The topic I want to raise this evening arises from the recent decision of the Army authorities that the participation of individual soldiers should no longer be obligatory at church parades. We may thank the trade union, PDFORRA, whose representations led to this historic decision. I want to raise an important related matter, that is the presence of Army units of the Regular Army or FCA contingents at religious ceremonies. I hasten to add I mean religious ceremonies of any denomination but, to be honest, the denominational complexion of this country being what it is, I suppose I am talking for the most part about Roman Catholic ceremonies. The topic is appropriate in view of the coming Eucharistic procession season, where we regularly see in numerous Corpus Christi processions units of the Army or the FCA acting as escorts to the corps of the religious procession where the clergy carrying the monstrance are frequently flanked by a military unit.
I do not know whether other variations of this custom have now died out. People of my vintage and the Minister will remember the sounds and sights of the trumpet fanfare and the flash of swords during the elevation of the Host at the consecration of the Mass and that was an even more incongruous example of the kind of thing I am talking about. In my native city of Cork the Corpus Christi procession is a big event. It is interesting that, not for the first time, the Cork Council of Trade Unions had quite a divisive debate about this issue recently. The question was whether the council should be represented collectively or corporately at this religious occasion and strong feelings were expressed. Some members said they had no objection, others said that as council members they simply did not want to have their presence interpreted as a kind of trade union participation in this procession.
The Army presence is a more salient example of that same relationship which in my view is unhealthy. Any State presence as an integral component in a religious ceremony is an unacceptable symbol of Church-State relationship in our secular age. I am glad it is a secular age because in the long term interests of peace and harmony in this country and of denominational relations we must have a secular State. Irish Society is now composed not only of Catholic, Protestant and dissenter but of Catholic, Protestant, lapsed Catholic and free thinker. All are taxpayers and it may no longer be taken for granted that all assent to this close relationship, this historically meshed thread of Church and State. I think I represent the view of an increasing number of citizens in that matter.
It could be said that the Constitution lends some vague authority to this custom in Article 44.1 which state:
The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His name in reverence and shall respect and honour religion.
Frankly, there is no place for such a sentiment in the Constitution; it belongs to a now outdated concept of the confessional state. Even if we accept this article as a constitutional reality, it is hard too invoke it as a justification for these customs.
I do not want to be excessively rigorous or pedantic about this. Certain functionaries need to have an aide-de-camp present at a Church religious ceremony and that is accepted. I am talking about a more fundamental symbolic relationship suggested by the presence of regular Army or FCA units.
It is interesting to read what Alexis de Tocqueville, the celebrated French journalist, philosopher and observer had to say about this when he came to Ireland in 1835. He came across several bishops who had been in France during the Bourbon restoration and bishops such as Bishop Kinsella of Ossory were appalled that the Bourbons had learned nothing and forgotten nothing, that despite the sore lessons that ancien regime should have taught them about the danger of a relationship between Church and State nonetheless Charles X was still trying to identify Church and State. Bishop Kinsella of Ossory told de Tocqueville that he had witnessed sentries outside the palace of the Archbishop of Rouen and said that they made people think of the archbishop as the representative of the king rather than as that of Jesus Christ. He witnessed the Corpus Christi procession in the same city as I described it a moment ago; the clergy and host were flanked by lines of soldiers. The bishop's reflections were, “What are these soldiers for? Who wants a military show as part of a religious feast?” So, even from the point of view of religion 170 years ago Catholic bishops were beginning to realise that a close identification of Church and State was unhealthy and perhaps their present-day successors should take a leaf out of Bishop Kinsella's book.
That is not our concern here. Incidentally, a Chathaoirligh, I took the precaution of letting the Department of Defence know earlier this afternoon the subject of this Adjournment debate and the questions I proposed to ask. My questions are, who requests the involvement of military units as guards of honour at eucharistic processions, which is only an example of something wider, and who authorises the involvement of these military units? What is the policy of the Department of Defence in this matter? Does it reflect Government policy, and would the Minister agree that these practices should be discontinued forthwith?
