English literature unless you are to some extent at least steeped in the King James Bible. There are phrases that come from it – people don’t realise they come from it – proverbial phrases, phrases that make echoes in people’s mind, they haunt our minds because we are a Christian culture, we come from a Christian culture.’
If you flick through to chapter 9 of The God Delusion you’ll find a two-page list of idioms, phrases, and clichés that Professor Dawkins says occur commonly in literary and conversational English; given, however, that these include such proper nouns as ‘Shibboleth’ and ‘Philistine’, as well as simple phrases such as ‘burning bush’ and ‘lost sheep’, I think it’s safe to say that these terms aren’t exclusively the preserve of the King James Bible. For all that, in promoting the King James Bible, Professor Dawkins has been adamant:
‘And not to know the King James Bible is to be, in some small way, barbarian.’
Bad luck for the Germans, French, and Italians, so, not to mention all those English-speaking Catholics who would fail Richard’s culture test. By Dawkins’ definition, Anthony Burgess, James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Flannery O’Connor, and Hilaire Belloc, all of whom grew up familiar with the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible rather than the Anglican cadences of the King James Bible, were barbarians incapable of appreciating English literature.

It seems the Education Secretary is on the same page as Professor Dawkins on this matter. He may be an Anglican rather than an Atheist, but it can hardly be on confessional grounds that he proposes that Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and secular schools should have specifically Anglican versions of the Bible on their shelves. To him the King James Bible is a cultural resource around which all English people should be able to unite.

The problem, of course, is that despite what Mister Gove may think and what Professor Dawkins may claim, that’s not what the Bible’s for, and it should bother Christians to see any version of it being promoted as such. The King James Bible may well have supplied rhythms and metaphors for three centuries of English writers, but it was not created with such an end in mind, and it is profoundly disrespectful to the Bible to dragoon it into the service of a nostalgic nationalism or to reduce it to a mere piece of literature, no matter how beautiful.

There's an obvious parallel with late Imperial Rome, where Christian teachers of grammar and rhetoric used Classical Pagan literature such as the Iliad and the Aeneid as literary reservoirs, while constantly reminding their students that the Pagan gods were devils, fictions, or mere metaphorical forerunners of the truths they themselves cherished. It was hardly surprising that in 362 AD Julian the Apostate, Rome’s last Pagan Emperor, passed a school law designed to ban Christians from doing such things. His project of cultural renewal failed, cut short by his untimely death in battle, but it made sense: he realised that what he saw as the common good of the Roman people would be endangered by texts and tales central to Rome’s historical culture being taught as interesting and useful falsehoods.

If we care about the Bible, we should care about how it's taught. This is a bad idea.

24 November 2011

Time To Look Within

I've met Christine Buckley many times, and though this probably won't endear me to quite a few of my fellow Catholics, I've always got on well with her. And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure she likes me too.

That said, I think her letter to today's Irish Times is completely off-kilter, and not just because she seems to think that money sent to Rome as part of the annual 'Peter's Pence' collection is morally and justifiably our money, rather than money which we gave away of our own choice to support an organization with an annual operating budget not much more than half that of UCD's.

At the core of her letter is this passage:
'Now the Vatican is not interested in our economic meltdown. Indeed it probably expects us to contribute substantially in terms of security and other supports for the Eucharistic Congress in 2012. So here is the deal: we’ll say yes to the embassy and the Congress – provided that the Vatican pays its share towards all the costs that Irish taxpayers have incurred in order to find out the truth about abuse. The Ryan report cost €126 million, The Redress Board to date €1.3 billion, The Ferns report €2.3 million, the Murphy report €3.6 million to date and the Cloyne report €1.9 million.'
The Vatican is most definitely interested in our economic meltdown. Indeed, given that the meltdown was caused by rampant greed and ridiculous exercises in financial plate-spinning, this shouldn't surprise us. We need but think of the Pope's criticism of unbridled capitalism in his third Papal encyclical, 2009's Caritas in Veritate, of how he touched on similar themes in this year's second volume of his Jesus of Nazareth, and of how the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace recently issued a huge document criticising neo-liberal economics and proposing measures to help act against future financial crises.

The Vatican hasn't complained about the Irish decision to shut the embassy to the Holy See. Indeed, I don't think anybody's complained about that other than people who realise that it's against Ireland's national interests for us to have done so. It doesn't affect the Vatican one bit. Gilmore's decision to close our embassy to the Holy See is something that's a loss to us, not to Rome.

As for the issue of costs incurred by Irish taxpayers in finding out the truth about abuse? Well, Christine says that the State has spent something of the order of €134 million on enquiries, as well as €1.3 billion on the Redress Board. So it has, but the question, surely, is what does any of this have to do with the Vatican.

As I explained back in July, almost all the money the State has spent in these matters has related to abuse that took place in Ireland's industrial schools, all of which -- though run by religious orders -- were supervised by the Irish State and not by the Vatican in any sense. The Ryan Report is absolutely damning about the State's failure to monitor these schools which it had set up and funded, and for which it was responsible. It never raises the slightest suggestion that the Vatican was in any way responsible for what happens, and doesn't even allow for the possibility that it might have been worth asking the Vatican for information; it was clearly obvious to the Ryan Commission that the Vatican was wholly unaware of what was going on.

It is true that just under €8 million was spent by the State on the Ferns, Dublin, and Cloyne Reports, none of which investigated abuse, instead investigating how allegations of abuse and expressions of concern were handled, but again the question is whether Rome knew what was going on.

Contrary to what people tend to think, the Church isn't an institution; rather, it's a loose network made up of thousands of institutions, many of which are almost wholly autonomous. The Irish Church alone has more than 180 separate bodies, and Rome -- as a rule -- only knows what's going on based on what it's told by the various institutions that make up the Irish Church.

If you look at the Dublin Report, for instance, you'll see that of the 46 sample cases of alleged abuse reported between 1975 and 2004 that the Murphy Commission considered, only four cases were ever reported to Rome. Likewise, looking at the eighteen priests about whom complaints were made or concerns were expressed in Cloyne between 1996 and 2009, again only four cases were passed on to Rome, three of these not being passed on until 2009. In short, it seems that Irish dioceses habitually tried to deal with things 'in house', and made a point of keeping Rome out of the loop.

This is a major part of the problem caused by Enda's speech in the summer, and how it's been defended by the likes of Patsy McGarry: it presented falsehood as truth, and helped to create and drive the false impression that the problem in the Irish Church lay far away in Rome rather than being right here, among the Irish people.

23 November 2011

USA 1994: Disillusioned in Dublin

Ireland’s victory against Estonia in the football last week has taken me back to one of the formative experiences in my adult life, and with all the talk this week of strikes and days of action, it’s a story I’d like to share.


Pubs were different then...
Years ago, before I became a teacher, I worked in a pub in Dublin, doing four or five nights a week and often working in the daytime too, at least on holidays and over weekends. I worked there for about five years all told, and then in subsequent years would often help out on the odd night or during the holidays. A typical suburban local, the pub was built on a generous scale: it had three lounges, each of which could hold well over three hundred customers, and a public bar, capable of squeezing in more than another hundred, and a function room, which could itself take the best part of a hundred too. Despite its size it wasn’t a pub many of my university friends knew; the nondescript suburbs of west Dublin were a world apart for the one they’d grown up in.

In the summer of 1994, I wasn’t yet a barman. I was, technically, a loungeboy. Loungeboys and loungegirls were the footsoldiers of our system. Paid the magnificent sum of £2.10 an hour, we mainly worked on the floor of the lounges and the bar, serving customers by taking their orders, paying the barmen, and bringing drinks and cigarettes and whatever back to the customers. The core of the job was saving customers the hassle of breaking their conversations with their mates by going to the bar and queuing for them. Loungestaff cleared tables too, of course, and kept the floor tidy, and checked the toilets were okay, and did loads of other jobs, the lads especially helping out in the storerooms and cellar. There were usually around thirty-five of us. Our roster filled a lined A4 page, each of us having a line to ourselves, save for newer ones who might have to share a line, their names written in cramped letters, separated by biro-ruled lines.

I rarely worked on the floor. I did what was later referred to on a reference as ‘counter support work’, working behind the bar with the barmen, making it possible for them to do their jobs. The likes of me were the unheralded hinges of the system, making sure the shelves were always full, that kegs and gas cylinders were speedily replaced, that the till always had change, and that there was always a constant supply of clean, cold glasses. And, on top of that, we tended to serve the customers directly.

It started innocuously enough, with a request to pass a customer a Coke or to make a Dressed Orange – don’t ask – and then progressed to making Irish coffees at last orders, because they took time and time was one thing barmen didn’t have when the customers were four deep at the bar and they were juggling half a dozen orders. Eventually we’d be asked to hold a pint at the tap when the barman grabbed something else, and then we’d be allowed pull our own. And then a time would come when we would be allowed to use the till.

By that point we’d basically made the leap from being loungestaff to being supplementary barstaff. Promotion wasn’t always on the cards, though. This was Ireland in the early 1990s, after all. The Celtic Tiger hadn’t happened, unemployment was still really high, and job mobility was unheard of. So you did your time, and you waited.


Italia 1990 Redux?
The summer of 1994 saw Ireland in the World Cup Finals for the second time. We’d been in the 1990 finals in Italy, and it had been an absolute bonanza for the pub, such that everyone was geared up with excitement. The older loungestaff all looked back on Italia 1990 as the best time ever working there, and we were all sure this was to be great craic, even if we were underwhelmed by the rubbish official World Cup T-shirts we were all given.

(To get a handle on what Italia 1990 was like, you should read The Van, Roddy Doyle’s brilliant conclusion to his so-called 'Barrytown Trilogy'. You could watch the film too, of course, but just as The Van’s the best of the original three Barrytown books, so The Van’s the weakest of the three films by some way.)

When most Irish people think of the 1994 World Cup, they think mainly of the first glorious win against Italy and a campaign that ran out of steam. They think of Steve Staunton struggling in the heat, Jack Charlton rowing with a linesman and throwing bottles of water on to the pitch for the lads, Jason McAteer nutmegging the greatest footballer in the world, and they probably don’t remember a lot else. Sporting nerds may cherish memories of Ireland having been in the only World Cup group ever where all teams ended up on the same points. Anyone who was away might read Joe O’Connor’s The Irish Male at Home and Abroad to revive memories of the experience of being in America with the team, but for those at home it sticks in the mind mainly as the beginning of the end of the Charlton Era.

But for me the 1994 World Cup is memorable for just one thing. The Strike.


Time is Relative...
In the early nineties it was common practice for pubs not to pay their staff for all the hours they worked. In our pub, for instance, we were paid up to thirty minutes after last orders, and that was it. The thinking, I suppose, is that the customers were meant to have gone home by then. In practice, of course, we were still serving fifteen or twenty – sometimes even twenty-five or more – minutes after the bar supposedly shut, such that ‘last orders’ was a ritual that could last for half an hour, and the customers wouldn’t go home once they’d stocked up. No, if last orders was notionally at half eleven, you’d be very lucky to get the place clear by one o'clock. You certainly wouldn’t be finished cleaning and locking up by twelve, which is when you’d stop being paid.

This must have irked the barstaff no end; it certainly bothered those of us on the floor, and in early 1994 a big group of us decided that we’d have to look into joining the union. I’m not sure why I was the man who did the legwork, but into town I went, up to Parnell Square to meet Jim Moloney, who was then the main man for whatever the barmen’s union was called at the time. I don’t think it was ‘Mandate’ at that point. We talked, and he gave me lots of paperwork, and I came back, and people got nervous, and a handful backed out when they realised we weren’t just talking, and so it all came to nothing.

On the eve of the World Cup, barmen across Dublin realised they had a huge opportunity to press home their demands, and so they began to agitate for a better deal on pay and conditions. We on the floor didn’t think they’d go ahead with a strike, so we didn’t pay a lot of attention, though we all knew on the day the World Cup was due to start – with the champions Germany playing Bolivia in Chicago – there was to be a ballot. The more level-headed of our barmen assured us there’d not be a strike. Nobody would be that stupid. There was too much at stake. A deal would be struck.


Friday 17 June
I’d stayed up late drawing into the early hours on the Thursday night, so I woke late on Friday and quickly showered, dressed, and ran, slowing down as I reached the pub and saw the lads all standing outside.
‘You didn’t...?’ I said to a couple of the younger barmen, friends who I’d go out for drinks with once or twice a week.
They looked down at their feet.
‘We did.’

Some of the other loungestaff had already arrived, and so we clustered together, worrying and wondering. What had happened? Why had they voted to go out? What should we do? The lads told us that we should go across the road, to the pizza place in the shopping centre: some of the others were already there, having gathered in advance at the house of one of the girls, and we could figure things out with them. Before we went, though, they stopped us.
‘Youse have to go in. You’re not in the Union. You’re not protected. Don’t go losing your jobs for our sake.’

Over the road the others talked of what’d happened. ‘Pumped up young lads’ were behind it, they said they’d been told. One story was that the deal had been recommended and then a young barman from a neighbouring pub – a cousin of one of our loungegirls – had leapt up on the stage and shouted that the deal was crap, and that they should strike. We didn’t know. It all seemed crazy. We talked and argued for maybe half an hour. In the end we decided that the lads were right, and that we had no real choice. None of us wanted to break their line, but the fact was that they were telling us to do so. As it happened, it was those who’d spoken up most loudly in favour of our joining the Union – including me – who were most pragmatic about our having to go in.

With bleak faces we headed back over the road, and before we went in we stopped and talked to our friends on the line. I pulled back the other staff – both girls – who did counter support work like me.
‘There’s one thing, though,’ I said.
‘What’s that?’
‘We can’t serve.’
‘What?’
‘We can’t serve. Us three. We know how to serve behind the bar. We’ve done it for ages. But we can’t do it now. It’s one thing us going in to do our job, but that’s not really our job – we’re not paid to pull pints – and it’d not be fair on the lads out here.’
One nodded immediately, and the other frowned, and then said, ‘Yeah. Okay.’

And we went in.

It was horrible.

There were hardly any customers, for starters, as it was daytime, and in a solidly working-class area, crossing a picket line was anathema. We ghostwalked through our jobs, filling the ice buckets, checking the cream machines, gathering fresh cloths, setting tables, all too embarrassed even to look at each other. The manager and his brothers – the owner’s family, basically – didn’t say a word of criticism about us all being nearly an hour late. This was horrible for everyone, and they knew it. Besides, they’d phone calls to make. They needed to find barmen, somehow. Our regular part-time barmen, though not part of the Union, obviously weren’t going to cross the line.

Going out the back to get a clean mop bucket, I came across one of my friends wiping tears from her face, and another trying to comfort her. Her boyfriend – a good friend of mine – was one of our apprentice barmen, and she’d had to walk past a picket he was on. She shook her head and looked at me with red eyes. ‘This is shit,’ she said.
‘I know,’ I grimaced.
Back inside, and seeing the manager away from the phone for the first time, I asked could I have a word.
‘Of course,’ he said, walking into the little kitchen that doubled as an informal office from time to time, ‘what’s up?’
‘Conor,’ I said, and paused. ‘I’ve spoken to Lucy and Niamh, and although we’ve come in, we’re not happy about serving behind the bar. It’s not really our job, after all, and we only do it –’
‘That’s alright,’ he said, ‘I understand. We wouldn’t ask you to. And we’re grateful you’ve come in.’
This surprised me.
‘Thank you,’ I paused again. ‘Will this get fixed, do you think?’
He looked away.
'I hope so,' he said. 'We’re trying.'

As the day wore on more loungestaff arrived, appearing in dribs and drabs, the girls all dressed in shorts and our special World Cup T-shirts. The longest-serving of us wasn’t among them. Like a mother to us, she was older than most of the barmen, and there was no way she’d pass their line.
‘She hasn’t come in,’ said one of the other lounge girls. ‘Maybe we should have stayed out too?’
‘Nah,’ said another, ‘she’s here too long. They’d never sack her. We’re different. They could replace us tomorrow.’

Barstaff started to appear too. We had no idea who they were, but they came in, and pulled on bright yellow polo shirts given them by management. They were hardly in the door before we called them Yellow-packers, after the Quinnsworth cheap range, muttering about them when they were out of earshot. Upstairs we had a podgy one named Jim serving us, squeezed into his bright yellow shirt. ‘Slim Jim’, we called him. It seemed inevitable.

In truth, it was obvious that we hardly needed the yellow-packers, just as we’d hardly needed the manager’s assurance that the likes of myself wouldn’t be asked to pull pints. Hardly any customers came in.

I went home for my break, and when I came back up the road it was obvious from what was going on outside that something had happened. There’d been a meeting, I learned, during which the pub’s owners had broken away from their own organization, the Licensed Vintner’s Association, in order to offer the barstaff a better deal and get the show back on the road. The barstaff had gotten together and decided that they’d take a vote, but that it had to be unanimous. If even one person wanted to stay with the Union, then they’d all with it and would remain on strike.

Only one person had done so. They were still on strike.

I’m not clear now on the sequence of events – memory fades, after all – but as far as I can remember it was that night, while Germany played Bolivia and Spain played South Korea, that our head barman finally quit, walking away after decades of working for the same people. He wouldn’t let the others down by breaking the line, but he felt he was letting his employers down by striking in such a situation. I think it was that night too that four of the barstaff decided that they too weren’t going to remain on strike, and that they were going to come in.


Saturday 18 June
In the morning I cleaned shelves and restocked them with Mark, the senior barman from upstairs, and someone who I’d worked with for years. We worked in silence for a while, and then I stopped.
‘Mark, can I ask you a question?’
‘Go on.’
‘Why did you come in?’
He frowned.
‘I know it’s not really my business,’ I said, ‘but I don’t understand. I understand why Rob came in, because he was worried about the cellars getting out of hand without him to look after them, and Susan was probably worried about not getting kept on after her apprenticeship, but I don’t understand why Bernie and you came in.’
‘No, it’s a fair question,’ he said. ‘There were a few reasons, really. Rob and I got talking last night, because we weren’t happy about how the meeting with Conor had gone. That was stupid. He’d gone out on a limb, and made a decent offer, and we should have taken it. The thing is, the strike makes no sense. It’s mainly over two things, and we shouldn’t be taking advantage of our employers like this.’
‘One of them’s not being paid for cleaning up?’
‘Yeah, and that’s obviously bollix, but that’ll get sorted at the Labour Court one way or another. You can’t have people working for nothing in this day and age. We don’t need to strike to fix that.’
‘And the other thing?’
‘More money, really. But we can’t strike for that. There’s a national wage agreement that we’ve signed up to. And everybody needs to stick to that. It’s the only way to get the country on its feet. This strike? It’s stupid. It’s cutting off our nose to spite our face.’

Ireland was due to play Italy on the Saturday night, a fitting rematch really, given how Italy had knocked us out of the last World Cup at the quarter final stage. It should have been the biggest day of the year, Christmas and New Year’s Eves, St Stephen’s Day, St Patrick’s Day, and the Blessing of the Graves all rolled into one. Instead the place was like a cemetery. Only a handful of regulars had come in, and what few customers we had were almost all people we’d never seen before, or people who’d have been turned away in the past.

It didn’t look to be getting any busier when I went home for my dinner, chatting on the way home with some of our regulars who I bumped into the street – people who’d stayed away, and decided to watch the match at their own houses.
‘This is important,’ they’d said. ‘You know about Larkin and Connolly. Ordinary people like us – we have to stick together. If we don’t, who’ll look out for us?’
'I know, but –'
'There's no "but". You'd have nothing if your father and his father hadn't stood up with their mates for their rights. It's the same thing.'

Things didn’t look that much busier that night, when I returned to be on hand for the Ireland match. A few of the other loungegirls had turned up with a flask of soup and some sandwiches for the lads outside, and I stopped to talk. There was a bitterness there this time – not towards us, as we’d just done as they’d said, but towards their co-workers who’d gone in. It was obvious they felt betrayed, and though I could understand why the four who’d come in had done so, I didn’t blame the ones who stayed out for feeling the way they did.

It was a quiet night for the few of us working upstairs – Mark, Slim Jim, me, and Louise and a couple of other loungegirls – but the reality is that there wasn’t a whole lot of work being done. We’d a few regulars in one end of the lounge, while the rest was empty. We could have taken three hundred with ease, and we’d fewer than thirty customers. Fewer than twenty, probably, now I think of it.

Downstairs was a different matter, though, as people had come from miles away, unwilling to cross the lines at their own pub, but happy to do so elsewhere. Our cabaret lounge, with its big screen, had a respectable crowd. It wasn’t what the owners would have hoped for, but there was a bit of a buzz there.

Those of us upstairs chatted most of the night away together, sitting at the far end, down by the toilets, watching the match on a small screen, and occasionally strolling down to see if anyone wanted a drink, or getting up whenever we heard a distant cough.

Ireland won. 1-0. Houghton’s goal was a bit of a out of nowhere, but the result wasn’t, as we’d been the dominant team throughout. It was one of our best ever performances – certainly one of the best two or three of the Charlton era, even if the one moment that really sticks in the mind about the match, though, was that comedy instant when Jason McAteer nutmegged Roberto Baggio.


Endgame and Aftermath
Things kind of petered out after that, as the strike’s momentum was broken. The LVA carried on haggling with the Union, and eventually a deal was struck on Monday or Tuesday, and the lads came back in to work.

It wasn’t nice. The ones who’d stayed out couldn’t forgive the ones who’d gone in, and things got worse in the following weeks, as it seemed the ones who’d came in were treated better than others. The apprentice who came in was kept on when her time was up, as we’d expected she would, but one who stayed outside – a fine barman by any standard – was let go. The Union, most importantly, was broken: with a third of the permanent barstaff no longer being members, it was only a matter of time before the whole thing faded out. It’s still there, as far as I know, but it’s a shadow of what it was. And sometimes, to this day, I hear of those who stepped off the lines and came in being referred to as scabs.

You’ll be glad to know that the loungestaff were rewarded for their loyalty. We were told we’d be paid for a further quarter of an hour’s cleaning up. 55p a night, that worked out at. Enough for a bag of crisps and a dash of lemonade.

A year later I became a part-time barman myself; Lucy and Niamh followed me within a week or so.

I think this sort of thing happened in pubs across Dublin, such that the old structured system of apprenticeships – the system that made Irish barmen so remarkably good – is a thing of the past. In the long run, I don’t think anyone gained from this.


So...?
What’s my point? I’m not sure I have one, really, save that I’ve often thought about the rights and wrongs of this over the years. If it taught me anything it’s that strikes are horrible, and that unions are vitally important, but they need to believe sensibly. They are important, after all: they’re often the only way ordinary people can protect themselves and their families from being exploited, and they can play a crucial role in building a successful society, as the German economic model shows us.

This is one of the reasons I get annoyed when people talk of how disgraceful it is that Labour – in the UK – is so heavily influenced by the Unions. Yeah, they are. They receive funding from unions, each union representing hundreds of thousands of members. The unions ballot their members every few years to see if they still want to contribute to support the Labour party, and even if the majority decide to arrange to support Labour financially, individual members are always free to withhold that part of their subscription. Collectively, this means that millions of ordinary people contribute towards the Labour party – and I’m always intrigued by the agenda of anybody who holds that those millions of ordinary people should be blocked from financially supporting their political party of choice.

Anyway, as you’ll know, Britain’s unions have called a national day of strike action on 30 November. In a nutshell, it’s over changes to pension arrangements that have already been agreed, and that the Government wants to renege on. Yes, I know there’s more to it than that, and that the Government’s in a nasty place financially, but that’s at the core of things: the Government’s trying to change things so that teachers and nurses and binmen and all manner of other people who dedicate their lives to serving the public will have less money to retire on in their old age than had previously been agreed on.


A friend of mine has, with other members of the TUC, just put out a single under the banner of ‘The Workers’. It’s in solidarity with all those involved in 30 November’s Day of Action for Pension Justice. The video’s fun to watch – and not just because of the pretty blonde gazing wistfully at the 2:45 mark – and the single’s certainly worth the downloading. It’s for a good cause, after all.

22 November 2011

It's All About The Jumpers

I was reminded, in the aftermath of last week’s disagreement between the Vatican and Benetton, and thinking about Benetton’s absurd ‘Unhate’ posters, of a Stewart Lee routine from his 41st Best Stand-Up Ever show. 

Discussing 2007’s Celebrity Big Brother racism row, Lee let rip at what he saw as the naked hypocrisy of the show’s sponsor, the Carphone Warehouse.
'This is a genuine press statement from the Carphone Warhouse: "Racism is entirely at odds with the values of the Carphone Warhouse". Entirely at odds. I don't know about you, Glasgow, but I was was hugely relieved to read that press statement, because prior to reading that press statement , I had suspected that the [falsetto Irish] Carphone Warehouse was in fact a front for a white supremacist organization. And I have in my hand a piece of paper bearing the true values of the [falsetto Irish] Carphone Warehouse, the true values of the [falsetto Irish] Carphone Warehouse.
  1. Sell phones.
  2. Sell more phones.
  3. Deny the Holocaust.
  4. Sell more phones.
  5. Deny the Holocaust again, this time by texting your mates.
  6. Lobby for the return of the Golliwog and the Black and White Minstrel Show.
  7. Sell phones, sell phones to cars, sell as many phones as... quickly, sell phones, sell the phones, sell...!
The values of the Carphone Warehouse. The sheer transparent naked hypocrisy of even imagining for a moment that such things exist as the values of the Carphone Warehouse. Do you follow the values of Jesus or Buddha or Marx? No, I follow the values of the Carphone Warehouse, committed as they have been these past twenty years to fighting racism through the unusual medium of discount phone retail, a sure method which for so long eluded the ANC and the Rock Against Racism movement. The values of the Carphone Warehouse.’

The Point Being?
There is, of course, a profound irony in a company such as Benetton, whose exploitative labour practices have been called into question more than once over the years, whose sweatshops in North Africa and the Far East are hardly something of which they can be proud, daring to stand and tell anyone else how they ought to behave, but I suppose hypocrisy has always involved vice paying some kind of tribute to virtue. The fact is, of course, that Benetton is a company far better known for its advertising campaigns than for its clothes. That they’re in the news seems to be yet another disturbing example of how the eighties, somehow, are back.

On the face of it, the Benetton campaign is just silly. ‘Unhate’ say its posters, festooned with digitally created images of the Pope kissing the highest authority of Sunni Islam, Mohammed Ahmed al-Tayeb, Grand Sheikh of Cairo’s al-Azhar Mosque, or of Nikolas Sarkozy kissing Angela Merkel, or Barack Obama kissing Hu Jintao. It’s clearly nonsense: Merkel and Sarkozy don’t need to be told to ‘unhate’ each other; they’re working almost as a unit trying to figure out a way out of the mess that may yet shatter the Union, and the global economic system with it. Given the first amendment to the American Constitution, I can’t imagine President Obama getting upset -- at least publicly -- about how his image has been used by Benetton, and I’m pretty sure this advertising campaign isn’t being run in China.


So it’s silly. Fine. Is that grounds for the Vatican being annoyed? Can’t it take a joke?
Well, the first thing I’d say is that I can’t imagine that the British government would have been happy if Benetton had plastered half of London’s billboards and Tube stations with a giant photoshopped mash-up of the Queen snogging the face off Robert Mugabe. I think they’d be miffed, and rightly so, and that some sort of action would be taken against Benetton. What’s more, I think you can imagine British papers calling on British people to boycott Benetton. We all know this would happen, so please, don’t be tempted to ask why the Vatican doesn’t have a sense of humour. And let’s face it, if Benetton really wanted to make a meaningful point with these posters, they’d be using them in Egypt, wouldn’t they?

But they’re not doing that, for two very sensible reasons:  they wouldn’t go down at all well there, and  Egypt’s hardly their most lucrative market. This isn’t about changing minds, no matter what Benetton may say. It’s about selling jumpers and it’s about selling brightly-coloured jeans of the sort only children’s TV presenters can wear with any sense of propriety. I use that word loosely.

That said, I don’t fancy the Vatican’s chances in trying to restrict the offending image’s circulation: it’s already on countless newspaper sites and blogs, and I even know somebody who’s using it as his Facebook profile picture, even though he looks like neither gentleman. Now that it's out there it'll be unstoppable. That's the nature of modern imagery; as an old friend of mine used to say, digital photographs are 'pictures that never die'.

To be frank, this whole affair bothers me, and not because I think it's insulting towards the Pope and implicitly towards all Christians in communion with him. Rather, I think it’s a problem because it’s deeply dishonest, and arguably quite dangerous.


Why is it dishonest? 
Well, bearing as it does the exhortation to ‘unhate’ the poster indicates that the Pope hates al-Tayeb, and quite probably Muslims in general. If anything, the opposite is the case. Inter-faith dialogue has been one of the great themes of Benedict’s Papacy, and Benedict has worked hard to build a healthy dialogue with our Muslim brothers and sisters. 

One need but think of his praying in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet Mosque – the famous ‘Blue Mosque’ – in November 2006, his role in establishing the Catholic-Muslim Forum, the first summit of which took place in November 2008, his visit to Amman’s Hussein bin-Talal Mosque in May 2009 and his addressing of Muslims in the cause of religious freedom and in opposition to religious extremism,  his widely praised meeting in September with leaders of Germany’s Muslim community where he spoke on the possibility of building religiously-rooted political systems which nonetheless protected religious pluralism, and of the fact that at last month’s inter-religious meeting at Assisi, there were more Muslim leaders present than there were high-ranking Catholics!

There’s a case to be made that the Pope is doing at least as much as anyone else in the world to calm Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’. He’s certainly doing more than Benetton, at any rate!


And dangerous?
Well, yes. There is indeed tension between the Pope and Ahmed al-Tayeb, and it relates to a great tragedy which has been happening on Europe’s doorstep and which we’ve basically ignored. 

As you’ll remember,  on 1 January of this year a car bomb outside the Coptic church of St Mark and Pope Peter in Alexandria killed 23 Copts, with a further 97 people being injured. This brought decades of persecution of the Copts to a head, and public protests by the Copts were brutally suppressed. The Pope condemned the attack in his New Year address, appealing for religious freedom and tolerance, and exhorting governments to protect their minorities.

In response, the Grand Sheikh spoke out against Benedict’s intervention, describing the Pope’s appeal for civil authorities in the Middle East to protect their Christian minorities as an ‘unacceptable interference in Egyptian affairs’ and dismissing his observations as biased and inappropriate.  

The Vatican responded by stressing that the Pope has constantly condemned violence against all people, not merely Christians, and insisting that we need to work together if we are to live together in peace, stressing that ‘The Pope’s invitation to Assisi for this coming October demonstrates his desire to repeat the message that no war may be waged in God’s name, but only peace.’ Tayeb rejected this invitation, saying that such gatherings as that at Assisi did nothing for Muslims and serve only to help the West.

Since then, of course, we’ve seen the Arab Spring, and in the aftermath of the first phase of the Egyptian revolution, more than 90,000 Copts have been forced to flee their ancient ancestral homeland in the face of incessant violence and persecution.


It’s in this context that there’s tension between Rome and Cairo’s Grand Sheikh. Benetton’s puerile advert doesn’t merely insult and misrepresent the Pope: it trivialises the plight of thousands upon thousands of people being persecuted on Europe’s doorstep, and it does this to sell jumpers.

21 November 2011

More Questions

A long time ago, in the early days of this blog -- posts predating September 2007 have been adopted from my old blog into the prehistory of this one -- I wrote about how I'd learned something of the truth about a story I'd once assumed was an urban myth, a kind of local ghost story.

One of my childhood friends used to tell me a story, heard from his older brothers, of how years earlier a little boy who lived up near the church in Palmerstown had been murdered by his teenage next-door neighbour, crucified in an attic as a Satanic ritual. I believed this as a child, and dismissed it in my teens, and then in my late teens discovered that the story had basically been true. A few years ago, a brief window of access to the Irish Times archive enabled me to find out how the story had been reported at the time: how little John Horgan’s death had initially been reported as accidental, and how hardly any details were revealed in the court reports, with the murderer's name – Lorcan Bale – being withheld, and the facts of the case not being reported.

I was watching Criminal Minds one day last week -- yes, I know, but there was a brief novelty value in the telly suddenly working and having an abundance of channels -- with the gang investigating what appeared to be a Satanist murder, when it was pointed out that despite popular belief there have never been any Satanic murders in America. This got me thinking, of course, and so I went a-googling, as I do about once a year on the subject in the vain hope that I'll discover something.

This time was different. A book had just come out on the subject, and there were articles scattered here and there, and the names of both victim and murderer were everywhere, and if you're inclined to listen to Joe Duffy, well, there was a show just for you.

Ghoulish though the subject is, and broke though I surely was, years of curiosity won out over poverty and propriety and moments had scarcely passed before I'd ordered the book, with it arriving a couple of days later. In a nowadays atypically efficient burst of reading I ploughed through the whole book on Friday, before falling ill the following morning. I've been pondering it since.

If I had to sum up my thoughts, though, I'd just say it's not very good. It's not wholly worthless, as some information is better than no information, but it's certainly not worth shelling out on.


The Devil's in the Details
There's a section in his Histories where Polybius, the second-century BC Greek historian of the rise of Rome, discusses other historians and says something which offers a fine principle for evaluating any books which claim to be factual.
'As the proverb tells us that a single drop from the largest vessel suffices to tell us the nature of the whole contents, so we should regard the subject under discussion. When we find one or two false statements in a book and they prove to be deliberate ones, it is evident that not a word written by such an author is any longer certain and reliable.' (12.25a.1-2)
I think this works in a broader sense: it's not just that we should be wary of authors who get things wrong deliberately, but that we should watch those who make sloppy little errors. Those who are not to be trusted in little things are not entitled to our trust when it comes to big things.

The first indication for me that something wasn't right with the book came with a little bit of creative writing in the first chapter.
'A highly educated Irish speaker from Kerry, Father O'Keefe was well-respected, and known for his pulpit oratory, but his was no liberal message of live and let live -- his voice thundered on the dangers of sin, the fires of hell, and the temptations of the devil; for the believer, he spoke of the path to redemption. This was unusual for a Catholic priest; such fire-and-brimstone messages are more characteristic of the low churches, and evangelical Protestantism.
That late spring morning, as he passed the shrine to the Virgin Mary overlooking the murky fish-pond, nothing seemed out of the ordinary. The priest unlocked the front door and entered the porch. The vials of holy water were untouched, as were the notices advocating the conservative group for laity, the Legion of Mary. And yet the cleric sensed immediately that something was wrong.'
He wasn't the only one. As he passed the shrine to the Virgin Mary? In 1973? The shrine that wasn't constructed until at least the late 1980s? That one? I had to check this with my brother, as I thought maybe I was remembering things wrong, but no, the shrine definitely wasn't there in the 1970s. Sure, doesn't it block the route that he and his mates used to use when running through the church grounds to go and play in the quarry full of rusting machinery? The priest back in the day used to chase kids off to stop them running there, and he'd hardly have needed to do so if the shrine had been there to block their way.

That's bad enough, but then just a couple of pages later we read:
'John Horgan would have been excited leaving Mount Sackville Convent School in nearby Clondalkin that Thursday afternoon.'
Now, you might argue about whether Mount Sackville, only about a mile across the Liffey as the crow flies from John Horgan's house, should be regarded as being in Chapelizod or Castleknock, but you certainly can't say it's in Clondalkin, three miles south.

It’s hard to believe, reading this, that the book’s author, David Malone, was born in Dublin and lives there now. The book gets even sloppier, really, with the second chapter opening with a description of local geography that makes it seem as though the local bank is on the same street as several other shops, as opposed to sitting isolated on another street -- what was once the main road to Galway -- a couple of hundred metres away. It’s as though Malone didn’t get to know the area at all, something that seems to be supported by things I’ve heard from people from that part of Palmerstown about him getting loads of things wrong. Certainly, he missed a trick in his summary of Palmerstown’s history by not mention how Lord Palmerston, the nineteenth-century British Prime Minister and political realist par excellence, took his title from this otherwise obscure west Dublin village; the Temples were Irish peers, though I don’t think Palmerston himself ever set foot in the place.


And then there are Bigger Problems...
If little errors and omissions such as these would cause one to approach the meat of the text with care, more substantial matters don’t inspire more confidence. Malone offers two wholly incompatible accounts of how John Horgan’s body was found, one coming from the then Detective Sergeant Jim Noonan and one from another Garda, a Seán O’Laughlin: Noonan describes how he’d worked out that something was amiss with the teenage Lorcan Bale’s story and how he and two other Guards had told the murderer they’d search the house from top to bottom, such that he cracked and admitted John’s body was in the attic. O’Laughlin, on the other hand, describes how he’d spotted broken plasterboard pieces in the bottom of Lorcan’s otherwise empty wardrobe, looked up, seen the secret hatch into the attic, and then entered the attic the conventional way, only to see the little boy’s body tied spread-eagled to the rafters; both men claimed that on finding John’s body they checked him for signs of life.

It’s pretty obvious from reading the two accounts, a convenient fifty or so pages apart, that Noonan’s account is by far the more likely to reflect what happened: it’s a team effort, less dramatic than O’Laughlin’s, rooted in sensible steady policework, and is corroborated by other people. 

O’Laughlin’s, on the other hand, looks patently false: all the work appears to have been his own, for starters, without any cooperation with anybody else, and he seems to have been sparked in his thoughts by hearing from the victim’s father that ‘that weird bastard next door’ had a Ouija Board. It seems unlikely that this would have been known and that the teenager wouldn’t have been a speedy object of suspicion – although Malone returns to the statement later to speculate on whether Lorcan Bale’s father had also been aware of this.

O’Laughlin describes the teenage Bale getting nervous in response to questions and glancing upstairs, and then says O'Laughlin asked Bale’s father whether he could go into the boy’s locked bedroom; where Lorcan himself was when this conversation took place isn’t clear, and nothing’s said of his reactions, which seems odd as according to this story he was clearly present when O’Laughlin searched his room.

Even the description of the cupboard is odd; elsewhere in the book the tidiness of the bedroom Lorcan Bale shared with his brother is noted, but according to O’Laughlin there were broken bits of plasterboard all over the base of the otherwise empty built-in wardrobe, the chippings scattered there from the hatch above – an elaborate hatch with a rope and pulley system that had been made months earlier. Is it really likely that Lorcan Bale wouldn’t have made some effort to clean away his handiwork, to hide it from the brother with whom he shared his room?

Indeed, is it even plausible that a built-in wardrobe in a shared room in a family home would have been entirely empty, or that Lorcan wouldn't have relied upon the wardrobe being full to hide his secret route to the attic? His old school friend Lorcan Conroy, one of Malone's main sources, told Malone that there were indeed clothes in the wardrobe, and that they needed to be pushed back on their rail in order to afford access to the attic hatches.

How does Malone resolve these difficulties? In practice he doesn’t; he divides Noonan’s account into two parts, so that the breakthrough is described early in the book and the aftermath is described much later, after O’Laughlin’s account, which Malone refers to when he wants to discuss details later on. Malone seems hardly troubled by the Noonan's and O'Laughlin's accounts being at odds with each other:
‘Other records of the events of that day differ very slightly in the detail, but the substance of the search and subsequent discovery of the body remains consistent. A slightly differing version, which I’ve recounted in detail in Chapter One, is Detective Sergeant Noonan’s account, supplemented by other witnesses. [...] The discrepancies between the two policemen’s accounts can easily be explained away by the passage of time. But common to both is seeing the body and immediately checking for any signs of life.’
This, of course, is nonsense. Nobody’s disputing that the boy was killed, or that he was found, or that the policeman who found him immediately checked to see if he was alive. The two stories don’t just differ slightly: they differ in serious and profound ways, and it’s surely the case that anybody on hearing and thinking through these stories should have thought to doubt O’Laughlin’s version of events. It's pretty clear, really, that O'Laughlin was just spinning Malone a yarn, but unfortunately, rather than doing his job as a journalist and trying to get his facts right, Malone just throws out every bit of data he's got and leaves it up to us to decide. 

The reality is that he hasn’t got a lot else to use, and has to include every trivial claim and counter-claim he’s ever heard on the subject simply to fill the book out. Tangents and speculation are an irritating feature of the book, padding out what is, in truth, an insubstantial piece of work. Much of this has to do with Malone’s lack of data: Lorcan Bale, long freed from custody and settled in society, wouldn’t tell him anything, the Horgans wouldn’t deal with him and didn’t welcome the book being written at all, and crucial information was simply inaccessible, hidden away by the demands of doctor-patient confidentiality. Malone’s been forced to bulk up what could, in itself, be a very good magazine feature in the right kind of magazine. It’s not a book, not as it stands.


Little Virtues
It’s not all bad, of course. There’s useful and interesting information there, and it was a strange relief to hear that John Horgan’s death was swift, rather than the agonised torture I’d always assumed: he wasn’t crucified, but was clubbed to death in the field behind his home, before being smuggled upstairs and into the attic, there to lashed to the rafters in Lorcan Bale’s black mass. Malone raises interesting questions about how Bale had ever got involved in Satanism, and wonders about the possibility of there having been a coven of some sort in Meath, but though he raises questions, he can offer no answers. 

Malone makes a real effort to get across a sense of place in the book, and he doesn’t wholly fail in this, in that I recognise his descriptions of the Palmerstown of 1973 as a lot closer to the Palmerstown of my childhood than to the Palmerstown of today. It was far smaller, for starters, with perhaps less than half the population, and mostly fields, cliche though that is. It’s a huge shame he doesn’t include maps showing how it’s changed, and photographs from Palmerstown back then, as there must be some around.

Now and Then, more or less

Although some names have been changed it’s oddly chilling to see familiar names cropping up, whether of people I’ve known such as the parish priest Father Kevin Daly, the local builder – and publican – Frank Towey, and Dr T.B. Sherry, or prominent national figures such as Maureen Gaffney. All this, and the fact that I know intimately all the places mentioned in the book makes reading it a disturbing experience. There’s something horrifying in reading of something so terrible taking place somewhere so ordinary, so familiar.

At the same time, though, the places where we grow up are never just mundane, are they? They’re invested with a profound – almost a mythic – sense of reality, where bushes and pillars stand as markers of stories we’ve heard and things we’ve done, monuments to a world which to an outsider is insignificant, but which means everything to those who live there. I made the Iliad from such a local row, wrote Patrick Kavanagh back in the day.


In Short...
These, however, are the book’s very few virtues, and more than anything it comes across as a missed opportunity. It offered a chance to say important things about Ireland in the 1970s – and it does at least hint at one thing, which was that back then Irish people simply didn’t share knowledge of bad things they’d heard of, such that wicked things might have been heard of but just weren’t discussed – but rather than delving into them, nothing is dealt with in anything more than a superficial level.

A couple of years back one of my oldest friends asked whether I’d be interested in doing the work on this myself, on finding out just what had happened, knowing my interest in this. I paused, and said no. Doing so, I thought, would be intrusive. It’s obvious that the two families wanted to leave the past behind them, and they should be left in peace. Sure, people would be interested to learn of this, but did they need to know about it?

Having read Malone’s work, I’m far from convinced that this story needed to be told. It may have satisfied my curiosity, to some degree, but I could have lived without that. More than anything it felt like an exercise in voyeurism.