The Angelus:
A Reply

Robin Bury bases his objections to the Angelus Bell being broadcast on RTE on two main planks. The first is religious and the second, political. I will deal with both. As for his complaint that the correspondence was not intended for publication, I can only apologise. However, he asked for the view of Church & State, so I am puzzled as to why readers should not be allowed to share the data which contributed to the formation of our opinion. The issues raised are of public interest—and producing his letter in full and substantial extracts of the correspondence he enclosed seemed the fairest way of setting out the arguments of the Reform Movement, with which we were taking issue. This was all the more important as many people would have assumed that Church & State would hold a position similar to the campaign which Mr. Bury represents.

In fact, the position of this magazine is that it has no objection to broadcast of the Angelus, and every objection to the way liberals are seeking to censor the religion of the people. Being a pluralist magazine, we accept the religion of the majority, as well as the rights of the minority. In our view, the Reform Movement is seeking to blot out the religion and culture of the majority, ostensibly in the name of toleration for the minority, but in fact to bring the Republic back into the fold of the British mainstream from which it has unfortunately strayed.

1. Religious Aspect

The Reform Movement objects to the broadcast of the Angelus Bell on the grounds that it breaches what should be a pluralist stance by RTE.

I think it can fairly be said that this magazine, and the Campaign to Separate Church and State, put the issue of pluralism on the political agenda in recent times.

The magazine pioneered examination of where the Catholic Church encroached on the secular field. Three areas were of particular concern to us: the way Catholic moral strictures on sexual morality were incorporated in the law of the land; the way Education was organised and funded; and other general issues concerning the profile of the Catholic Church in public life. No doubt, discreet pressure from the European Union helped to bring about alterations in the law, but the ground for change was already being argued for in this magazine.

As regards the legislating of Catholic sexual morality, we drew out the implications of forcing—by means of the criminal justice system—people of every religion and of none to conform to Catholic moral teaching on such matters as contraception, divorce and abortion. That position made its way out into general society under the name of the ‘liberal agenda’, and has been largely implemented. (Even through Abortion law has not been greatly liberalised, the law of the land has altered and no longer reflects the Catholic position on the matter. Instead it corresponds with the Irish love of children, and there can be no argument with that. Law must reflect popular wishes, or it is nothing. If we do not like public attitudes, we must offer something positive in their place.)

Beyond the ‘Liberal Agenda’, we campaigned against Church hegemony over public education. We wanted forms which would enable the children of the country to be educated together, regardless of religious belief and without injury to the beliefs of their families. We also wanted greater popular control over education, particularly for parents. We have not fully succeeded in this sphere and we continue to campaign. Yet the position has undoubtedly changed for the better in the Catholic National Schools. Changing social attitudes, which our campaigns helped to bring about, have hollowed out Catholic control over education. Behind the facade of an apparently overwhelmingly Church control of education, children are being taught a far more easy-going form of Catholicism, more in keeping with that of the pre-Vatican I era, and there is greater toleration of minorities. In addition, the State finally asserted its role over education by passing the first ever Education Act in Irish history—even British rule in Ireland failed to legislate for National Education.

Our members campaigned long and hard for these changes. One of them, David Alvey, wrote a book setting out the shortcomings of the existing system and setting out a different perspective (Irish Education, The Case For Secular Reform). He also produced a couple of pamphlets on the matter. Many members took a vigorous part in the long-drawn-out debate on the Education Act and have been active in a practical way in the Educate Together movement.

Significantly, Mr. Bury does not mention Education (or the ‘Liberal Agenda’) in his letters. I do not find that surprising. During all this time we had no support at all from the Protestant denominations in Ireland. In fact, we could not fail to observe that the Church of Ireland, in particular, far from endorsing our attempts to bring about common education for children in the 26 Counties, was joining the Catholic Church in maintaining apartheid in educating children. Indeed, it was giving political cover to Catholic hegemony. On many issues that we raised we were countered by joint statements from the main Churches.

It made us realise that—far from being persecuted, as Mr. Bury seems to suggest, the Protestant Churches enjoy a provision of religious privilege in Ireland—particularly in the important sphere of Education.

The position of the Church of Ireland was of particular importance here, as its statements are given great prominence by the national media. Any criticisms it makes of the State or of Catholic attitudes are given top billing.

We also campaigned on a variety of other issues. Three decades ago, the way social services were delivered was regarded as so natural—was so taken for granted—that people criticised us for raising such matters. It took a while to bring about an understanding of what were legitimate Church concerns and what should be State preserve—even amongst the Left. Among the issues we took a high profile on was the attempt to erect a statue of Padre Pio on public property, on the grounds of Cork Regional Hospital—a non-denominational institution. The Campaign also attempted to end Church (Catholic and Church of Ireland) control over the Chaplains in publicly-funded Community Schools by means of Court action—which was lost.

Underlying these various campaigns and arguments, we had the objective of creating some moral space for those who did not subscribe to the ethos of the majority.

Down the years, while fighting real and substantial injustices in Irish public life, we had next to no coverage or interest from the mainstream media, despite their liberal pose. However, now and again, journalists on the look-out for a bit of mud to throw at the Irish State—usually from a West British perspective—have approached us for a sound-bite on the Angelus.

We have always refused to give it to them. The reasons are simple. First, there were far more glaring problems in the field of minority rights, which the Dublin media was intent on ignoring. Secondly, while we desire rights for the various minorities in Irish society, we recognise that the majority have rights too. And a basic right for the Catholic majority is that public broadcasting should assist it in vindicating its religious beliefs and observances. Catholics who pray in public or in private are not damaging others in any way. And, as I said in my first reply to Mr. Bury in the last issue of this magazine, I see every reason for other minorities to be given a reasonable share of public facilities (though a share proportionate to congregation wouldd be rather small). Non-religious morality is very under-represented in public broadcasting, but it is up to the people concerned to build the public opinion which could bring them the coverage they want.

I notice that Robin Bury makes no comment on two apposite points that I put to him in the last issue: that the theology of the Angelus does not conflict with the beliefs of mainstream Protestantism and that the Church of Ireland has no objection to the broadcast of the Angelus Bell. Instead he attributes to me the view that the Angelus is “all-encompassing and acceptable to other religions”, and he objects to this view on the grounds that there is objection to “the almost divine, central position that Mary is accorded by the Roman Catholic Church”. He also says of Protestants “nor do they accept the Rosary, which is the central part of the Angelus”. Moreover, the Angelus is treated as a modern invention.

In fact, the Angelus precedes the Christian schism. It was recommended for use in 1318 and in 1227 by Pope John XXII. It has nothing to do with the Rosary. I do not think that mainstream Protestantism would object to the prayers associated with it. These are:

V. The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
R. And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.
Hail Mary, etc.
V. Behold the handmaid of the Lord.
R. Be it done unto me according to thy word.
Hail Mary, etc.
V. And the Word was made Flesh.
R. And dwelt among us.
Hail Mary, etc.
V. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
LET US PRAY
Pour forth, we beseech Thee, O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts, that we to whom the Incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may by His Passion and Cross be brought to the glory of His Resurrection. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.

The Hail Mary is mostly a 12th century prayer, with some additions made in the middle of the 15th century.

I don’t want to be drawn into theological debate, and have only quoted the substance of the Angelus as it no longer seems very well known. RTE does not, in fact, broadcast the prayers themselves, only the reminding Bell. The point that I am making is that the prayer is of value to Catholics and is not particularly anti-Protestant in nature. I have no objection to other Church bells being broadcast in addition to the Angelus, if that is what Protestants want.

Mr. Bury seems to want to make a distinction between the Angelus and other religious services. He cites Bruce Arnold’s article in the Irish Independent, which he encloses. (Mr. Arnold, who has a regular column in the Independent in which he freely promotes the West British world view, is a patron of the Reform Movement, as is Ruth Dudley Edwards.) Mr. Bury says of the Angelus: “it is ‘a religious act”… and it cannot be compared to broadcasting a religious service”. I confess I am mystified by this argument. Broadcast coverage of a religious service is the promotion of the faithful in the act of prayer (of whichever denomination). The Angelus is a call of the Catholics to pray. Both are acts. Both are prayers. If anything, the Angelus is less overtly a prayer than a service, since it is only the bell that is broadcast, and the praying is left to individual initiative.

A second argument Mr. Arnold raises is that the Angelus is akin to religious advertising and therefore in breach of the Broadcasting Act. Again, the argument in favour of this is tenuous, to say the least.

He also suggests that RTE should schedule its broadcasting balance as though the one million Protestants in Northern Ireland were part of its audience (because of the Belfast Agreement). The trouble with this argument is that the RTE television signal cannot be received in the North. As for radio, it can now be received (though not in England), though this is a relatively recent development, which happened after radio became a minority broadcaster with the spread of television. One of the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, as of previous agreements, is that RTE should be receivable in the North. It still is not. I am sure that if the Reform Movement were to take this up and help overcome the obstacles which continue to be put up to RTE reception in Northern Ireland, RTE would be only too willing to tailor its output accordingly.

All in all seems the arguments of the Reform Movement seem rather a hysterical response to a single prayer!

It seems to me that Mr. Arnold, with his associates, is putting the Angelus into a category of its own for the single purpose of finding it discriminatory.

In this matter, it seems to me, that anti-Angelus campaigners reproduce the neurosis about Catholicism which is an under-current in English culture. After all, anti-Catholicism was what enabled the different Protestant tendencies to unite in a common State. In Cromwell’s England and Ireland, toleration was extended to all godly people—that is to all Christians, except Catholics—and the case was similar under the long regime of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in Ireland..

I have often noticed that there is a particular kind of sensitivity which, while feeling the slightest offence at perceived injustice to the self, is impervious to the sensibilities of others. Catholics in Ireland may be the majority, but past persecution has left its traces, and there is still a feeling of being the underdog. And, in a sense, they are. The 400 year Protestant Ascendancy gave way to a very brief period of Catholic Ascendancy.

(I use the term Catholic Ascendancy, realising that it is in many ways misleading. The sectarian mode of British rule in Ireland over the better part of 400 years gave rise in the end to an effective counter-force, which has been called sectarian. It has been said that the long Protestant Ascendancy led to a brief period of Catholic Ascendancy. I have said this myself in the heat of agitation against a powerful force. But it can hardly be argued as a matter of sober historical fact that there was any equivalence between the two. The Protestant Ascendancy was a system of organised monopolies of public life and most of private life, resting on military conquest, and always maintained against the great majority of the population. It was an anti-Catholic system. In the course of defying that system and surviving it—and in order to survive it—the Catholics organised themselves as a political force, and when that political force became a state it was naturally very Catholic in its public opinion. In a democracy law is made on the basis of opinion, and it was a Catholic state in the sense that laws expressed Catholic opinion. When Ireland was a Protestant state, its laws were directed against the populace. They represented the alien public opinion of the conquest. The greater part of the Protestant minority never saw anything wrong in that, but when political power was taken from them they began to engage in an ultra-liberal critique, swallowing the elephant and straining at the gnat.)

This magazine may have campaigned against the Catholic Ascendancy in its heyday, but it has even less regard for the soul-less consumerism which is superseding it.

Given that there is currently no question of Catholic triumphalism about the broadcasting of the Angelus, it seems to me that the attack on the Angelus displays an insensitivity to the beleaguered feeling which many Catholics experience, with good reason, in present-day Ireland.

2. Political Aspects

The second leg of Mr. Bury’s argument seems to suggest that the Angelus, and Catholic Ascendancy generally, is what has driven Protestants out of Ireland on a huge scale and led to the decline in numbers of adherents of Protestantism. Catholicism has led to the ethnic cleansing of Protestantism.

In response to this, however, we should note that most of the Protestants had already gone when the Angelus was introduced into broadcasting after the Second World War. Even if the Angelus is taken as a kind of shorthand for Catholicism generally, the idea still seems off the mark.

As to the Ne Temere decree, Protestants were not forced to marry Catholics. That was their individual choice. I certainly do not defend that Decree, but cannot agree that it had the huge influence that Mr. Bury ascribes to it in depleting Protestant numbers.

Mr. Bury uses very emotive language to describe what actually happened. I would not at present challenge his figures about the rate of Protestant decline, but I would certainly object to his suggestion that Protestants in general “fled” from Catholic Ireland. It is suggestions such as this that fuel the panic-stricken Loyalist response to the inevitable change in State form in Northern Ireland, as the Protestant majority seeps away.

Protestants had no reason to flee from Ireland. In particular, there was no economic pressure forcing them to leave. After all, the commanding heights of the economy remained in Protestant hands pretty well until the Haughey era, including much of the Banking, as well as Accounting and Insurance. We know that Protestant business gave priority to employing Protestants in that period and that the accounting and insurance professions also favoured their own.

Mr. Bury also partly misunderstands the point I was making about the effects of War on Protestant population growth. I was not merely referring to British garrisons which were withdrawn from Ireland. What I had in mind particularly was the great Anglo-Irish military tradition. This meant that, all around the country, Protestant families disproportionately lost sons in the First World War (and the Second, too). After previous wars the blood stock (to use the British language of the time) could be replenished from Britain. This did not happen after the countries separated. When young people cannot marry within their faith, or at all, that has a disproportionate, geometrical effect on population decline. It is more than just the particular individuals who are affected.

I think Land Purchase too must have affected Protestant numbers. A major economic stronghold of Protestant settlement was lost, as the landlords in question were enabled to become financially independent of their Irish estates. With the landlords went a whole social milieu, which lost its economic base, and its direction with the exit of its social leaders.

But I think that the biggest single factor causing the decline of Protestant numbers in Ireland was the fact that most of the people in question (though not all) identified themselves as British—and this was more than an academic affiliation. Large numbers did all they could to vindicate British rule in Ireland and defeat the attempt of Irish nationalism to enforce the democratic mandate for self-rule of the 1918 election.

I know Peter Hart (The IRA And Its Enemies)—whom Mr. Bury seems to place great reliance on—attempts to categorise Republican military actions against Protestant people and property in Munster as motivated by sectarian considerations, but examination of the incidents he cites shows that the people who suffered were helping the British war effort by passing local information to the security forces. They refused to accept the will of the majority democratically expressed in an election as binding on them and they collaborated with the attempt of the British State to set aside the elections of 1918 and 1920 and to continue governing by right of conquest in the era of the League of Nations. They were punished for collaborating with the enemy, not targetted for sectarian reasons. Republicans tended to treasure any Protestants who identified with the cause of the Irish democracy.

When Britain in 1921 found it expedient to concede part of what the Irish had voted for, many of its devoted admirers simply did not want to live in the kind of State that was being established. Those who felt themselves more British than Irish left, where they had no other ties. Why live in a second-best country (as they saw it), when the best was so near? I think nowadays people don’t appreciate the contempt felt by many of the Anglos in Ireland towards the mere Irish.

Reform Movement

In response to my comparison of RTE broadcasting policy with that of the BBC, Mr. Bury says “why involve the BBC?” and goes on to refer to the Irish Constitution. But what happens in England is very relevant because the objective of the Reform Movement is to re-integrate Ireland into Britain.

A reader brought to my attention the well-produced web-side of the Reform Movement, and I must say it enlightened me as to the underlying agenda of the Reform Movement’s campaign on the Angelus and other matters, which does not emerge too clearly from the group’s output in the press.

Here are some items from the site:

“The Reform Movement is a non-denominational, non-party movement founded in the Irish Republic by those who share an Irish-British tradition, those from the constitutional Redmondite tradition and by post-nationalists. Reform believes that true reconciliation within these islands can be achieved only when the Republic of Ireland accepts that it is closely linked to the United Kingdom socially, culturally and economically.

“We seek the celebration of diversity and an acknowledgement of differences to be reflected in a secular constitution. …

“We welcome the creation of the new Council of the Isles. To make the council more accountable and inclusive to the citizens of these Islands, the Reform Movement proposes that membership of the Council should be by electoral mandate. This accountability would recognise the reality that our country is linked by close political, social, cultural and economic ties with our neighbours in the rest of the Archipelago. …

“We believe that the central challenge facing the politicians on these islands is that of reconciling the needs of minorities with those of majorities. The Irish Republic must develop a new and more inclusive attitude towards all its minorities, and allow institutional expression of minority concerns, such as that embodied in the Good Friday Agreement.

“While there have been enormous concessions to minority aspirations in Northern Ireland, the Republic has lagged shamefully behind. It would be a sign of real maturity for dissent to be actively encouraged.
Among our proposals are:-

(1) That the Taoiseach should reserve five of his senate nominations for those sections of the population whose views are under-represented in public life. There are, for instance, no unionists in the Oireachtas.

(2) That just as nationalists are permitted to fly the tricolour in Northern Ireland, others should be free in the Republic to celebrate their identity though the use of flags and other national symbols.

(3) That the words and music of the Irish national anthem should be rewritten to reflect the heterogeneous nature of the Irish of today, rather than the narrow, violent nationalism of another time. …”

“We support the present policy in the Good Friday Agreement of extending rights of Irish citizenship to those in Northern Ireland who want it. However we believe that the Irish-British minority in the South should have the same rights.

“We call upon both governments to see that British citizenship is extended to those in the Republic of Ireland who request it. We therefore desire a situation whereby anyone born in Ireland would have the right to be either Irish, British or both. This would reflect the diversity of culture and identity on this island.

“We believe that Ireland, as a republic, should follow the Republics of Namibia, Fiji and South Africa in joining the Commonwealth. In doing so, the Irish State would find for itself a new forum for dealing with economic, legal, cultural and political matters of mutual interest. We believe the Commonwealth Games would also offer attractive new incentives to our athletes. We note with special interest that the Cameroons and Mozambique—which were never U.K. possessions—have recently joined the Commonwealth.” (www.reform.org/index.htm)

The reference to the “narrow, violent nationalism of another time”, in connection with the Soldier’s Song stands historical fact on its head. The Anthem is a song of the War of Independence. The reason there had to be War for independence was that the British State refused to concede peacefully the independence that the Irish electorate had voted for. Think what one will of the wisdom of the Irish electorate in voting for independence, the issue in 1919-21 was one of democracy, and it was Britain which resorted to undemocratic use of the gun.

When Bosnia voted for independence about ten years ago, the small majority was made up of two minorities which hated each other. There was no functional body politic capable of operating an independent Bosnian State. A strong case could have been made that a Croat/Muslim majority based on hatred of Serbs was not a valid democratic majority for state-building purposes, since the Croats made no secret of the fact that they voted with the Moslems against Yugoslavia with the object of annexing the greatest possible part of Bosnia to the State of Croatia. But Britain declared that vote to be democratically binding and immediately depicted the Yugoslav army in Bosnia as a tyrannous Army of Occupation.

In Ireland the electorate gave a clear-cut mandate for independence, giving Sinn Fein 75% of the seats, and followed this up by electing Sinn Fein local governments. But Britain attempted to continue governing on the basis of an Army of Occupation, supported by most Protestants.
It is indisputable that the issue was democracy—which does not allow for the vetoing of the votes of the mass by a wise elite on the grounds of ignorance or imprudence. It is, of course, arguable whether narrowness of outlook was a quality of the majority or of the authoritarian minority. It is not disputable that violence was the resource of the minority.

Six years before 1918 Fenianism was dead. Independence was not on the agenda. But the gun was brought into politics by the Protestant minority in opposition to a Parliamentary Bill for the setting up of a subordinate Parliament in Ireland in an atmosphere of general Imperialism.

When the Fenians organised a military conspiracy in the 19th century, it was in circumstances where there was no democratic franchise and where the mere advocacy of Irish independence was a crime.

By the way, what was the alternative to narrow violent Nationalism for the Irish? Involvement in the broad and far more violent Nationalism of the British Empire?

Notable by its absence in the Aims of the Reform Movement is any mention of Europe. I take it that it is indifferent to the Union which has benefitted Ireland so much. It seems that it is not the well-being of Ireland that is the main concern, but a desire to return to Mother Britain, a pining for a lost world.

All this is a long way from the Angelus Bell and RTE, but that issue is but the point by which a whole world-view attempts to insert itself under the guise of protecting minorities.

If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area.

Go To Secure Sales Area

Articles From Church & State Magazine

Angelus Index