Another General Synod of the Church of Ireland has come and gone. Once again, two years after it received a report from its sub-committee on sectarianism, it has failed to show by deed and action that it has any systematic and comprehensive strategy for dealing urgently with this scourge.
A recurring manifestation of this evil is the bitter communal confrontation surrounding the annual parade of the Loyal Orders to Drumcree parish church.
We are told that "nothing more can be done within the structures and laws of the Church of Ireland to resolve the [Drumcree] crisis". This of course begs an obvious question: surely the existing structures allow for the law to be changed. This very point was made from the floor of the synod but was not adopted.
Some members of the sub-committee, unsure as to whether bishops had the power to intervene and overrule parochial authorities in matters of public worship, had favoured offering to the synod new legislation to provide "powers to a bishop who might determine that a particular service should not take place because it might be attended by specified scandalous circumstances".
The report tells us vaguely that there was "wide consultation" within the church. Curiously it adds: "(It is understood) discussion within the House of Bishops indicated significant opposition to such legislation, including opposition from a majority of bishops" (parenthesis in original). The legislation was abandoned.
We accept there are profoundly important issues surrounding the relationship between parochial and diocesan authorities and that resorting to church law to resolve such matters is deeply regrettable. But we believe that the circumstances are such that there is no better alternative.
In our view, the depth of sectarianism in our society is such (and Drumcree is a demonstration of it) that the religious and moral integrity of the Church or Ireland is at stake. Action is essential; words are not enough.
We might add, having been accused of making negative criticisms, that some four years ago in a submission to the sub-committee on sectarianism (published by Catalyst, January 1998), we made 11 constructive proposals about how the church might address this issue, of which one was that in ex-tremis bishops should be empowered to postpone or cancel a service.
We would also like to make a further proposal. We understand that a bishop has the prerogative to participate in and preach at any church service in his diocese.
We believe that the Archbishop of Armagh (the Church of Ireland Primate, Dr Robin Eames, whose diocese includes Drumcree) should exercise this privilege at the next annual Orange service in Drumcree parish church. Indeed, it could be said that the sub-committee has in its report set out in detail some appropriate themes for such a sermon.
The report was concerned that the church "may be deemed to be accommodating to sectarianism because of certain aspects of Orange Order teaching and practice", identifying specifically the "anti-Roman Catholic stand" of the Order, epitomised by the "Qualifications of an Orangeman", which it feared "cloak anti-Catholicism in a culture of courteous civility".
But the sub-committee was at pains to state that the church was not an innocent party in all of this.
It considered that while the Church of Ireland had "moved from some of the positions which in the past it may have shared with the Orange Order . . . [it had] . . . failed to draw this . . . to the attention of the . . . Order".
The "Church has not sought to inform or lead the Order into the new era of rapprochement and mutual respect between the denominations, and particularly between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church".
But despite all this, and an indictment of the role of the Drumcree rector and select vestry in welcoming the Portadown lodges, the General Synod has countenanced the parish church presenting itself as a victim of circumstances.
WHEN will a lead be taken by the central church authorities on all these matters and be implemented not just at Drumcree but throughout the whole church? Surely this is something that might be addressed by the House of Bishops, with appropriate initiatives taken in each diocese?
Sadly, there seems to be no public information about what transpires in the House. No regular reports of its activities are put before the General Synod. Intentionally or otherwise, this effectively precludes any discussion in the General Synod, let alone public discussion about what comes before the House or what position the bishops may have taken on any issues of importance to the church and indeed the whole society.
This secrecy, reminiscent of a bygone age, is not appropriate to the changed circumstances of our church today. Greater transparency and dialogue are long overdue.
Charles Kenny lives in Belfast and is chairman of Catalyst, a Church of Ireland group which since 1995 has concerned itself with addressing sectarianism within the church