SIGNS OF THE TIMES

In the nineteen thirties the Pope did not wear a crown, he wore three.

The most interesting thing  is not that he wore three crowns but that he wore any crown at all.

The Catholic Church looked on itself as a monarchy, that was its official view of itself. Easy to understand: in those days monarchy was looked upon  as the most noble form of government although sometimes, even in Julius Caesar’s time,  there were lively discussions and even fights  about whether monarchy was even safe and whether  perhaps  republican  power-sharing might  be better. But monarchy spoke to monarchy and that helped when monarchies were in fashion. 

In the nineteen thirties the pope was carried on a special chair on the shoulders of special people. That and the papal tiara signalled  not only spiritual power but worldly power as well – it was not many decades beforehand   that people including Irish soldiers had  fought a war to help the reigning pope to keep his papal states which Garibaldi wanted to take off him. 

In the nineteen sixties things changed and by now the three crowns are gone  and  the pope is going around in, what is it, a Fiat?   He is also paying at the counter for his breakfast – gone is the convention of royalty not having to carry money;  as he  waves to the crowds he can if he wants to glance at his wrist watch to see what time it is - gone is the convention that royalty don’t have to bother about such things. And the everyday garb of a pope looks remarkably like that of the missionary  priest in North Africa we read about the other day. Gentle small changes.

A pope nowadays behaves in public  more like the  president of a modern republic than a king. People don’t have to bow and scrape, walk away backwards, have to wait until spoken to before saying anything. The difference between a picture of the Pope in the nineteen thirties and one of the Pope now can be quite startling to us Ancients.  Is it simply  a recognition that in the modern world republics rather than monarchies  will appeal to more people?  After all, the word republic is based on the word for people, the word monarch  is based  on the word for just one person ruling them. Republic, public-rule by the people , monarchy mono-rule by one of the people.

That is not to say that the Catholic  church is becoming republican in sentiment ,  governance or religion. That should be surprising, because one of its beliefs is  that all its members are at some time touched by the Holy Spirit of God  and in that case you would think it should be the most active, best equipped democracy – or republic  if we like the word – in the world.

Of course it is changing. The change from a triple-crowned  leader carried in splendour  to a white-clad breakfaster in a respectable Roman hostel is the outward sign of a new and intriguing inward grace. Like all signs it is on the outside telling you what to expect inside.

What is changed inside is hopeful for some , upsetting for others, intriguing for most of us.

When for example an archbishop when pressed on the radio to say whether hell exists or not says, hesitatingly, Well, hell is possible………When an  expert in Theology remarks cautiously that after the death of Jesus Christ his followers then “experienced his presence among them in a new way”… When there appears first a new tolerance and then a new acceptance of people who in the past might have been told they were no longer wanted in the church …. it is clear that the sign outside means the changes inside could be worth having a closer look at.  Real changes  in behaviour ? Real changes in teaching ? Real changes in belief ?  Some say it  means the Pope is giving a new lead;  some say it means the Pope is rapidly catching up with us.

Changes can refresh , irritate, alienate. They may cause conflict and sourness. But it helps our sense of dignity if important institutions, governments, political parties, churches, do not either take us by surprise or take us for granted. If they change their minds or find  a fresh  explanation for   what they believe, do or think others should do or think , let them say so and respect our dignity by telling us the reasons why. One mark of the intellectually self-confident is their willingness to change their minds; a mark of their respect for our dignity is to tell us they are doing it. 

Long ago during the great Catholic revolt now known as the Protestant Reformation  people might go  to church  this Sunday and find the message from the pulpit strangely different from the message last Sunday; even longer ago when the Christians in Ireland took over from the druids a king in Tara named Diarmait Mac Cearbaill ( one of the Ó Neills by the way) performed his pagan rituals in Tara and still presented  land to the Christians to build the Monastery of Clonmacnoise. In Ireland we are reasonably good at understanding even the most startling of changes.

It’s a matter of experience really

PLACE OF REFUGE

In deciding who shall take care of refugees  flooding into Europe there has been remarkably little talk about those primarily responsible, namely, those who created the present state of continuous war from which so many of the people are  fleeing.  .  Surely the first responsibility should lie there.

If so, this  leaves all  members of the European Union with  a problem ; we may not have caused the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and many other places but we did give our consent to them. Now we all have to pay the price of what we consented to.

Those who create war know there will be  refugees fleeing from it; they do not create war in the naïve belief that it will be nice and clean and people will  go back home when it is over. War is about displacing governments and people.

European governments, and the American government still to an extent, could in the past direct  wars  fought on someone else’s territory, they need not even see refugees. 

Now all that is different and the results of our wars – our wars  because  apart from a minority we either consented to them  or condoned them – have arrived on our European doorsteps.

The image of a small boy dead aroused  both horror and generosity, but we had had the cold knowledge of what was happening  to people like him for years before that  heartbreak happened and  governments, media,  universities  looked on  as cold as an item in yesterdays newspapers.

Then discussion revolved around what could be done  to limit the damage rather than to recognise the causes of it and  prevent it happening again. 

Whether we like it or not we are “the West”. So it  is immaterial whether we personally approve of NATO or not, it is immaterial whether we approve the renewal of a cold war with Russia, it is immaterial if  the government that manages our affairs and our wealth  spends  more than enough on  nuclear and other weapons and less than enough on nursing care , it is immaterial because we can do nothing  either to prevent  one or help another. Eventually of course we will be required to undo  resulting damage but we shall be given  little part in preventing it. 

And there lies one of the many tragedies of governments  to whom we give our consent, or whose actions we condone : what should  create  the greatest benefit for the most people becomes a means of channelling the greatest benefit towards the few who are powerful enough to  corral it for their own advantage.  And so war becomes  not a painful necessity but a business like any other.

Many refugees are coming from countries whose borders were drawn up without respect for already existing tribal and other boundaries and to meet  the demands  of   European governments who had  the power to do it. That has caused  problems  ever since.  In Northern Ireland we can understand that.  Northern Ireland is a  political unit  drawn up with great deliberation so that for all time it could be governed only  by a single unchangeable political party. At the time, the first decades of the twentieth century, this was  not considered unusual. Internationally it was tragically usual.

Our own experience – and history – should  certainly help us to be  generous in   relieving the distress of refugees  especially if we insist  that governments  admit the real reasons for it.

But those who want to reject a great flow of people into European countries say it will mean that rates of pay will fall, because immigrants will be willing to work for little because they have to live. It is also very attractive for governments to welcome an inflow of people from abroad who are well or highly qualified in medicine, law, teaching , engineering and much else.  If immigrants are filtered through because of their relative value to the host countries’ economy what will become of the rest ? This is one of the questions that could become more prominent soon .

There was always a tradition of immigrant workers into European countries.  Countries  enjoyed the benefit of an influx of workers when their  economy needed it, and they could tell them to go home when they were no longer wanted. Because of this it was possible for a country  to boast  it had a  low unemployment rate. It did, partly because once the migrant workers had fulfilled their purpose they went home. Meanwhile  working conditions and lack of dignified living conditions gave  many immigrants a very poor life . It was hoped that the European Union would remedy some of this, there would be free movement of labour and goods but decent living conditions.  But now international aggression in which Europe is involved, whether Europeans like it or nor, is  creating  immigrants of a quite new kind some of whom will fare better than others, often for domestic political and economic reasons .

Those who are concerned about human rights and dignity will be watching to see whether generosity and intelli