by Ed Moloney
I also believe that in keeping with the Pope’s words at Drogheda about the need to create peaceful ways for achieving justice the Church must look again at a political situation in which for the past sixteen years in spite of repeated condemnations significant numbers of her own flock have either directly or indirectly been involved in the determined, tragic and terrifying use of well-organized military tactics to achieve political aims which have been traditionally accepted as right and just by the nationalist community as a whole and therefore by the community for which the Church has pastoral responsibility.
The Church’s main response to date has been to condemn these tactics as immoral but however this may have helped to contain the situation it has clearly failed to end it. In addition… moral guidance especially when this guidance takes the form of condemnations that are not being heeded the Church must consider what further practical responses she can make to a situation which has lasted for so long and which shows every sign of lasting into the foreseeable future.
Here in support of the point I have been making I would like to give some quotations from a general comment which another Redemptorist, Father Sean O’Riordan, made on a public letter which at the beginning of last year Mr. Gerry Adams addressed to Dr. Cahal Daly, the Bishop of Down and Connor. Father O’Riordan is Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the Alphonsian Academy, Lucerne University, Rome. He gave his comments on tape and so I shall quote them verbatim. They covered the whole letter in question but here I shall only give those that are relevant to the present letter.
Father O’Riordan said: “I have been asked to comment on the recent open letter addressed to Dr. Cahal Daly, Bishop of Down and Connor by Mr. Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein MP for West Belfast. I would like to begin by stating the context in which I have carefully read and studied Mr. Adams’s letter. The context I refer to is that of the morality and moral dimension of politics in general. From a moral standpoint what is politics? What is political activity of any kind? What is the purpose of politics and political activity? Politics is supposed to be the search for the good of all, all the people in certain geographical and human territories, small or large as the case may be. Those engaged in politics are supposed to be concerned with just that, the common good, to use an old philosophic phrase, that is the human good of all the people who are involved in any particular form of political activity and by involvement I don’t merely mean the activity of those who carry on politics in an active and professional manner. Those involved in politics are above all the people on behalf of whom and in whose name political activity is carried on. The essential point then is to keep in mind in all discussions of politics the good of all people who are in one way or another involved in political activity. It was with this context and this principle in mind that I read and reread Mr. Adams’s open letter to Dr. Cahal Daly. My question all the time was to what extent is the position stated here by Mr. Adams a contribution to the common good of the Irish people, and I take the Irish people to include all those who live on this island and who look on this country in one way or another as their home. From this point of view I find some interesting and very positive things in Mr. Adams’s letter. I note in particular the following points:
“1) In point (8) of his letter Mr. Adams addresses the following question to Dr. Daly, I quote, ‘You call on republicans to renounce violence and to join the peaceful struggle for the rights of nationalists. What peaceful struggle?’ I think that is a very reasonable question to address to Dr. Daly and looking at things in a still broader way I would say that people of Mr. Adams’s political school and indeed people of all political schools have the right to address questions to those who hold responsible office in the Catholic Church. I do believe myself that our Bishops should be open to dialogue with republicans, say Mr. Gerry Adams, with Catholics who have other political points of view, with all Protestant political points of view including hardline unionists. I do believe that churchmen should be willing to listen to them all. This does not mean that they would take any one particular point of view put forward but surely it is part of the office of those who are responsible for the good of the Church to look for the good of all people. The Church is concerned for the good of all people, not for their spiritual good alone in the narrow sense but for the general good of their lives. It is in this sense that the Church has to be involved in politics, politics being part of human life. The Church would surely be falling short of the fulfilment of its mission if it were to refuse to talk to any political school or all political schools. That is why I believe that Mr. Adams is fully justified in addressing this letter to Bishop Daly and I think he comes up with a really good question, a meaningful question (No. 8 of his letter).
“2) I am also impressed by point (9) in the text of his letter and again I quote, ‘Those who express moral condemnation of the tactic of armed struggle,’ [the armed struggle in this case carried on by the IRA] those who condemn this tactic,’ said Mr. Adams, ‘have a responsibility to spell out an alternative course by which Irish independence can be secured.’ While I wouldn’t say that is just the business of the Church to spell out an alternative course but I do believe that the Church officially too should be involved in the search for an alternative course. I do believe that the Church should participate in trying to discover and formulate a course of politics in this part of Ireland alternatively to the armed struggle, as Mr. Adams called it, being carried on by the IRA. Mr. Adams adds, and I quote, ‘I for one would be pleased to consider such an alternative.’ I am very glad that he says that. The fact that he does shows him to be not a man of fixated mind. I shall have more to say of the mental fixation shortly. This shows he is prepared to consider all strategies that could be seen as making for the common good and as I said at the outset, here the moral dimension of politics comes in. From a moral point of view the thing to be looked at in any political programme is, is this programme geared to the common good of all the people? Does it make for the good of the people? In the present case does such and such programme make for the general good of the Irish people, of all those who live in this land and look upon it with whatever differences of perspectives as their home? Gerry Adams concludes this (9) of his letter, and again I quote, ‘I know that many of my constituents who are also lay people in your diocese would be equally anxious to have such a strategy, that is an alternative to the armed struggle, outlined to them.’ I repeat that it cannot possibly be the task of the Church only to outline or to develop an alternative strategy but certainly the Church should take part in the search for such a strategy and I am sure that Gerry Adams is quite right in saying that not only he but many of those whom he represents in the constituency of West Belfast would welcome the putting forward of an alternative or alternatives to the strategy of armed struggle.”
Father O’Riordan then goes on to comment in a critical way on some of the other points that Mr. Adams makes in his letter to the Bishop. I won’t give them here because they are not really relevant to this letter. He concluded his comments as follows: “These then are my comments on Gerry Adams’s letter but again I would again say that if here and there language is used in his letter that tends to echo fanatical thinking, which I am sure is not Gerry Adams’s thinking at all, but if that sort of language figures in his letter it is in large part due to the fact that people like Gerry Adams have not been sufficiently heard and listened to, and I would say that here again the Church owes it not only to Gerry Adams and to those whom he represents but to all political parties in this part of Ireland, the Church owes it to them that it will listen and will try as far as is possible to take part in developing an alternative, flexible strategy which as far as possible will serve the best interests of all the Irish people.”
These comments of Father O’Riordan will help to emphasize the point I was making about the pastoral responsibility of the Church in the present political situation. I would be grateful then for your advice and help regarding the pastoral role which the Church might play in the
search for peace and reconciliation. As I have said our crucial interest at the present time is to develop a dialogue between the nationalist parties, North and South, which on the basis of a common approach to the Northern conflict would produce a credible political alternative to “the armed struggle”.
I would like in particular to have your advice on how such a dialogue could be initiated and developed between the representatives of Fianna Fail and the representatives of Sinn Fein. Here I should say that from my knowledge of their attitudes and abilities I am certain that in any dialogue about a common nationalist policy for peace the representatives of Sinn Fein would prove themselves to be positive and constructive, flexible and fair-minded provided that one very traditional and, from a nationalist point of view at least, very reasonable principle were safeguarded, namely the right of the nationalist and unionist people of Ireland to decide their own constitutional and political future through dialogue among themselves and without dictation from the British authorities.
Any democratic decisions about the form of future political institutions which might be made in this context would be acceptable to the Sinn Fein movement even if they were not in keeping with their own political ideal of a 32-county socialist republic. This, as I understand it, would be the basic position of the Sinn Fein representatives in any dialogue with other nationalist parties about the creation of a political alternative to “the armed struggle”. It would also be their basic position in any dialogue they might have with the unionist parties about the political future of Ireland.
It is important to spell out the implications of this position because they indicate the principles which I believe would guide the approach of the Sinn Fein movement in any dialogue with either the nationalist or the unionist parties.
These principles as I understand them may be set out as follows:
1) The aim of “the armed struggle” is to establish the right of all the Irish people to decide their own political future through dialogue among themselves. The establishment of a 32-county socialist republic is not therefore the aim of this struggle. From the Sinn Fein point of view this is a political ideal to be pursued and achieved by political strategies only.
2) The British must in some formal and credible way declare their willingness to set aside the claim enshrined in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, that they have in their own right the power of veto of the democratic decisions of the Irish people as a whole. In practice it would be sufficient for them to declare their willingness to set aside the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in view of any agreements that the representatives of the people of Ireland in dialogue among themselves might make about their constitutional and political future.
Such a declaration would set the scene for a cease-fire by the IRA.
This principle relates only to the right of veto which the British authorities claim in Ireland on the basis of the 1920 Act. It should not therefore be taken to mean that Sinn Fein want the British to withdraw from Ireland at the present time. On the contrary they accept and would even insist on the need for a continuing British [presence] to facilitate the processes through which the constitutional and political structures of a just and lasting peace would be firmly and properly laid by the democratic decisions of the Irish people as a whole.
Once the representatives of all the Irish people, nationalist and unionist, could meet together in accordance with the principle of independence outlined in (2) above, all options for a settlement of the national question, for organizing the constitutional and political structures of a just and lasting peace would be open for dialogue and decision.
This principle relates specifically to the people of the unionist community because it outlines the context (the only proper one in the Sinn Fein view) where their constitutional and political position and their cultural heritage and identity could and would be democratically decided, accommodated and safeguarded in accordance with their right of consent and the right of consent of the Irish people as a whole.
I would also like to give my understanding of what would, on the basis of a common nationalist policy, constitute a credible political alternative to “the armed struggle” or at least the crucial constituent element of a policy which I believe Sinn Fein would be prepared to put forward as an alternative. It would centre on the attitude which the main nationalist parties, North and South, would be prepared to take to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. I believe that if they were to take what is in fact the traditional attitude and agree among themselves to use every political pressure to persuade the British government to set aside this Act especially insofar as it involves their claim of veto over political developments in Ireland they would then have created a political alternative with sufficient credibility even before any progress could be reported and even if in the event the policy were not to be successful.
I would like now to list two ways in which under the auspices of the Church the dialogue I am suggesting between the leadership of Fianna Fail and the leadership of Sinn Fein could be initiated:
1) In the first way leading representatives of the Church would invite the representatives of Fianna Fail and representatives of Sinn Fein to meet under their auspices for discussions which would aim at creating a political alternative to the IRA campaign. The actual agenda for these discussions and the conditions under which they would take place, including conditions relating to confidentiality, would be matters for the political participants. The primary responsibility for holding the discussions would therefore rest with the Church.
2) In the second way representatives of the Church would invite representatives of Fianna Fail to meet them for discussions on 1) the pastoral help which the Church could give to the search for peace; 2) ways of initiating a political dialogue which would aim at creating a political alternative to the IRA campaign.
Here I would like to emphasize that the discussions I am proposing would take place with the representatives of the Sinn Fein party and not with the representatives of the IRA. I say this because of a mistake which is often made, understandably perhaps, but at the same time unfortunately, the mistake of those who believe that to talk to the Sinn Fein party is to talk to the IRA. This, as I know from my own experience, is not true because in spite of impressions and suggestions to the contrary, especially among their opponents, they are two separate organizations, separate in leadership, membership, structure and tactics. Sinn Fein, especially under its present leadership, is a political party in its own right and with its own character. Like other political parties in Ireland it has its own leadership, its own policies and structures, its own elected representatives and political supporters. It is a mistake therefore to believe that the Sinn Fein party is a puppet of the IRA or merely a front for it, that it lacks any independence of leadership or approach. I am saying this because I am convinced that the consequences of this mistake have been and may continue to be tragic in terms of the relationship between the ostracization of the Sinn Fein party and the prolongation of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
I won’t develop this point any further except to say that the quality of the present Sinn Fein leadership and their freedom to initiate and organize their own policies were illustrated at their recent Ard Fheis when the long-standing policy of Dail abstentionism was reversed without significant splits or upheavals, a fundamental development which even people like Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera and others, including the leaders of Sinn Fein in 1970, could not accomplish. This fact alone indicates the ability of the present Sinn Fein leaders to take great personal and political risk, to make great changes and move forward to new political horizons.
I should be grateful then for your advice regarding the proposals I have made above and as I realize that the best and most efficient way to deal with matters like these is not through letters but through personal contacts and discussions I would welcome an early opportunity to speak to you personally about them. I am certain that, if the situation is handled properly, the IRA could be persuaded t
o end their campaign.
I am not saying this lightly but from long experience of dealing with the republican movement. Although I am not and have never been associated with them in a political sense, as they themselves would testify, I know that they trust me and understand any contacts I have made with them were always in the context of making peace. In this context I have, I believe, had close and more continual contact with them than any other priest and perhaps any other individual outside their own movement. I believe therefore I can sense opportunities for making peace and I know that I can sense one now in the context of the approach I have set out in this letter.
I can indeed go one further than that and say that the opportunity which now exists is the best that has presented itself since the present Troubles began in 1969 and that it is an opportunity not just for a cease-fire but for making final peace with the IRA and taking the gun out of nationalist politics forever. At the same time however it is a precarious opportunity because it depends on circumstances which can change from day to day and in the context of Northern Ireland even from hour to hour. That is why the need to seize and use it is so urgent.
I would now like to give the reasons for the pastoral role which I believe the Church can play in the search for an alternative to “the armed struggle”.
The first has to do with the whole question of trust because the IRA are very wary and very suspicious of any proposal for a cease-fire and they will not enter any discussions or negotiations about one unless they know they can trust the processes and the people involved. I am certain however that the witnessing presence of the Church would be sufficient reason for them to trust and indeed to cooperate positively in any discussions or negotiations that would take place.
My second reason has to do with the whole position of the Church in Ireland, her moral authority and influence and especially the vast numbers of people who believe in her, support her and whom therefore she represents. The presence of the Church in negotiations on a political alternative to the armed struggle would therefore give these negotiations a moral and pastoral stature which would be rooted in and supported by the attitudes of the Catholic people of Ireland as a whole. This fact alone would I believe have a powerful influence on the respect for which the Sinn Fein movement in general and the IRA in particular would have for them and especially on their willingness to cooperate with them.