|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 8, 2018 21:40:55 GMT
One problem that occurs to me about over-easy dismissal of cultural Catholicism is that it runs the risk of turning the church into a small sect of the highly-committed and ignoring the rest of the population, who are assumed either to be damned anyway (Jansenism, Calvinism) or to be automatically saved. This was one reason why a lot of nineteenth-century Oxford Movement members started out Evangelicals and became more Catholic/sacramentalist; because they realised through pastoral experience that Evangelical piety required a degree of education, spare time and commitment which excluded large numbers who were poor, uneducated, or just had lives to live. One of the most irritating post-Vatican II developments was the campaign against popular devotional practices which were seen as not academically correct, with the implicit or explicit message that these were so worthless it was better to have nothing at all. Admittedly, this attitude partly reflects experiences in certain Latin countries (for example, in southern Italy there is a long tradition of confraternities and the running committees of local shrines being taken over as fronts for mafiosi) but it was still very damaging.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 9, 2018 8:31:08 GMT
One problem that occurs to me about over-easy dismissal of cultural Catholicism is that it runs the risk of turning the church into a small sect of the highly-committed and ignoring the rest of the population, who are assumed either to be damned anyway (Jansenism, Calvinism) or to be automatically saved. That's an excellent point, Hibernicus-- I mean both dangers, but especially the second. One meets very committed Catholics (and Christians) who seem to have taken the doctrine of invincible ignorance to the extreme that only believers are accountable to God. I'm reminded of Sister Helen Prejean, the anti-death penalty campaigner upon whose work the film Dead Man Walking was based. According to Edward Feser's recent book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, some Catholic prison chaplains did not want Sister Prejean to have any contact with the prisoners in their care because they thought she might put their souls in danger with her lack of emphasis upon admitting guilt and receving the last rites. I am reminded of the words of Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra: "Devise me, then, the love which not only beareth all punishment, but also all guilt! Devise me, then, the justice which acquitteth every one except the judge!" I heard Timothy Radcliffe, in one talk, claim that the idea Christians were morally superior was "obscene", or some such vehement term.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jul 10, 2018 10:41:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 15, 2018 19:28:31 GMT
There's really something to be said on both sides - I remember a couple of instances of murderous Dublin gangsters, one of whom was a regular Massgoer and the other carried holy medals, where it was clear they regarded it as a sort of magic charm with no moral implications. That's certainly cultural Catholicism in the bad sense. Similarly, the sort of politician who boasts of their Catholicism while campaigning to legalise and promote all sorts of horrors urgently need to be told they can't have it both ways. The problem is that so many people think they have a right to church membership, the sacraments etc irrespective of their beliefs or conduct, and the church authorities are too scared or compromised to call them out on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 23:47:04 GMT
I didn't really catch a lot of it, but my dad was watching something on RTÉ, in which Mary McAleese went around Ireland talking about the Church in Ireland (past and present) as well as talking to a few people about their views, etc. As you might expect, she didn't exactly talk to many (if any) actual devout Catholics. Lots of people spouting the usual "Well, I don't feel bad if I don't go to Mass, but I know God wouldn't mind", etc. People basically saying how they were Catholic, but not THAT Catholic. Not everyone was still Catholic though. Some were raised Catholic but went their own ways.
For some reason she talked to a female vicar (I think Church of Ireland) who, despite being a vicar, complained about how "organised religion" was inherently misogynistic. The vicar in question had a Catholic mother and Lutheran father from Norway.
Also, for whatever reason, they subtly brought race into it. At one point when talking about how Ireland used to be, they made a short check-list of words with "White" being one of them. Pretty strange for a program that was, I assumed, supposed to be about religion. Basically told me everything I need to know about the people behind it that Ireland being "White" is considered outdated somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 1, 2018 16:44:22 GMT
I didn't really catch a lot of it, but my dad was watching something on RTÉ, in which Mary McAleese went around Ireland talking about the Church in Ireland (past and present) as well as talking to a few people about their views, etc. As you might expect, she didn't exactly talk to many (if any) actual devout Catholics. Lots of people spouting the usual "Well, I don't feel bad if I don't go to Mass, but I know God wouldn't mind", etc. People basically saying how they were Catholic, but not THAT Catholic. Not everyone was still Catholic though. Some were raised Catholic but went their own ways. For some reason she talked to a female vicar (I think Church of Ireland) who, despite being a vicar, complained about how "organised religion" was inherently misogynistic. The vicar in question had a Catholic mother and Lutheran father from Norway. Also, for whatever reason, they subtly brought race into it. At one point when talking about how Ireland used to be, they made a short check-list of words with "White" being one of them. Pretty strange for a program that was, I assumed, supposed to be about religion. Basically told me everything I need to know about the people behind it that Ireland being "White" is considered outdated somehow. I assume that by "White" they were referring to the fact that Ireland is now less homogenous than it was 30 years ago. That's not necessarily a bad thing: for one thing I saw from first-hand experience (through campaign work and by gauging the opinions of taxi-drivers) that many New Irish opposed repeal and a good few were actively involved in the Pro-Life Campaign and in the Life Institute. Conversely, the repealers were almost completely white. In fact, if Ireland was as homogenous now as it was 30 years ago, there's a good chance that the margin would have been even greater.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 1, 2018 21:49:15 GMT
I didn't really catch a lot of it, but my dad was watching something on RTÉ, in which Mary McAleese went around Ireland talking about the Church in Ireland (past and present) as well as talking to a few people about their views, etc. As you might expect, she didn't exactly talk to many (if any) actual devout Catholics. Lots of people spouting the usual "Well, I don't feel bad if I don't go to Mass, but I know God wouldn't mind", etc. People basically saying how they were Catholic, but not THAT Catholic. Not everyone was still Catholic though. Some were raised Catholic but went their own ways. For some reason she talked to a female vicar (I think Church of Ireland) who, despite being a vicar, complained about how "organised religion" was inherently misogynistic. The vicar in question had a Catholic mother and Lutheran father from Norway. Also, for whatever reason, they subtly brought race into it. At one point when talking about how Ireland used to be, they made a short check-list of words with "White" being one of them. Pretty strange for a program that was, I assumed, supposed to be about religion. Basically told me everything I need to know about the people behind it that Ireland being "White" is considered outdated somehow. I assume that by "White" they were referring to the fact that Ireland is now less homogenous than it was 30 years ago. That's not necessarily a bad thing: for one thing I saw from first-hand experience (through campaign work and by gauging the opinions of taxi-drivers) that many New Irish opposed repeal and a good few were actively involved in the Pro-Life Campaign and in the Life Institute. Conversely, the repealers were almost completely white. In fact, if Ireland was as homogenous now as it was 30 years ago, there's a good chance that the margin would have been even greater. New Irish? Surely they would be too young to vote? I agree totally with Young Ireland-- homogeneity is bad and diversity is great. Look at Ireland. We had the diversity of the Viking invasions, that was good. They gave us cities and coinage. And then there was the diversity of the Norman invasions, that was even better, they gave us administration and all other good stuff. They even reinforced Catholic orthodoxy, no getting away from that. And then there is the diversity in the North of Ireland-- that's wonderful-- all those colourful Lambeg drums! It's true that this diversity came with a few spots of tension-- hardly anything even worth noticing-- and that, while the Normans promoted Catholic orthodoxy, the eventual outcome of the Norman invasions was persecution of the Catholic Church on a grand scale for centuries-- but let's not focus on the negative. Diversity is always good and homogeneity is boring. And yes, our native culture and customs were suppressed, but this is also good because it helped us to become an outward-looking global player in the fullness of time. Post-independence Ireland has become notorious for its homogeneity-- its true that we had overflowing seminaries and huge congregations and sent missionaries all over the world and d all that-- but we've all seen The Rocky Road to Dublin and realize how dull, backward and stagnant a country we were during these years. There was the Gaelic Revival but this was a bit cringe-inducing, all that paddywhackery and insularism. We didn't even have inter-racial tension to virtue signal about...how dull is that? It's hard to have inter-racial tension when you are homogenous. (True, Irish writers and intellectuals did their best with the Travelling community, but it wasn't much to go on. They're not even a different colour. Oh, and we did have a boycott of Jewish businesses in Limerick which we made the most of by calling a pogrom, but that still wasn't much.) And the clinching argument for diversity is that we only lost the abortion referendum two-to-one. It could have been a really devastating defeat if we didn't have mass immigration (based on anecdotal evidence). Yes, all the quangos and international organizations (Amnesty International, the WHO, the EU, Google) pushing for open borders are ALSO pushing for "reproductive rights", not to mention gay rights and trans rights and all the rest. but...never mind. Diversity good, homogeneity bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2018 13:41:51 GMT
The problem is that the check-list was implying, as far as I was concerned, that these things are outdated (ie, bad.) The idea that Ireland being majority Irish is in itself somehow bad is the issue.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 14:56:15 GMT
I would go further and say, not just that cultural homogeneity is not a bad thing in itself, but that it's a good thing in itself. There might be legitimate reasons to reduce it, but that doesn't take away from the fact that, in my view, it's a good.
People like diversity because it is superficially exciting- novelty value. And they hate homogeneity because of cultural cringe, the familiar seems dull or even embarrassing. But ultimately human nature reasserts itself and, within a generation or so, people want a sense of belonging deeper than civic nationalism can give them.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 2, 2018 18:33:34 GMT
The problem is that the check-list was implying, as far as I was concerned, that these things are outdated (ie, bad.) The idea that Ireland being majority Irish is in itself somehow bad is the issue. I hope you're not saying that being white is a prerequisite to being Irish (which is that using "White" interchangeably with Irish implies). That would be news to Kevin Sharkey and to Ben Scallan (who runs Conservative Comeback)!
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 2, 2018 18:38:03 GMT
I would go further and say, not just that cultural homogeneity is not a bad thing in itself, but that it's a good thing in itself. There might be legitimate reasons to reduce it, but that doesn't take away from the fact that, in my view, it's a good. People like diversity because it is superficially exciting- novelty value. And they hate homogeneity because of cultural cringe, the familiar seems dull or even embarrassing. But ultimately human nature reasserts itself and, within a generation or so, people want a sense of belonging deeper than civic nationalism can give them. My problem that these arguments is that they are very similar to those used by liberal dissidents to claim that expressing one's sexuality is only natural and to try and restrict it is going against nature. The problem with both views is that they minimise the effect of original sin on the human psyche.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 18:53:24 GMT
I would go further and say, not just that cultural homogeneity is not a bad thing in itself, but that it's a good thing in itself. There might be legitimate reasons to reduce it, but that doesn't take away from the fact that, in my view, it's a good. People like diversity because it is superficially exciting- novelty value. And they hate homogeneity because of cultural cringe, the familiar seems dull or even embarrassing. But ultimately human nature reasserts itself and, within a generation or so, people want a sense of belonging deeper than civic nationalism can give them. My problem that these arguments is that they are very similar to those used by liberal dissidents to claim that expressing one's sexuality is only natural and to try and restrict it is going against nature. The problem with both views is that they minimise the effect of original sin on the human psyche. Tribalism (to be blunt) has been a universal of human history, while the sexual decadence of our age is unique to it, even the sodomy in ancient Greece being very different to what we see today. I sometimes wonder that Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman-- "it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs"-- is not suppressed as offensive! He called Canaanites dogs!
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 2, 2018 19:01:52 GMT
My problem that these arguments is that they are very similar to those used by liberal dissidents to claim that expressing one's sexuality is only natural and to try and restrict it is going against nature. The problem with both views is that they minimise the effect of original sin on the human psyche. Tribalism (to be blunt) has been a universal of human history, while the sexual decadence of our age is unique to it, even the sodomy in ancient Greece being very different to what we see today. I sometimes wonder that Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman-- "it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs"-- is not suppressed as offensive! He called Canaanites dogs! You're forgetting the second part of what happened. Our Lord was testing the woman's faith and once her faith had been proven, He healed her daughter, just as she asked. Your point would only be valid if He had refused to heal her daughter and left it at that.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 2, 2018 19:22:28 GMT
Tribalism (to be blunt) has been a universal of human history, while the sexual decadence of our age is unique to it, even the sodomy in ancient Greece being very different to what we see today. I sometimes wonder that Jesus's words to the Canaanite woman-- "it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs"-- is not suppressed as offensive! He called Canaanites dogs! You're forgetting the second part of what happened. Our Lord was testing the woman's faith and once her faith had been proven, He healed her daughter, just as she asked. Your point would only be valid if He had refused to heal her daughter and left it at that. Calling someone a dog is objectively racist. That was obviously a jeu d'esprit-- my serious point being that the Bible also reflects the common-sense assumption that people are innately tribalistic, despite the Book of Ruth and the parable of the good Samaritan (which, I would argue, simply make the point that universal humanity goes deeper than tribal allegiance-- not that it somehow negates it). Indeed, the story of the Tower of Babel might have been written by Nigel Farage! I like to think that the "great multitude" in Revelation, coming from every tribe, nation and language (or however it's put) reflects that these things will endure to Doomsday. I'm not putting that forward as an actual argument, but it's something to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 2, 2018 19:30:04 GMT
You're forgetting the second part of what happened. Our Lord was testing the woman's faith and once her faith had been proven, He healed her daughter, just as she asked. Your point would only be valid if He had refused to heal her daughter and left it at that. Calling someone a dog is objectively racist. That was obviously a jeu d'esprit-- my serious point being that the Bible also reflects the common-sense assumption that people are innately tribalistic, despite the Book of Ruth and the parable of the good Samaritan (which, I would argue, simply make the point that universal humanity goes deeper than tribal allegiance-- not that it somehow negates it). Indeed, the story of the Tower of Babel might have been written by Nigel Farage! I like to think that the "great multitude" in Revelation, coming from every tribe, nation and language (or however it's put) reflects that these things will endure to Doomsday. I'm not putting that forward as an actual argument, but it's something to think about. There's a difference between saying that they will always exist (which is true) and saying that tribalism should not simply be tolerated, but encouraged. How do you explain God punishing Miriam for complaining about Moses' marriage to a Cushite woman? Also, the original term that Our Lord used was a term of endearment rather than derogatory.
|
|