The Pope has done little to 'banish dark clouds', writes Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent.
Pope John Paul's encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (On the Eucharist and its Relationship to the Church), published on Holy Thursday, resurrected for many people unhappy memories of the fractious debate that followed publication by the Catholic bishops in these islands of the One Bread One Body document on the Eucharist in 1998.
It, in turn, gave new life to the heated discussion which followed the President, Mrs McAleese, taking communion in Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin, as one of her first acts in office, in December 1997.
Both debates created much heat, little light and eventually simply reinforced each side in its own conviction. There was no middle ground. Those Catholics, including some priests, who had been taking Communion in Protestant, particularly Anglican, churches, continued to do so; while those Catholics opposed, denounced such practice with usual certainty.
Probably most Protestant church members remained not in the least surprised by the Catholic bishops' "clarity", but many Anglicans were deeply offended at what they saw as a slur on their ministry and on their Communion at a time when they had begun to believe increased understanding was being reached between themselves and Rome.
The response to Pope John Paul's encyclical has been along similar lines to those earlier debates so far, with one noticeable difference. A weariness has crept in, suggesting a sense of futility that any further discussion on the issue within the lifetime of this papacy is worthwhile.
To date, no one has even bothered to mention, for instance, that in the entire 74-page document the Pope avoided dignifying with the title of "church" any of the Protestant denominations. They remained "ecclesial communities", as in the Vatican's Dominus Iesus document of 2000. And it is repeated that their ministries, or orders, are not valid. This from an institution (the Roman Catholic church) that has repeatedly called for respect for the differing denominational/faith traditions. That may be honest, where a particular understanding of Catholic doctrine is concerned, but it is not respectful.
Such "baldly going forth" has become a marked feature of the twilight of this papacy. In this encyclical it is intended "to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice", as the Pope said in the introduction, and to dispel "shadows". It is doubtful whether he has achieved either.
There is another body of Catholic theology that disputes the interpretation of intercommunion currently dominant in Rome.
Here is what the Augustinian theologian, Father Gabriel Daly, wrote in this newspaper in January 1998 during the controversy over the President: "For Roman Catholics there is a law which forbids inter-communion. This is a matter of fact and record. However, Roman Catholics may find - and an increasing number do find - that receiving Communion at the Eucharist of another tradition carries deep meaning for them, and they can think of no convincing theological reason against doing so.
"They therefore in conscience decide that there is a higher imperative for them than that of conforming to a law which can be changed. Only sloganeers will call this 'à la carte Catholicism'. If people feel constrained to use this inept phrase, then one can only say to them that every proper exercise of conscience is à la carte."
He continued: "The claim is often made that eucharistic sharing should take place only when church unity has been achieved. One can respect this claim while remaining unconvinced by it. I cannot help reflecting that it is rather like telling sick people that they can have their medicine only after they have recovered their health."
He concluded: "When Catholics approach the altar in their own church today they might do well to reflect that, though they may share a common faith, they almost certainly do not share a common theology."
In April 1999, commenting on the One Bread One Body document, which outlined the same position on Communion as did the Pope last week, Father Patrick Lyons, Professor of Ecumenical Theology at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Sant Anselmo in Rome, said it could "hardly be said to correspond to the articulated belief in the Eucharist among Catholics in Ireland".
In January 1999 the Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at St Patrick's College Maynooth, Father Enda McDonagh, said: "Members of other churches with a basic belief in the Eucharist as instituted by Jesus Christ should be invited and encouraged to participate in the Catholic Eucharist.
"Generosity in sharing with those from other churches who wish to receive Communion in the Catholic Church, for example, has many gospel analogies in Jesus's feeding of the multitudes and his fellowship meals with the excluded."
He added: "The power of arbitrary exclusion, so typical of the princes of this world, is not without its attractions for church leaders. To protect and to witness against such power exclusion should be the dominant church attitude and practice".
What already appears clear about this latest encyclical, as with another in 1968, is that many Irish Catholics are simply determined to make up their own minds on the issue it deals with, as they did following publication of Humanae Vitae.
They do so, not wilfully, but in good conscience, believing that whatever the competing doctrinal arguments, right action is as clear as it is simple. This, even despite papal pronouncement.
But there are other "cake-and-eat-it factors" at work, too. The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, a member of the Church of England, regularly attends Mass with his family, who are all practising Catholics.
Until 1996 he used also to receive Communion with them at Mass. That year, however, he was sent a letter by Cardinal Basil Hume advising him to desist from this practice out of respect for the differing denominational traditions on the issue, as it was put. Saying that he had not realised his behaviour might cause offence, Mr Blair promised not to do so again, adding: "I wonder what Jesus would have made of it?"
However, although he is banned by the Roman Catholic church from receiving Communion with his wife and children while in Britain, he has permission from the church to do so when he holidays abroad, for instance when he is in places like Tuscany (as there are few Anglican churches there, so the explanation goes).
Catholic couples in second unions and divorced Catholic couples are also banned from receiving Communion. Meanwhile the man in the most publicised second relationship in these islands, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, can and does so regularly. (When pressed about how this could be reconciled with church teaching a senior Irish Catholic church figure told The Irish Times: "But we don't know the exact nature of their relationship".)
And members of the high-profile Catholic Kennedy and Rainier families in second relationships can also receive Communion, despite offspring from failed first relationships annulled by the church as not marriages in the proper sense. Such "shadows" remain.
Some even remember "forgotten" papal pronouncements of other days. In 1866 Pope Pius IX said: "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given". In 1846 he said: "Socialism and democracy are pests". In his infamous 1864 Syllabus of Errors, he denied freedom of conscience, asserted there was no salvation outside the Catholic church and defined Catholicism as "the one true religion". All of which were "re-understood" by Vatican II. Pius IX was beatified in 2000, alongside Pope John XXIII.