|  Author | Topic: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley and o (Read 3,819 times) |
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://svpclare.com/graphical/images/FredericOzanam.jpg "[avatar]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male 
Posts: 4,641
|  | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #30 on Jul 30, 2009, 4:20am » | |
I have just been reading Fr. Joe McVeigh's autobiography. It has much that is of interest (the description of his childhood in Fermanagh and life in 1960s Maynooth and as a young priest) but what really strikes me about it is the extent to which he picks up on the concept of "liberation theology" to maintain that the Church should essentially have taken the Sinn Fein line on the Northern conflict - that the violence of the state is "structural violence", "the fundamental cause of the conflict" etc and therefore morally worse than the violence of the IRA, the southern state and its police force are denounced in almost the same terms for not taking a "Brits Out" line and instead trying to stop the IRA. Cardinal Daly in particular is presented as an arch-villain, while Cardinal O Fiaich is lauded though MacVeigh regrets he did not go far enough, at least in public.
MacVeigh at the same time claims to be a "pacifist" but declares "peace with justice" a la the Sinn Fein interpretation of the peace process is the only peace worth having. When he mentions alternative views (e.g. the parish priest in his first parish saying 1916 was a mistake) he does not engage with them - they are just treated as self-evidently and scandalously wrong.
Incidentally he comes across as a real Fr. Trendy - there are references to starting a folk group, raising money to "renovate" a Church etc and Padraig Standun is praised as a good friend. However, MacVeigh says relatively little about doctrinal matters other than those I have mentioned and the need for a "people's church" ("people" =Sinn Fein supporters, other need not apply).
In fairness he does make some points about Southern ignorance of the Northern nationalist experience and about genuine instances of injustice, but it is all presented through a prism of total identification with the republican cause.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha
Everyone
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://russianfaith.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/schmorell1.jpg "[avatar]")
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,580
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #31 on Jul 30, 2009, 9:41pm » | |
I have a couple of comments here.
Firstly, I remember reading McVeigh's book 'The Wounded Church' nearly two decades ago when I was young and radical. It was an eye-opener in one respect - insofar as it was an application of liberation theology style analysis to Northern Ireland. I remember recommending this book to liberation theology types and challenging them to explain later how they could continue support liberation theology in far away Central America, without subscribing to the Sinn Féin cause in the North. A bit like 'faraway gunmen have juster causes'.
Secondly, McVeigh passionately states the case of Northern nationalists who have gone in the Sinn Fein direction out of desperation. This is an option I do not agree with, but which I understand why it has happened - something which southerners either get high and mighty about in their condemnations or do not interest themselves in. But it is an issue we cannot disregard - if we do, we are handing the field to SF and their apologists. I will address Hibernicus'es very relevant point that the Northern conflict has a strong effect on ecumenism in that thread too.
| |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #32 on Aug 1, 2009, 3:07am » | |
I could actually make a reasonable distinction between the Philippines/Central America and Northern Ireland. The level of immiseration in Third World countries bears no comparison to what you can find in NI (it was different in the C19 and early C20 when much of Ireland was visibly and shockingly poorer than Britain); Kevin Myers rightly points out that the paramilitaries on both sides were beneficiaries of the Welfare State.
Secondly, I agree that Southerners know little about the North and can be tremendously ignorant on why Northern nationalists joined Sinn Fein/IRA. (I blush to think how ignorant I was in the 1980s, for example). My objection to McVeigh is that he is deliberately and aggressively blind to al other points of view - he does not merely disagree with them, he treats them as so obviously wrong they need not be addressed or refuted. Thereis also a strong element of self-deception. It is one thing to say the IRA struggle was just, which is basically what he is saying. I could understand someone believing that even though I don't agree with it. My problem is that he does it while calling himself a pacifist, when his position is clearly not a pacifist one - and that level of self-delusion is very dangerous.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
Askel McThurkill
Everyone
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 559
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #33 on Aug 18, 2009, 1:56am » | |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Father Patrick Ryan, SCA, ran for the European Parliament in 1989 he was joined on the platform by a number of priests, all of whom wore black clerical suits for the occasion. I believe they included Father Des Wilson, Father Joe McVeigh, Father Piaras Ó Dúill OFM Cap and, I heard, Father Brian McCreesh, whose brother died on hunger strike. Does this ring a bell?
| |
|
Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha
Everyone
member is offline
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,580
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #34 on Aug 19, 2009, 11:51pm » | |
I am not sure about Father Brian McCreesh, the elder brother of the hunger striker Raymond McCreesh, who was third to die after Bobby Sands and Francis Hughes. But the others are certainly either apologists for republicanism of the militant variety or they show up at republican events. Father Piaras Ó Dúill was chaplain to Coláiste na bhFiann whom I mention under the Education thread and is also a strong advocate of liturgy in Irish, as is Father McCreesh. But this is altogether different from the other gentlemen's almost open support from Sinn Féin.
However, accepting Hibernicus' point that there is a distinction between the Northern Irish problem and problems in Central America or South Africa, I also know that liberal priests and religious in the Republic had the annoying tendency to show no interest in the North while being well able to attend protests regarding South Africa or Nicaragua. I recall watching an edition of Radharc in 1992 which had been made in the 1970s but only screened then - it dealt with the work of Fathers Denis Faul and Raymond Murray in the Armagh Archdiocese. The then Father Faul said he knew a bishop in the Republic who shed tears over El Salvador but who didn't know the names of the towns in Northern Ireland. There were no prizes for guessing this was Éamonn Casey of Galway who had to resign for other reasons a few months later, but it indicates a pretty prevalent attitude in the south.
| |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #35 on Sept 30, 2009, 5:13am » | |
We have an American guest star: Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame denounces the revival of Eucharistic adoration in the archdiocese of Boston on the grounds that it distracts from the Mass. (Several other Catholic blogs, including Fr. Zuhlsdorf, have already fisked this).
I think the fourth commenter on this Mark Shea post says it all -look it up for yourselves.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/09/dick-mcbrien-is-worried.html
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #36 on Nov 3, 2009, 6:50am » | |
Here we see something really scandalous and outrageous; an American Dominican nun who acts as an abortion clinic escort, guarding women against the possibility that pro-life demonstrators might encourage them to change their minds.
I am not sure of the exact status of the Sinsinawa Dominicans; I believe they are a federation whose motherhouse is in Miluwakee, but don't know if they are independent or nominally answerable to the archbishop there.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf relays the story from Lifesite. American Papist also has it but I couldn't get that link to work
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/10/reason-74....omen-religious/
Nun Volunteering as Abortion Clinic Escort in Illinois
Sr. Quinn’s prioress said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors."
By Kathleen Gilbert
HINSDALE, Illinois, October 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Dominican nun has been seen frequenting an abortion facility in Illinois recently – but not, as one might expect, to pray for an end to abortion or to counsel women seeking abortions, but to volunteer as a clinic escort.
Local pro-life activists say that they recognized the escort at the ACU Health Center as Sr. Donna Quinn, a nun outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion, after seeing her photo in a Chicago Tribune article.
"I’ve called her sister several times, and she never responded," local pro-lifer John Bray told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). "But it’s her."
[...]
Sr. Donna Quinn, OP, is renowned in the Chicago area as an advocate for legalized abortion and other liberal issues.
In 1974 she co-founded the organization Chicago Catholic Women, which lobbied the USCCB on a feminist platform before it dissolved in 2000. She is now a coordinator of the radically liberal National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), which stands in opposition against the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, and the male priesthood.
[...]
In a 2002 address to the Women’s Studies in Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School, Sr. Quinn described how she came to view the teachings of her Church as "immoral": "I used to say: ‘This is my Church, and I will work to change it, because I love it,’" she said. "Then later I said, ‘This church is immoral, and if I am to identify with it I’d better work to change it.’ More recently, I am saying, ‘All organized religions are immoral in their gender discriminations.’" [Then why not just get out?]
Quinn called gender discrimination "the root cause of evil in the Church, and thus in the world," and said she remained in the Dominican community simply for "the sisterhood."
Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, OP, Quinn’s Prioress at the Sinsinawa Dominican community, [UGH…. I always recoil in disgust when I see the name "Sinsinawa". We were tortured by a man-hating Sinsinawa OP in seminary. I am not surprised this other pro-abortion sister is from their group. I am sure their founder, Ven. Fr. Mazzucelli – who cause for beatification is waiting for a miracle – is at high rpm’s in his tomb. That would be a miracle! Convert his errant daughters to Catholicism!] said in an email response to LSN that the nun sees her volunteer activity as "accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors. Her stance is that if the protestors were not abusive, she would not be there."
Though Sr. Mulcahey claimed that her sisters "support the teachings of the Catholic Church," she declined to comment on Quinn’s public protest of Catholic Church teaching.
[...]
American Papist also notes the story
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/10/outrageous-nun-volunteers-at-abortion.html
Ed Peters outlines what action might be taken under canon law. Note his comment on his experince of such "escorts" at the end:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/10/canonical-options-in-sr-donna-quinn.html
...Chances are slim that anything will be done about her because, well, such are the times we live in: a Catholic religious can act for years as an abortion clinic escort and cause barely a ripple in her religious community, the local church, or in Rome. History won't believe it.
But a slim chance is still some chance, and the moral poverty of the age is no bar to our doing what we can in response to such conduct. I can at least point out the possibility of canonical consequences for Sr. Donna.
1. Canon 695 calls for the mandatory dismissal of a religious guilty of the delict of abortion described in Canon 1398. A case can be made, I think, that Sr. Donna is an accomplice to abortion under Canon 1329, which, in turn, might bring her within the scope of the dismissal provision of Canon 695. The novelty of nuns serving as murder mistresses at abortion clinics means that there is not much jurisprudence for such cases, I grant, but it is still a theory worth exploring.
If, however, a more direct process is desired, Canon 696 seems a better place to start.
2. Under Canon 696, dismissal from religious life can be imposed against one who gives "grave scandal arising from culpable behavior". This unusually broad language allows superiors to move against a religious whose specific conduct could not have been predicted when the revised Code was being drafted (perhaps, like Sr. Donna's, it could scarcely have been imagined!), but which we now know can be both imagined and committed. So, to the extent that conducting babies to their death is scandalous behavior for a religious woman, Sr. Donna deserves dismissal.
3. Various provisions of penal law, for example Canon 1369 (authorizing a "just penalty" against those who use the means of social communication to gravely injure good morals or to excite contempt against religion or the Church) are applicable, I suggest, in response to the kind of verbiage that Sr. Donna directs from time to time against religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. But again, all of this seems self-evident.
Or it would, in any other age. +++
Over at AmericanPapist, a good question was posted: "The motherhouse (commonly called 'The Mound') is located in Sinsinawa - the Diocese of Madison. Donna Quinn lives in the Archdiocese of Chicago and the abortion clinic she is 'volunteering' at is located in the Diocese of Joliet. So that leaves a question, Which Bishop should take action?"
Of course, religious superiors should take action regarding a member's basic status, but if they fail to act satisfactorily, arch/diocesan authority can still move in regard to potential delicts. Penal jurisdiction is in the alternative, so all three arch/dioceses would have jurisdiction to proceed here, Madison (because Sr. Donna has domicile there per cc. 103 and 1408), Chicago (because she has at least quasi-domicile there by cc. 102, 103, and 1408), and Joliet (because it is the place of the delict to which she might be an accomplice per c. 1412).
The problem is never one of finding an authority able to act - - canon law can always do that; the problem is finding an authority willing to act.
Post Script, October 29: In an exchange over at Jimmy Akin's website, I posted something that might be of interest to my blog readers. The context is the ridiculousness of Sr. Donna's claim that people need protection from pro-lifers. My comment was as follows:
The most hateful, foul, vitriolic harangue ever -- and I mean ever -- launched on me was delivered by an abortion clinic escort while I stood with literature in the parking lot outside of an abortion clinic, oh, must have been 30 years ago now. As the venom (I have no other word for it) spewed forth, I'd have sworn, I saw EVIL in the woman's eyes. It deeply frightened me. I thought I was in a scene from The Exorcist, facing Satan. Several people who saw it happen ran over to help me walk away. I slumped down on some steps for several minutes, and I couldn't even think. I don't think I have ever gone to an abortion clinic since without asking for the special protection of my Guardian Angel.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
hazelireland
Guest
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #37 on Nov 3, 2009, 8:41pm » | |
A characteristically intrusive, impertinent and obnoxious post by Hazelireland lauding Sr. Quinn and other abortion clinic escorts for upholding people's right to avail of a legal procedure has been excised by the moderator.
| |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #38 on Nov 3, 2009, 11:56pm » | |
There goes the right to free speech and peaceful protest. Since Hazelireland has stated on this board that he does not believe in the existence of human rights I doubt very much if he cares about them, but the rest of us may.
I seem to remember Hazel stating some time ago that he believed abortion was only tolerable up to 12 weeks and that after that it was homicide. Since US law allows abortion much later than this, even by Hazel's own account this nun is conniving at homicide - or does Hazel believe that if homicide were legalized no-one should be allowed to object to that until such time as they succeeed in having it declared illegal again? This is legal positivism run mad.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #39 on Nov 10, 2009, 11:40pm » | |
I will reply to some of Hazel's sophistries [in a post which I have now deleted - moderator], not because he deserves them or will derive any benefit from them but for the benefit of anyone else who may be reading this thread:
(a) Hazel's argument is that because abortion is legal it is not homicide and no-one is entitled to protest against clinics which offer it.
First of all, homicide refers to any form of killing - it is not equivalent to "murder" which appears to be the term Hazel is looking for.
Second, Hazel's position is that whatever is legal is right; I have a legal right to do whatever the law allows me, and it is irrelevant whether the action in question is immoral or not. The only recourse of anyone who objects to it is to apply to the legislators; if they agree with you what was moral yesterday becomes immoral today and vice versa. Hazel's position as I understand him to have stated it is that he does not believe in human rights which are superior to positive law, but considers that they exist only insofar as they are conferred by positive law.
Thirdly, the target of the protest is the clinic, not the patients, except insofar as it aims to persuade the patients to reconsider. This last would normally be considered an exercise fo free speech, which is guaranteed under the US constituion.
Fourthly, the extent to which a protest is justified is related to the seriousness of the issue. Does hazel really think that the use of chewing gum and mass homicide (I use that term as a neutral one, but I may add that it is in fact mass murder) are on the same level?
FIFTHLY, and the reason why I posted this item here rather than in another box: The nun is a member of a voluntary institution, the Catholic Church, whose official policy is opposed to abortion and which regards her actions as facilitating murder. As a nun, she is supposed to be particularly exemplary in upholding Catholic teaching; instead, she persistently violates it in word and deed and incites others to do so. She is in the position of a member of the League agaisnt Cruel Sports who regularly goes foxhunting, a Mormon elder who drinks coffee every morning, a priest who goes round to the local whorehouse once a week. These may or may not be harmless activities in your opinion, they may or may not be illegal - but they are in flagrant contradiction of the duties and obligations of associations which these people joined of their own free will, and if they had any honesty or self-respect they would change their behaviour or leave those organisations. The same goes for this nun.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #40 on Nov 10, 2009, 11:42pm » | |
Here is Damien Thompson's comment on this outrage, in which he notes further examples of heresy engaged in by the Sinsinawa congregation. I am sure Catholic readers, for whom this board is intended, will find it of interest.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damian....bortion-clinic/
EXTRACT
The Sinsinawa sisters are supporters of Future Church and (for instance) not constrained by anything so patriarchal as the distinction between canonical Scripture and non-canonical Gnostic fiction. They quote the “long-suppressed Gnostic Gospel of Mary” as the source for their vision of the “empowering” Mary Madgalene. No wonder the Vatican is having to monitor American women religious: whether in their reluctance to condemn a pro-abortion activist colleague or their espousal of bogus Gospels, some of these ladies are virtually unrecognisable as Catholics.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #41 on Jan 13, 2010, 4:30am » | |
Here is a link to John Cooney's 2 January 2010 IRISH INDEPENDENT piece on Cardinal Daly.
I am placing it on this thread because of two extracts below, which may not necessarily amount to doctrinal error but do indicate what IMHO are serious problems with Cooney's approach:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analys....de-1996258.html
FIRST EXTRACT
My fondest memory of Cahal was in the mid-1970s when I had an inside seat in a crowded flight from Dublin to Brussels, and he came scurrying on as one of the last passengers weighed down by a suitcase of books. I helped him to get the laden bag into the luggage rack and he sat down beside me.
I had already become absorbed in one of the novels of the Belfast writer Brian Moore, one of my heroes.
When I showed him the cover of 'The Luck of Ginger Coffey', Cahal, his eyebrows shooting up and down in excited intellect, immediately astounded me when he said that he was at St Malachy's with Moore, by then strongly anti-clerical. We talked for some time about Moore, and then he pulled out his breviary. Just as he began reading the Church's daily office, he again astounded me with an unexpected remark: "Yes, and Brian saw a much wider world than we did in Malachy's."
In our discussions over the years, especially when he was Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, I used to complain to him that I didn't see much evidence of Moore in his numerous speeches and books, many of them modestly progressive but within a policy of "controlled change", mainly by way of introducing the Mass in English from Latin, which was prescribed for the post-Vatican II Church in Ireland by the formidable Cardinal William 'Bill' Conway.
EXTRACT ENDS
The problem with this, IMHO, is that Cooney seems to indicate that the proper attitude for the Cardinal to have taken to Moore is uncritical approval and identification. The thing is that Moore was not just anti-clerical; he was a self-professed atheist who called himself "a Graham Greene going the other way". It is quite correct to see that he saw the flaws in many aspects of contemporary Catholicism, but his diagnosis of these flaws is based on the belief that Catholicism per se, and any form of religious belief which seeks to act on the world outside the believer's head, is infantile, demented, and destructive. In his novels any sympathetic religious figure will turn out to be, deep down, an unbeliever, and the central message of his stories is that Jesus' claim to atone for our sins offers only blindness and false hope.
The second extract is briefer:
BEGINS
Bishop Daly was appointed by Pope Paul VI to succeed the by-then reactionary and divisive William Philbin as Bishop of Down and Connor. He moved to restore the good name of a Ballymurphy priest, Fr Des Wilson, whom Philbin had mercilessly victimised.
ENDS
The trouble with Cooney's comment here is that while the prudence of the specific disciplinary measures Bishop Philbin took against Fr. Wilson may be open to dispute, they were a response to genuinely problematic conduct by Fr. Wilson. Fr. Wilson had engaged in various statements and actions which were seen as indicating a degree of sympathy for republicanism which potentially gave great scandal, to say the least and were counterproductive in terms of ecumenism. (I might add that a minor character in one of Brian Moore's later and weaker novels is widely believed to be based - however inaccurately - on Fr. Wilson and exemplifies the extent to which the priest could be misrepresented as reflecting the attitudes of the Church as a whole.)
Cooney's attitude seems to be that whenever a bishop comes into conflict with someone the bishop must always be wholly in the wrong and the rebel wholly in the right. It's always "us versus them" in Cooneyworld.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
Askel McThurkill
Everyone
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 559
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #42 on Jan 15, 2010, 3:35am » | |
My recollection of Fr Des Wilson through the troubles was consistently appearing as a clerical apologist for republican violence and there is little wonder he got into trouble both with Bishops Philbin and Daly. Incidentally, the then Bishop Daly was still Bishop of Ardagh & Clonmacnois at the time of the papal visit, not Bishop of Down and Connor.
| |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #43 on Jan 15, 2010, 4:20am » | |
Cooney does say that Cardinal Daly became Bishop of Down and Connor after the Papal visit - I am sorry if I unintentionally suggested otherwise by my choice of extracts. His full article is available through the link.
The interesting thing about Cooney's comment re Father Wilson is not that he thinks Fr. Wilson was treated harshly but that he demonises Bishop Philbin reflexively rather than arguing on the merits of the case . He seems to assume any exercise of episcopal authority is wrong per se. (Cf my later post on "What the papers say", noting where Cooney accuses the clergy of hijacking the church from the laity in the C19 and demands that the laity should rise up and seize power from them.)
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
|
hibernicus
Administrator
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,641
| | Re: Ignorance of Catholic doctrine - Pat Buckley a
« Reply #44 on Jan 28, 2010, 2:06am » | |
Tim Pat Coogan has also been calling for a self-governing Irish Church on his blog, and doing it with the sort of tiresome adolescent prurience about sexual matters that characterises much of his recent writing (cf his rant on the Irish diaspora, WHEREVER GREEN IS WORN, for those who can suffer through it).
One of Tim Pat's pet theories, which I notice has been cropping up in some other quarters, is that all Ireland's woes are due to "Two colonialisms" from Britain and Rome. He has borrowed this from James Joyce, but what Joyce said was two MASTERS, which is subtly but decisively different. A master may be someone to whom you choose to submit; "colonialism" implies an external force imposed and held down from outside. Surely describing twentieth-century Irish Catholicism as "colonialism" is like saying that Ireland has been subjected to the "colonial" rule of Fianna Fail since 1932 - good or bad, that rule would not have been there had the people not chosen to support it, and to call it "colonialism" is a way of shirking responsibility.
|
Christ is the morning star who when the night of this world is past brings to his saints the promise of the light of life and opens everlasting day |
| |
|
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Logged