Wednesday 27 March 2019

MODERN CRUSADES

Last week BBC TV broadcast a film "Guns and Rosaries" about the life and work of Father Patrick Peyton, an Irish priest who created "Rosary Rallies" that attracted  millions of people to  listen to his  religious message, " The Family That Prays Together Stays Together".

In 1954 Fr. Peyton  came to Belfast where tens of thousands of men, women and children gathered in an open air venue, a cinema and a football ground to hear him. Already he had attracted not only millions of hopeful listeners worldwide but also teams of films stars, technicians, industrialists, investors, newspaper owners to help him spread his religious message.  Film stars of that time, Bing Crosby, Edward G. Robinson, Frank Sinatra, Maureen O Hara , James Cagney and many others  not forgotten even yet, helped in his "Crusade for the Family Rosary".  In  Ireland church  committees were  appointed to arrange  great assemblies of people to hear the message "The Family That Prays Together Stays Together"  and to promise their families  would be like that. The Family Rosary - families on their knees praying together at home  - found many new homes for this simple, repetitive prayer that was now blossoming out from Patrick Peyton's Mayo fireside into families across the world.  

Some Irish bishops, like Dan Mageean in Belfast, welcomed Patrick Peyton and prepared happily for  monumental rallies, others, like John Charles Mc  Quade in Dublin  disapproved of them .

Bishop Mageean appointed committees to organise rallies in  Belfast,  Ballymena  and of course Downpatrick, traditionally said to be St Patrick's very special place; people  marched  with banners and flags, singing all the way to the hosting places.

The rallies were spectacularly successful. Tens of thousands of families made a pledge  to pray  once every day as a united Family who, praying together, would stay together, holding fast against the modern trend towards divorce and the dissolution of Family as  the  bedrock of civilised Christian living.

It was hard to imagine  all this attracting the helpful assistance  of governments and their financiers and perhaps  even being financed by the CIA, none of them being  noted  for special piety.  But it happened.

The BBC programme "Guns and Rosaries"  helps to fill  in the outline of what people in Belfast in later years began to suspect.  The Rosary Rallies were too vast and too popular not to be of great interest to government agencies, financiers and politicians who were fascinated by the efficiency with which Patrick Peyton attracted millions to his cause and dollars to match. He  believed  the simple traditional family prayer that helped Irish people to endure hunger and cruelty  would help  the modern world to endure, possibly even lessen, some of the abuses of the modern world, starting with America - if he could persuade millions of good people in  millions of good families to help him, and if he could get the celebrities whom  the people loved to help him too.

Powerful people who noticed his success, however, were fighting their own crusade at the time, "against godless communism".  Patrick Peyton's religious  mission was born at a time when  sentiment  was  replacing spirituality in both  popular and official religion, sentiment more comfortable in the cinema than in the hardship of many religious households, when Christian religious action and concern  were  being directed away from the present evils of present miserable systematic poverty, more and more towards the future defeat of the possibly future evils of possibly " godless communism",  when Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald were still on cinema screens as Fathers O'Malley and Fitzgibbon showing how personal religious sweetness and light could overcome even the hardest of capitalistic hearts when personal holiness mattered and social change did not.  In Europe and the USA after WW2  great political and financial interests seemed reasonably under control  but even there and certainly in other parts of the world new and worrying religious and social thoughts were emerging, most of all  in Latin America where even important members of the Catholic church had rediscovered that religion was for  setting people free of repression, not for enclosing them in oppressive economic cages.  Liberation Theology in the decades after WW2 was becoming dangerous doctrine.

The CIA was one of many organisations intent on dealing with dangerous social doctrines. It offered finance to  the crusading work of Patrick Peyton. The family hearth after all was the very heart at which "godless communism" was striking; the Bay of Pigs was not the only kind of answer to this, or the assassination of one  archbishop, or the freezing out of another. Indeed these might prove no answers at all. So rumour was that the CIA had become a subscriber to the Fr. Peyton Rosary Crusade funds.

Rumours  of what was happening to, or with, the Peyton Crusade in other parts of the world  stirred up little interest in Belfast. During  the next decades we had other matters to think about, not yet realising how  globalisation meant we are all involved now  in everything, everywhere.  But we also had to think of what our religious belief and action - or religious doubt and inaction- really meant in our rapidly changing world and about what political and economic campaigns  religious people  were being pulled into. Anyway, the threat of Belfast being overwhelmed by "godless communism" was remote.  The communist newspaper in the shop where I got mine was bought by three people, one was the Secretary of the local  Party, another was me and I forget who the third one was. Betty Sinclair maybe or Andy Barr  who, as far as I knew were too busy trying to get people decent houses and jobs to be over- concerned about the CIA and its crusade.

 "Guns and Rosaries" strengthens the rumours, it does not prove a case against Patrick Peyton. But it prompts questions about  leadership, about how our religious ideas come into fashion or go out of it. The pre-Christian lawyer Cicero used to ask, as first step in solving cases, "Cui bono?, who gets the advantage from all this "? 

Good question.  Does it matter why John Paul  was elected Pope  and  created a campaign against "godless communism" in his native Poland? Or why an Archbishop of Buenos Aires became Pope, or Archbishop Fulton Sheen in the nineteen fifties created a mission for Latin America supported by  funds from his TV success in the USA at a  time  when  the USA had its own unsolved problems of poverty and injustice? Or if a Rosary Crusade became funded by, among other interested parties, The Central Intelligence Agency ?

Or that Archbishop  Romero was shot dead at Mass in  San Salvador?

Questions worth coming back to sometime.......after Brexit maybe ?....... Cui bono ?...........

Saturday 9 March 2019

RE-UNITED IRELAND

Public discussion  about re-uniting Ireland has become more open and more positive than at any time since the British government imposed a border in the country. By one of those ironies of history that should make politicians more cautious the border that seemed to solve London's problems in the nineteen twenties is creating its biggest problem now. And doing away with the artificial border in Ireland is clearly the most rational way to solve London's Euopean problem and give Ireland a bit of peace.

In the discussion about re-union an Irish politician said with obvious irritation - and aiming at a political rival - it would be wrong to demand reunification without planning what shape it should take. But for hundreds of years that is exactly what we in Ireland have been doing, working out the shape and structures of Ireland in the future. Even a British king, George the Fifth, said he hoped that one day the Irish people would come together and he had a plan -  Ireland united within the British empire;  the Empire became the Commonwealth,  India (Victoria's "Jewel in  her crown" ) has become a major independent competitor in world trade, other nations are anxious to do the same and Ireland has thrown in its lot with fellow Europeans on that road and not with the  remains of the king's empire.

Wolfe Tone, "father of Irish republicanism" could think comfortably of a king as head of an Irish state -  in his day kings were believed to have divine credentials for ruling people. He and other republicans could hardly have foreseen that  the great French Revolution would produce Napoleon and make an Emperor of him or that the American revolution  could ever produce an emperor-like leader not from divinely assisted blue blood but from market place and vaudeville. In Ireland people appreciated kings - although they tended usually to favour small ones and to fight for centuries against big ones; for many centuries a nation without a king or queen seemed somehow not quite right. But once people got away from the notion that kings and queens were sacred essentials for good government, exciting ideas emerged. Many people stopped looking for good people to govern them and demanded they should govern themselves instead.

From the nineteen sixties onward Irish people put forward various ideas about the shape of a future  re-united Ireland. Time came when even in the north-east you could do this without being arrested and interned without trial.

It is interesting then to think about the various suggestions put forward by people in those days and during the decades following. These included :

Continuing (or restoring) Stormont government as London had set it up;

 United Ireland with one central government;

Independent Ulster ( six counties separate from the rest of Ireland);

Federal Ireland, with four provinces ( Ulster of nine counties) with central government not necessarily resident in Dublin ; each province having a  measure of self government ;

Federal Ireland of two units but one central government;

Full integration of six counties of Ulster with Britain (which would remove the title Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the north eastern counties would become, as Mrs Thatcher might have said, even more British than Finchley.  It is said however that when Mrs Thatcher was canvassing for election in her young days she said Yes to re-uniting Ireland to get votes.

All these and  other "solutions" to what was called "the Irish problem"- although, like the border and the backstop now it was not an Irish but a London problem - were discussed by Irish people even in politically difficult  times.

So when voices from London, Dublin, New York, the Vatican and all over cried out to us to sit round the table and discuss our future, most people were more than willing to do so.

When however discussion times came - and there were more than one through the years - the natural question was, "Now, here we are ready to discuss, so what's on the agenda , what do we discuss ?

Can we discuss a United Ireland ? No you can't. 

Federal Ireland? No

Independent Ulster ? No,

Restoring Stormont as it was ? No.

As Mrs Thatcher put it so cleverly: Out, Out, Out, to every suggestion. The only thatcher in  Ireland who thought tearing the roof from off  our heads was a good idea.

So the question was put : What can we discuss then?

The answer was, You can discuss government from Westminster with a greater measure of devolution in Belfast.

And the most interesting thing about that was: Nobody in Ireland had suggested it. The only item for discussion was a London solution the Irish had not asked for !

Just as nobody in Ireland wanted the border in the nineteen twenties. Including Edward Carson.

We don't have a problem of  demanding a re-united Ireland without planning ahead for it. We have be planning ahead for it for centuries. Our problem is that people with bigger fingers on bigger triggers are always telling us what we can discuss and what we cannot.

Footnote: John Mc Keague , leader of the Red Hand Commandos, said " A united Ireland will probably come; but when it does we ( he was referring to  the unionist  community) want to go into it as a free people - even if we are free only from 12 midnight to 5 past, we must go in  as a free people."

He was familiar with the thinking of Desmond Boal and both of them were more open to ideas than many people  thought they were.  So were a lot of others.