Miner, Journalist, Martyr: Blessed Nikolaus Gross

MINER, JOURNALIST, MARTYR: BLESSED NIKOLAUS GROSS By PEADAR LAIGHLÉIS Oboedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. (Acts V, 29) I WAS RECENTLY in Frankfurt Airport and called into Terminal 1’s Orthodox Chapel. I saw one icon of a young man wearing a white medical coat over a grey Wehrmacht uniform, holding a white rose in his hand. This is St Alexander Schmorell, the German Russian Orthodox member of the White Rose resistance group who was canonised as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on February 5, 2012. I asked myself how likely was it for the Catholic White Rose members, Willi Graf, Christoph Probst and Dr Kurt Huber, to find their causes advanced for sainthood. For the same reason, one might ask the same of the Catholics involved in the July 20 conspiracy, such as Colonel Claus Schenk Count von Stauffenberg. However, the Church is extremely prudent about whom she venerates as martyrs among political activists and conspirators, even among those who oppose a regime as evil as the Third Reich. For all that, many Germans and other Europeans have been beatified and even canonised for their stand against National Socialism. Most are familiar with Ss Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein. Our last issue had my predecessor outline the martyrdom of Blessed Titus Brandsma, the Dutch Carmelite academic and journalist for whom this Review is named. In early issues, Blessed Franz Jägerstätter, the Austrian conscientious objector was described in these pages. Blessed Titus and Blessed Franz present contrasts among the vast gallery of ordinary Catholics—clergy, religious and laity—who opposed Hitler. One was a university rector who was close enough to the Dutch Bishops to have an input into the drafting of the Bishops’ pastoral letter on Nazi racial policies. The other was a married Franciscan tertiary, a peasant with little education and a wild background who served as a church sacristan. Blessed Franz opposed the Anschluss in 1938 and was guillotined for refusing to serve in the Wehrmacht as a combatant. Blessed Franz was born in Sankt Radegund, close to Hitler’s birthplace in Braunau am Inn and not distant from Pope Benedict XVI’s birthplace in Marktl on the other side of the border. Nikolaus Groß (given in English as Gross) is less well known. Nikolaus was born in Niederwenigen (now Hattigen) near Essen (Diocese of Essen) in the Ruhr District on September 30, 1898. His father was a miner. Nikolaus attended the local Catholic primary school between 1905 and 1912 and then went to work in the mines himself, spending five years underground. He used his limited spare time to study and in 1917, he joined the Gewerkverein Christlicher Bergarbeiter (Christian Miners’ Union). In 1918, he became a member of the Centre Party. The following year, he entered the Antonius Knappenverein (St Anthony Miners’ Association). At the age of 22, he was youth secretary for the Christian Miners’ Union, soon after he was assistant editor of Bergknappe (“The Miner”). His organisation work as a trade unionist brought him as far as Silesia. He married Elisabeth Koch, who was also a native of Niederwenigen and together, they had seven children. One of his greatest concerns was the education and religious formation of his family, something he described in a pamphlet Sieben um einen Tisch (“Seven around one Table”). Moral dimension At the beginning of 1927, he became assistant editor of the Westdeutschen Arbeiterzeitung (“Western German Workers’ Paper”), the publication of the Katholishen Arbeiter-Bewegung (KAB or Catholic Workers’ Movement). Soon afterward, he became editor-in-chief. He saw his duty to give Catholic workers guidance regarding society and the world of work, but it became clearer to him that political and social questions involved a moral dimension and demanded a spiritual contribution. In this, he followed the ideas of the 19th Century Bishop of Mainz, Wilhelm Emmanuel Baron von Ketteler (1811-77). Ketteler, known as the “Workers’ Bishop”, believed that reform of society must be preceded by reform of attitude. In Nikolaus Groß’ own day, Ketteler’s grand nephew was Blessed Clemens August Cardinal Count von Galen, Bishop of Münster. From 1929, Nikolaus Groß was based in Ketteler House in Cologne and he already formed a clear opinion of the rising National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Since 1927, he had co-operated closely with figures such as Mgr Otto Müller, Bernhard Letterhaus and Jakob Kaiser, who would become leading figures in the resistance movement many years later. Groß saw Nazism as political immaturity and absence of discernment. He believed the success of the Nazis to be a temporary glitch that would fail as soon as Germany returned to normal politics. He showed this by pointing to the lack of ideas emanating from the National Socialists and the refusal of Hitler to answer questions of policy while pursuing unlimited power. Groß supported Heinrich Brünning’s (Chancellor 1930-32; Centre Party) policy of attempting to integrate the Nazis into political and constitutional office in the hope of diluting their ideological edge. It is only in retrospect, we see this to have been illusory. For all that, Groß opposed Nazism. He identified with the left of the Centre Party (still present in the post-war CDU/CSU). Pointing out the developing relationship between Hitler and the industrialists while the former was appealing to the working class, he said: “This is a pretty division of power: the National Socialists dominate politics, the entrepreneurs the economy. The worker is a carrier donkey for both.” On the incompatibility of Nazism and Catholicism, he wrote: “We reject National Socialism as Catholic workers, not only on political and economic grounds, but decisively and resolutely on our religious and cultural position.” He had already described the Nazi Party as the “Mortal enemy of the present State”, so it is not very surprising that Robert Ley, leader of the Deutschen Arbeiterfront (German Workers’ Front) described the Westdeutsche Arbeiterzeitung as hostile to the state after 1933. Obey God more than men After the Concordat between the Reich and the Catholic Church in 1933, the Westdeutsche Arbeiterzeitung was renamed Kettelerwacht at the urging of Bishop Berning of Osnabrück. Nikolaus Groß had to adapt to the new regime and attempt to write between the lines following a three-week ban on the newspaper. His first priority as a trade unionist and journalist was to maintain the Church’s autonomy. The newspaper was permanently banned in November 1938. The reason seems to have been an understated comparison between National Socialism and Bolshevism: It cannot be said of either world view with the same right that the life of mankind was worthy to be lived and meaningful to the end if everyone would follow it. From then on, Groß had to work through producing pamphlets and speaking personally in attempt to immunise his readers against Nazism. Nikolaus Groß was no orator; he had had to work very hard to obtain the learning he had. However, circumstances transformed him into a persuasive speaker. Henceforth, he was part of the growing resistance to Hitler within Germany, on the simple conviction that one must obey God more than men. Active resistance Mgr Otto Müller, Bernhard Letterhaus and Nikolaus Groß formed the leadership of the Cologne Circle, a network of Catholic opponents of Nazism in the Rhineland and Westphalia. The group had been evolving towards active resistance for some time. Groß established contact with the more extensive Kreisau Circle through the academic Father Alfred Delp SJ. More importantly, links were forged with the Berlin resistance group around Carl Goerdeler. Though there were differences between the Kreisau and Berlin circles, at this point the Cologne Circle were integrated into a comprehensive web of German opposition that ran from Protestant and Catholic conservatives, aristocrats, the military, liberals, trade unionists, social democrats and communists. Members of the various groups took risks to perform dozens of functions to enable to the network to continue to exist. From 1940, Nikolaus Groß experienced arrests, interrogations and house searches. He made every effort to continue his work. He wrote two pamphlets, “Is Germany Lost?” and “The Great Tasks”, which ultimately fell into the hands of the Gestapo. The conscription of Letterhaus increased Groß’ work in Düssseldorf but also meant that the Cologne Circle had regular contact with Goerdeler. Groß spent this time considering his position and the relationship between his faith and the political milieu. In 1943 he put together his personal Profession of Faith. To select a quote: “If it is demanded of us to do something which goes against God or the Faith, not only may we, but we must refuse this obedience. For God’s Law always stands higher than man’s law.” The next question was whether it could at times permissible to take active steps to subvert the authority of the regime. Church on trial for treason The day before the assassination attempt on Hitler on July 20, 1944, Mgr Caspar Schulte of the Paderborn Diocese spoke with Groß, saying “Herr Groß, remember that you have seven children. I have no family for which I am responsible. It’s a matter of your life.” Groß answered: “If we do not risk our lives today, how then do we want one day to justify ourselves before God and our people?” Nikolaus Groß was arrested on August 12, 1944, and imprisoned in Berlin. His wife visited him twice and saw signs of torture on his hands and arms. His letters from prison to his wife and children request their prayers but also show one who was himself in constant prayer. On January 15, 1945, he was sentenced to death by Roland Freisler, President of the People’s Court, with the words: “He swam in treason and now he must drown”. Freisler’s trials of Groß, Mgr Müller, Father Delp and other representatives of the Kreisau Circle was an attempt to convict the Church herself of treason. He was executed on 23 January 1945, following which he was cremated and his ashes were scattered over a sewage farm. One may reject the notion of tyrannocide if one imagines John Wilkes Booth hovering over Abraham Lincoln in Ford Theatre in Washington in 1865 and crying “Sic semper tyrannis”. The July 20 plot was altogether different. It was a conspiracy to displace one of the most evil tyrants ever to take power in world history. Many hundreds of considerate and thoughtful people came to this conclusion and prepared for a coup d’état to replace the entire government of the Third Reich. When Count von Stauffenberg placed the brief case under the table in the Wolf’s Lair, it was to signal a provisional government led by Carl Goerdeler as acting Chancellor which would seek to end the war. Perhaps the traditional criteria of the just war might apply: Were all other options exhausted? Certainly. Was there reasonable chance of success? Yes. Would bloodshed be at a minimum? Had the conspirators succeeded, this would have been the case. The question remains how the Church will evaluate this type of reasoning, however complex it may have been. Nikolaus Groß had no part in the planning or the execution of the assassination attempt, but played a role creating the network that was to enable a new civil and military administration to come to power in Germany following an assassination. As to whether he was right or wrong in the circumstances, the Church herself passed judgement on October 7, 2001 when Pope John Paul II beatified Nikolaus Groß. His feast is kept on January 23. Ora pro nobis.

November-December BR - Out now

The November-December Brandsma Review is now in circulation. Leading with the abortion issue, Dr Joe McCarroll (Pro Life Campaign) calls on us to stop the rush to legalise abortion; David Manly (Family & Life) profiles the Halappanavar case as re-educating a backward people about killing; Nick Lowry gives his reminiscences of the 1983 pro life amendment referendum; Keith Francis asks if Alan Shatter's proposal to amend the Equality Act is another nail in the coffin for Catholic schools; Fr Brendan Purcell's sermon for Advent gives practical advice on the need for watchfulness; Peadar Laighléis argues there is more to St Matthew's genealogy than a list of names; Brian Ó hIcídhe reviews Peter Hitchens' book on the war on drugs which was never fought; Joe Aston and Jim Allen give contrasting views on dialogue; the Editor reflects on the Children's Rights vote and the situation regarding abortion; The Hurler on the Ditch gives some ideas on pro lifers in Fine Gael and slams the European Parliament over the treatment of Dr Tonio Borg; Strammentarius describes conflict between the pro-bestiality lobby and the animals' rights people and the use of almost Nazi caricatures by left wing opponents of Israel; and there is another list from Francis Book Sales. Available in Veritas in Dublin and Benedictus Book Shop in Cork or via www.brandsmareview.ie

The September-October Brandsma Review has editorials by Peadar Laighléis on the Year of Faith and the Children's Rights Referendum; and by Jim Lothian on the US Presidential election. David Manly elaborates on Marie Stopes assault on abortion law in Northern Ireland; Liz Holmes and Éilís Ní Shiocfhradha give different takes on the Children's Rights referendum; Peadar Laighléis profiles the German trade unionist Blessed Nikolaus Groß; Hibernicus gives the second part of his two-part article on Blessed Frédéric Ozanam; Nick Lowry reviews Frank O'Farrell's autobiography; the Hurler on the Ditch and Strammentarius are at their usual antics; there are letters from Louis Hemmings (the most ecumenical Protestant fundamentalist I know), Nick Lowry and Daphne McLeod; and another list from Francis Book Sales. The Brandsma Review is available in Veritas in Dublin; Benedictus Book Shop in Cork; St Kevin's Church, Harrington St, Dublin; Guardian Angels Church, Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, Co Dublin; and Ss Peters and Pauls, Paul St, Cork. Otherwise, e-mail brandsmareview@gmail.com for info.

BR article on Children's Rights Referendum.

WELFARE STATE GOING FOR FULL PARENTHOOD? By LIZ HOLMES

However, the new clause will not state what these rights are. It will be up to the courts to identify them as they arise in specific cases. In doing so the courts are likely to be guided by previous judgments and by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland has signed.

–Carol Coulter, The Irish Times, October 17, 2012 SINCE 1998 there has been sustained and consistent pressure on the Irish government reporting to the UN to meet obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).1 The UN is demanding that children be recognised as separate rights holders. The pressure is enormous. During these confrontations, which take place in the UN’s Geneva Palais des Nations, both the Irish delegation and the UN Monitoring Compliance Committee state that the Irish Constitution is an obstacle in the way of meeting this demand.2 The Irish delegation in 1998 has reassured the Monitoring Committee that the necessary change to clear this constitutional obstacle is underway. Throughout these detailed proceedings the Irish government gave ample evidence of its willingness to be fully compliant with the Monitoring Committee’s demands. Having read the proposal for the 31st amendment from a sociological as distinct from a legal background, my concern is that to separate the child thuswill fragment the unity of the family as the primary cell of society. For fathers and mothers like us—and we are many—the care and protection of children are our life’s work and its fulfillment. The provisions of the Irish Constitution ensure recognition of that calling while, as Justice O’Flaherty (retired) affirms, providing protection for those children who are tragically failed by their parents. More background is necessary to account for the concern this amendment provokes. Revolutionary ethos The establishment of the autonomy of the child is affirmed as the objective in the summary records of the UN Monitoring Committee. Up to now Irish parents and the law limit children’s autonomy in the short run in order to maximize their development of actual autonomy in the long run but now the UN wants the child to be an active participant in the formulation of policies affecting them. This ethos that sees the child as an autonomous rights holder is both innovatory and revolutionary. The Monitoring Committee is adamant that both our attitudes towards children and our policies and services are to be brought into line with its “holistic spirit”. Now the amendment to incorporate Article 42A does not specifically mention the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. You will however find reference to it in the Ombudsman for Children Act 3 , a piece of legislation, among others, put in place as a direct response to Monitoring Committee’s pressure. Emily Logan, current holder of that office, assured the recent UN Periodic Review that it is statutorily mandated to promote the principles and provisions of the CRC and that it aims to ensure that Ireland complies in full with its international human rights obligations. 4 The Ombudsman’s office (OCO) tells children, “The government has a responsibility to make sure your rights are protected.” 5 Reading what is said there about Articles 4 and 5, the UN seems to be redefining the role of parents as merely their children’s helpers in exercising their rights. Look at the CRC’s Articles 13-17 6 and ask yourself honestly how can we steer our children safely through adolescence and yet observe their UN social rights. Emily Logan warns us that, “Building a new culture of respect for children in Ireland will take time and effort.” But is it as reassuring as she thinks to be told that holding this referendum “provides Ireland with the chance to be a leader on [UN] children’s rights internationally”?7 The Alliance for Children, Barnardos, ISPCC and the Campaign for Children are among her collaborators working to achieve this cultural shift. What role do these groups play in so changing our culture, our way of life? Such associations/organizations/politicized charities are generally referred to as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) despite being largely funded as service providers by both government and by philanthropies. (Chuck Feeney’s Atlantic Philanthropies, in this case) Establishing new needs, such as the child’s for UN rights, they are then funded to service these needs while promoting their acceptance at the level of social rights. Here in Ireland, selected NGOs are incorporated into the Community Pillar of the Social Partnership, as is now the voice of children, where programmes for government are agreed. There is a strong tendency in such organizations, infused as they are with a utopian vision of equality, to see the family as an obstacle to “gender” equality and autonomy. Utopian vision of equality Within the forums of the UN and EU these local NGOs are gathered under umbrella organizations which are presented in an effort to offset the democratic deficit as representatives of the “voice of the people”. There they enjoy privileged access to decision-makers and to the bureaucracies that channel funding directed to community development/combat poverty programmes. The CRC was actually drawn up by NGOs and it expressly gives them the monitoring role in its implementation.8 Their published reports like “Small Voice, Vital Rights” are written to alert the Monitoring Committee to where we are not meeting our obligations under the CRC. That Committee has classified Irish government reports as exemplary in their adherence to UN guidelines; such professionalized NGOs may have helped in the drafting; they may even be included in government delegations. Yet in all these proceedings the family is an outsider. Even if its numbers are large, the family has no voice in relation to such access to power and resources. Constitutional preference diluted Mr Justice Hardiman of the Supreme Court has acknowledged how the rights of children have to be vindicated through adults. The risk of turning children into autonomous rights holders is that the intervention of third parties, such as these NGOs will dilute the constitutional preference for parents as guardians/enablers of such rights. Childline’s phones are lifelines for some children but we have all met the exasperated parents of children who respond to their admonitions by threatening to contact the ISPCC. Leaf through “Citizen Child”, its manifesto used in its countrywide counselling centres and here we find children’s UN rights spelt out in detail.9 In response to asking, “What Needs to be Done?”, ISPCC proposes a Constitutional amendment. The specific acknowledgement of the independent rightsof children would, they say, clear the way for legislating to allow children to seek medical help or counselling without parental consent. 10 A focus of the 1998 Monitoring Committee’s concern was how do our under-16 year olds fare on this issue. How will the case for children’s confidential access to medical advice and services be strengthened by the proposed amendment? By 2006 the UN Committee is concerned that adolescents have insufficient access to necessary information on “reproductive health”, noting that Health/Sex education (SPHE) is optional, and that Irish parents can exempt their children. It recommends strengthening efforts to enhance adolescent access to “adolescent-specific reproductive and sexual health information and services”.11 Will the proposed re-wording of current (to be deleted) Article 42.5 and its repositioning facilitate removal of the Constitutional obstacle to allowing a legal framework for making Social Health (Re-) Education Programmes compulsory for Irish children in line with the Monitoring Committee’s recommendation? Once this amendment is in place, the Minister is to announce an ambitious programme including the development of “legislation, policies or procedures to extend this ‘voice of the child’ approach to other spheres of decision-making. Similar to ‘best interests’ this principle is already recognised in existing child care and family law and will be included in further legislation in these areas affecting children. The UN sells the CRC as invaluable for human rights activists to promote “this new concept of separate rights for children with the Government accepting responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents...” 12 Acceptance of this amendment may not only deprive parents of the power to protect their children but may also facilitate the separating out and politicization of the voice of our children. Their voice will then be added as another category of NGOs lobbing for an equality agenda in which the family is an outsider or even an obstacle to its achievement. Liz Holmes lectures on the role of the UN/EU in changing our culture. In addition to The Brandsma Review her work has been published in Studies, The Irish Times and the prestigious US journal Catholic Social Science Review. NOTES 1 In the CRC children refers to all those under the age of 18. 2 See item 35 where it is noted that in 1997 the Minister who had introduced the Children’s Bill said that he been advised by the Attorney-General that potential constitutional difficultes existed in relation to the provision relating specifically to the rights of the child, which had therefore been reworded. CRC/C/SR.436 3 See Ombudsman for Children Act (2002), Chapter 3, Part 2, S.7 “ d) promote awareness among members of the public (including children of such age or ages as he or she considers appropriate) of matters (including the principles and provisions of the Convention) relating to the rights and welfare of children and how those rights can be enforced,.” And (6) In this section ‘‘the Convention’’ means the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989, as amended by any protocol thereto that is for the time being in force in the State. 4 Ombudsman for Children’s Office (OCO) Ireland Submission to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review Twelfth session of the Working Group on the UPR, Human Rights Council 6th October 2011. 5 See OCO website for UNICEF’s summary of the CRC. 6 Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm 7 Ombudsman for Children Website, Opinion Piece 18th Sept. 2012 8 Article 5 (a). 9 ISPCC (undated) Citizen Child: A Handbook of Children’s Rights and Entitlements and Adult Responsibilities for Parents and Those who Work with Children, Dublin. 10 Ibid.,p. 30 11 CRC/C/IRL/CO/2 p. 11, paras. 52, 53 12 UN 1994/95 Publications Catalogue at p. 64

At last...the July-August Brandsma...

The July-August Brandsma Review contains an editorial on Bl John XXIII's letter 'Veterum Sapientia' by Peadar Laighléis; articles by Dr Éanna Johnson on RE Syllabi; Professor Jim Lothian on the fiftieth anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, complete with statistical data; Nick Lowry on the Brandsma Review's patron, Bl Titus Brandsma; Peadar Laighléis on the Brandsma Review's founder, Nick Lowry; Joe Aston on Europe at the present time; David Manly on the Minister for Health, Dr James Reilly; and Hibernicus' first of two part on the Society of St Vincent de Paul founder, Bl Frédéric Ozanam. Hurling Shots from the Ditch covers the Phoenix' portrayal of the new Papal Nuncio and some of the Minister for Justice and Defence's policies; Stramentarius covers Australian ethicists' support for infanticide and Archbishop Martin's speech in Glenties, Co Donegal. And there is a letter from Eric Conway.

Brandsma May-June in Veritas

The two editorials are Peadar Laighléis' reflection on Paul VI and the Credo of the People of God and David Manly's 'Dangerous Canards are a threat to unborn children' The articles include Paul Fournier's Allez, la Paroisse est Finie (about the Quiet Revolution in Quebec - and don't worry, it's in English), Ralf Siebenbürger's 'Mgr Schüller and the Insurrection of the Dead' (about the Austrian Catholic Priests' Association), Fr Brendan Purcell's 'Dialogue with Atheist's Down Under',Hibernicus and Nick Lowry team up to produce 'Are Orthodox Catholics Pharisees?', Fr John Ogilvie SJ's 'Low Sunday: Salvation and the Mercy of God', Fr Bernard McGuckian SJ's 'Why the Pioneers?' and Fr Roland Colhoun's 'Sermon for Pentecost'. Also the Straws column, the Hurler on the Ditch and a letter from Dom Philip Scot OCSO.

Church is multi-faceted. Advertising planning applications in Irish is an old trick. Most never read them; some study them in order to act. Or so I thought reading Alan Titley's Grúptinc in The Irish Times (10 May 2012). Professor Titley headed the Irish Department in St Patrick's College, Drumcondra before taking the Modern Irish chair in University College Cork. In his column, atypical of The Irish Times, he addresses Anna Carragher's findings regarding RTÉ's 'Group Think' and Mission to Prey. Dr Titley recalls a Labour leader (Brendan Corish) stating he was Catholic first and Irish second, though his successor is a Frankfurter first who beats the Catholic Church while she is down. Criticising the Church twenty years ago was brave, but it now droves attack a Church bringing herself down. He points out these miss another Catholic Church working quietly for the poor and human rights. Labour, once singing Catholic Social Teaching, has a bad conscience from its capitalist Group Think in the Celtic Kitten years. Dr Titley then mentions media Group Think informed editorials on defeated referenda on divorce in 1986 and the first Nice and Lisbon treaties, pointing to similar uniformity for the Fiscal Compact vote. He mentions public Group Think, citing sudden shifts from severe school corporal punishment to teachers' inability to point at pupils. He concludes that RTÉ Group Think derives from wider culture. I will only address one point. Dr Titley makes a neat division between an active and ornamental Church. This is too tidy. Franco Zeffirelli's Brother Sun, Sister Moon conveys a Francis of Assisi without aspects of St Francis contradicting flower power imagery such as the saint's Crusade. The Church operates a global network of schools, hospitals and social services and is a patron of arts, largely serving those who cannot afford it. For centuries, the only access the poorest had to art was through the Church. St John Vianney worked for the Ars poor but furnished his church with the very best. The Church preaches the Gospel through many means. She sometimes fails: Dante populated Hell with priests and popes, but a Church divesting herself of ornament would not long afford her missionaries' dusty sandals. However, some conservatives and traditionalists forget the Church must serve the poor. Vladimir Solovyov tells the fable of Ss Nicholas, Cassian and the Siberian peasant. The saints saw a peasant's cart stuck in the mud. St Nicholas spoiled his vestments helping, as St Cassian watched. In Heaven, St Peter asked what happened. St Nicholas received two feasts and St Cassian got a 29 February feast-day. Solovyov thus compared Russian and Roman Churches. The Church of Russia excelled in spirituality and asceticism, but did not engage the world as the papacy did. So the glory of Rome outshone Moscow. Some Catholics can seem like western Orthodox in formal communion with the Pope. Liberals pedal this caricature, but it has some truth. It is fitting to remember St Matthew's Last Judgment (25, 31-46). Catholics must not pray at the expense of duty or charity. If we may not give to good works beyond capacity, it is on deeds rather than sin we will be judged. One should also understand the 1960s dreams following the Council. The apparent truce between Church and modernity and changed relationship between faithful and hierarchy were welcomed. The Council came soon after the Second World War and most progressive theologians came from its cockpit. It was also overshadowed by the Cold War and its resultant counter-culture. Many younger people saw the Council in this light. Few seemed concerned about the rights of traditionalists they assumed would die out. Right now, the children of the sixties are the endangered species. The 1970s Gill History of Ireland teaches as much about its young authors as Irish history. Dr Titley is of the same generation - a cohort formed in Catholic and patriotic optimistism. These identified with Christ cleansing the Temple but ignored His entry into Jerusalem underlined His authority to do so. Their guides persecuted traditionalists zealously as Pharisees; forgetful of their lack of authority to do so. But the liberal tide receded leaving some in denial and others paranoid. Let the orthodox learn from this. Progressives achieved ascendancy and remained for several decades. This happened because of the times, and much about the preconciliar Church justified rebellion. But many liberals could not help believing they could start afresh nor could abide any criticism of their dogmata. Their influence waned. But I will enter a caviat. Orthodox Catholics must learn how and why liberalism gained and sustained victories and must not repeat its mistakes. Otherwise, the same self-destructive wars will be waged sooner or later at the expense of the Church's mission