Reading my usual mixture of Irish and English newspapers a few weeks ago I lurched between scandals. The Catholic Church in Ireland. The monarchy in England. At first glance the scandals are not very similar. Catholic paedophile priests (only a small percentage of the paedophiles in the general population, it is worth remembering) have damaged young lives; the Windsors are damaging mostly themselves.
Yet there are similarities. The workings of both the Catholic Church and the British monarchy have been shrouded in secrecy for centuries. Both institutions have largely ignored recent profound changes in the world outside. In Ireland, parishioners have become as well, or better, educated than their priests and discriminating against women is illegal in all walks of life, except, apparently, in the Catholic Church. The English, for their part, have become less impressed by titles and keener to know how their money is being spent.
Some American visitors were recently recounting to us their invitation to dine at Buckingham Palace. They were enchanted by the extensive protocol, right down to the admonition that guests of Queen Elizabeth are not permitted to introduce new topics of conversation at the dinner table. That may be done only by the monarch herself when she judges the time is appropriate. "Gee, it was just like stepping back a hundred years, I guess." Exactly. As the only English person present, I was starting to squirm.
"All very quaint," I said, "but would you want this in your own country?"
A bashful silence descended over the table. Of course they wouldn't. What else was the Boston Tea Party about? Then, since I wasn't dining that evening in the presence of the British monarch, I changed the subject. Quickly.
Honourable priests
Of course there are many good and honourable Catholic priests who are quietly appalled at the state of the institution to which they have dedicated their lives, yet somehow they find the spirit to soldier on. Equally, there are many people in England who applaud the way Queen Elizabeth II conscientiously performs her duties, year in year out, and who point to the work of the Prince's Trust in helping unemployed young people as an example of Prince Charles's forward thinking. All this is marred, however, by the way both institutions have hidden behind privilege to defend themselves against laws to which the rest of us are subject: canon law in the case of the Catholic Church, Crown immunity in the case of the British monarchy. Until both institutions realise they must be openly accountable to the people they serve, all the good work of individuals will be undone.
Unifying symbols
This may seem, in the case of both institutions, like a very long-term prospect. Perhaps it is. But it is one that needs to be seen to be starting right now if time is not to run out for both. At moments of heightened danger, like the present, nations badly need their unifying symbols. Of course in Ireland, as several commentators have pointed out, you are well served by your Head of State who carries out her duties in such a dignified and intelligent way, ably supported, rather than hindered, by her family. But both nations are to some extent facing a crossroads. How far are you prepared to see the Catholic Church's role in the life of your nation diminished? How far do the English want to strip their monarchy of its powers?
For myself, failing the republic which we may not get in my lifetime, I'd like to see the monarchy separated from political power and privilege and confined to a purely ceremonial role; and some of those ceremonies curtailed as well, or at least modernised. The Queen dressed in an ordinary suit and riding in a car to open parliament would be a start.
One thing is certain: we should not allow ourselves to be led by the tabloids in this. The concentration in the British press on sexual scandals among the royal entourage reminds me of the rumours that were rife in Russia before the fall of Czar Nicholas II or in France before the execution of Marie Antoinette - rumours which subsequent historians have found to be greatly exaggerated. We should try to judge for ourselves, but this is just what these two institutions won't allow us to do while they remain shrouded in secrecy.
We are partly to blame, of course. We let them get away with things for far too long. We were subservient when we should have been critical. We showed them too much damned respect. The change has been very rapid. No wonder they are so bewildered. There are, however, still republicans who drop their principles and rush to the Palace at the hint of an invitation. I know. I've been there, got the T-shirt - or rather, I've watched a close relative collect his gong. All I will say about it, being more familiar with Irish big houses than English palaces, is that I was amazed at the sheer luxury of it all: the depth of the carpets, the absence of draughts, the hothouse temperatures. Now I know where my taxes went.
Elderly people
Both institutions are headed by elderly people and elderly people often resist change. Who knows what will happen to the Catholic Church when the present Pope dies? The English know what they're going to get when Queen Elizabeth dies, and it doesn't look like change.
Yet change is possible. I was much heartened to read the statement by the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to the effect that belonging to the Freemasons is incompatible with being a Christian. Now there's a society wrapped in secrecy, constructed round a mixture of Neoplatonic imagery and Hermetic philosophy, and excluding women from membership. The Freemasons have websites now, like everyone else, but I've visited a few and they are not, frankly, that informative.
The Anglican Church has for years been riddled with freemasonry even up to its highest ranks. The future archbishop has, rather daringly, demonstrated that it is sometimes possible to strike a blow for openness.