|
Post by hibernicus on May 31, 2017 19:58:48 GMT
Yesterday the IRISH TIMES had a piece hailing the nuns' withdrawal as a triumph for "people power" - the "people" being the "Parents for Choice" demonstrators and their ilk, whipped up by the IRISH TIMES. What we have to realise, though, is that this is the end result of a long process. When continental anti-clerical governments kicked religious orders out of schools and hospitals, the faithful rallied in protest because the religious were actually engaged in nursing and teaching. Anyone protesting for the nuns to stay would only be protesting for nominal ownership to remain with a group of elderly religious who by all human appearances will be gone in a few decades. The hospital is being secularised because the nuns are already gone. The nuns are already gone because they couldn't attract new vocations over the last few decades, for a variety of reasons (some old, some new).
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 12:32:45 GMT
The hospital is being secularised because the nuns are already gone. Evidently, they weren't (and still aren't) gone enough for some secularists for whom this wasn't about nuns on corridors anyway, it was about refusing the Order ownership of an asset, and eradicating Catholic ethos from hospital governance. They made those motivations quite public and clear. But I understand your point hibernicus. Full secularisation would not have been possible without the on-going diminution of the Order, and the secularists took full advantage of that. Recent weeks have demonstrated it would be unlikely a Catholic ethos could even have been implemented in the NMH, and so presumably the Order had to heed the warning of the Bishop and so withdraw to follow their consciences (and not a case of ceding to public pressure, as the "victory" been presented in the media). In recent days, we've heard voices praising the nuns for this move. We've even heard voices lamenting our loss of their proven abilities in hospital management. We are subject now instead to the loving ethos of HSE management perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 1, 2017 22:24:26 GMT
My central point is that this - and indeed the whole current push for abortion, the attacks on Catholic schools,etc - are part of a hollowing-out process that has been going on for decades. One of our big problems is the absence of any sustained narrative and reflection on what happened over the last few decades, what went wrong, etc. Too much of the official church is committed to a narrative that says everything in the garden is rosy and nothing else could have been done, too much traditionalism is based on nostalgia and unwillingness to examine how the church and Irish society actually work/worked. This is another result of the weakness/non-existence of Irish Catholic academia as anything more than an amen corner - for the McQuaids at one time, for the latest liberal nostrum now.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jun 2, 2017 9:43:03 GMT
My central point is that this - and indeed the whole current push for abortion, the attacks on Catholic schools,etc - are part of a hollowing-out process that has been going on for decades. One of our big problems is the absence of any sustained narrative and reflection on what happened over the last few decades, what went wrong, etc. Too much of the official church is committed to a narrative that says everything in the garden is rosy and nothing else could have been done, too much traditionalism is based on nostalgia and unwillingness to examine how the church and Irish society actually work/worked. This is another result of the weakness/non-existence of Irish Catholic academia as anything more than an amen corner - for the McQuaids at one time, for the latest liberal nostrum now. Hibernicus, is it really true that 'Too much of the official church is committed to a narrative that says everything in the garden is rosy and nothing else could have been done'?Surely nobody in authority in the Catholic Church in Ireland can still be so delusional in the present age? If priests and nuns are getting abuse on the street and anti-Catholic bias is overwhelmingly obvious in the press and we see the same sex marriage vote, the push for abortion, the threat to Catholic education and countless other incidents, only a fool could miss it. It is probably more a question of a combination of other things. If the Church was to go on the offensive it would need a thick skinned and articulate person to do this as there would be violent opposition, those who would throw the sins of the Church in their face, particularly paedophile scandals. So they are afraid to raise their head above the parapet. Many prefer to issue apology after apology. I would say that the Catholic hierarchy are also afraid to cause controversy as they fear that their dependence on the Government regarding Catholic schools could be threatened. However it is worth noting that the Government and media will emasculate Catholic public involvement anyway, even if the Church is meek and dutiful, as is happening to the hospital fiasco. Another thing is that many in the Church Hierarchy are not confident enough in their own faith to be credible spokesmen or spokeswomen. Some statements from some on issues like women priests and same sex marriage will be vague enough to undermine doctrine and sow the seeds of doubt; it may buy some grudging respect from the mainstream media but nothing is ever enough for the secularists. There are arguments to be made about child abuse now that were not so obvious ten years ago. The fact that, in the UK, our nearest neighbour with whom we have close cultural ties, their society has been riven with countless child abuse cases demonstrating that this horrendous phenomenon exists equally in countries considered secularist. There is also a need to point out the deep societal flaws that the continued secularist, gender bending, globalist, consumerist policies will bring about. People are beginning to sense the confusion and sterility of these policies. A positive alternative narrative can be given. In academia in the U.S. there are people like Anthony Esolen who are willing to stand up as Catholics. Similarly Jordan Peterson in Canada, although not a Catholic he appears to be sympathetic to Christianity; he is made a big impression and is getting noticed and is fighting the transgender pronoun madness. We in Ireland do seem to be lacking equivalents. John Waters is fine as a journalist, David Quinn of the Iona institute is good, but an academically trained articulate person with some charisma is needed with hopefully a few others to wade in behind him or her.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 3, 2017 19:04:00 GMT
What I am thinking of is the assumption "everything pre-Vatican II was bad or obsolete, all the changes were inevitable, we need not consider whether we can learn anything from the past or whether anything that was discarded might usefully be recovered". That seems a pretty widespread mindset to me. Part of the difference between us and the US is that they have Catholic universities, though many of them are now partly or entirely secularised. Of course any such interrogation as I mention would also need to interrogate what was wrong about the older dispensation. The emphasis on blind obedience to such an extent that actual understanding was downgraded and the superior's whim was placed on the same level as the deposit of faith is an obvious place to start. In the Irish context this was reinforced I think by the "tribal religion" aspect of traditional Irish Catholicism - i.e. if you don't agree you're not a member of the tribe.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 13, 2017 20:30:42 GMT
The Bishops of Ferns and Kilmore point out the extent to which Irish culture is becoming permeated with hatred for the Church: www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/irish-church-facing-persecution-and-hostility-bishops-warn/Now if only they could give a bit more attention to understanding how it got that way. This has to include clerical arrogance, abuse and authoritarianism both before and after Vatican II. It also has to include dropping the idea that Vatican II was a "New PEntecost" which supersedes all that came before and is beyond criticism itself - both the good and bad aspects of the changes should be assessed.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jun 14, 2017 13:03:41 GMT
The Bishops of Ferns and Kilmore point out the extent to which Irish culture is becoming permeated with hatred for the Church: www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/irish-church-facing-persecution-and-hostility-bishops-warn/Now if only they could give a bit more attention to understanding how it got that way. This has to include clerical arrogance, abuse and authoritarianism both before and after Vatican II. It also has to include dropping the idea that Vatican II was a "New PEntecost" which supersedes all that came before and is beyond criticism itself - both the good and bad aspects of the changes should be assessed. Sadly Vat II led to lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament and for Our Lady due to mistaken ideas of what ecumenism meant. The truth of Don Bosco's vision is being rediscovered ... spiritdaily.org/blog/uncategorized/average-new-priest-34-and-prays-the-rosary
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 21, 2017 20:34:23 GMT
An interesting example of this is the Dublin Bus double-decker I saw today painted in rainbow colours and marked TRAVEL WITH PRIDE. Large sections of the semi-state sector and the corporate world have jumped aboard the bandwagon that it is not enough to tolerate - Pride must be actively celebrated, both because it is seen as synonymous with "cool" and "modern" and because silence is being equated with disapproval and disapproval with hatred. The sense of a definitive break with the Bad Old Past and a Great Leap Forward to modernity is being widely promoted. We are seeing the abortion issue being fought in those terms with no space for discussion of what it actually entails: www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/20/the-growing-secular-totalitarianism-and-our-catholic-response/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 1, 2017 20:24:41 GMT
Fr Hunwicke in a piece debunking the view that traditional folk-religion was merely a thin veneer over an underlying paganism, mentions Brian Friel's DANCING AT LUGHNASA. I think he oversimplifies it a bit but he makes a good point. An even better example is Friel's later play WONDERFUL TENNESSEE, in which the characters are solemnly told that some of the Donegal locals became hysterical and engaged in ritual cannibalism after attending the 1932 Eucharistic Congress!!! Any thoughts? liturgicalnotes.blogspot.ie/2017/08/are-you-loafing-at-lammas-or-dancing-at.html
|
|
|
Post by annie on Aug 9, 2017 10:53:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 9, 2017 21:52:24 GMT
One problem with the argument (about St Justin's description resembling the OF rather than the EF) is that it is quite possible that Justin is describing the Mass in the terms a pagan emperor would understand, and omitting to mention some of its features because these were reserved for the faithful: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(religion)An example of this sort of "economy" was when the Jesuit missionary to China was accused of practising black magic when customs officials found a crucifix in his luggage. Ricci replied that this was the image of a great saint of the West who after a life of virtue and benevolence had been unjustly put to death for his love of humankind, and such images were kept to remind the faithful of his noble life and death. Obviously this did not mean Fr Ricci was denying the divinity of Our Lord - he was simply responding to a very difficult situation by providing an explanation which Chinese classical pagans would understand.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Aug 10, 2017 20:07:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 11, 2017 22:39:32 GMT
The Iona Institute blog has a piece on the deliberate use of anti-Catholic blasphemy by "Repeal the 8th" types. www.ionainstitute.ie/does-pro-choice-hostility-to-religion-have-a-limit/I don't think the author quite gets how these people's minds work. They are using blasphemous imagery to assert the following: (1) The pro-life movement is so harmful, contemptible and unfounded that it cannot possibly be taken seriously or treated with respect. (2) The only reason anyone could believe such rubbish is because they have been hoodwinked/brainwashed by Catholicism. (Where Arlene Foster fits into this is another matter, but she can be ignored, along with any other inconvenient facts, for the purposes of pro-choice "reasoning".) (3) Therefore it is positively meritorious to insult and blaspheme Catholicism at every possible opportunity, in order to reinforce the message that it deserves only contempt, and incidentally that those who have the "courage" to transgress are inherently stronger and smarter and that the way to show your own strength and smartness is to do what they say without any unnecessary nonsense such as thought, manners, etc. This is the mindset of those Trots who yelled "Shame on you" at the March for Life, as if it was a cogent argument. They might as well yell "Flat Earth" and expect us to take their word for it. (Indeed, flat-earthism similarly appeals to a sense of defying the powers and asserting oneself as smarter than the vulgar many. The difference is that Una Mullaly probably will not be editing a flat-earth book anytime soon, though it would be no more nonsensical than some of the stuff she publishes in her column.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 12, 2017 7:20:57 GMT
All true, Hibernicus, and yet chanting "shame on you", whatever the occasion, is surprisingly powerful, as are similar reproaches. Direct emotional appeals can bypass one's argumentative defences. I've noticed this.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Aug 13, 2017 18:24:59 GMT
All true, Hibernicus, and yet chanting "shame on you", whatever the occasion, is surprisingly powerful, as are similar reproaches. Direct emotional appeals can bypass one's argumentative defences. I've noticed this. Would that more of us would use this tactic. Who said "shame on you" to X [details deleted by moderator for legal reasons - HIB.] Who said "shame on you" to Ryan Tubridy when he advocated teaching children to lie on his radio programme? Who said "shame on you" to Mary McAleese when she tackled her Archbishop for stating the obvious? Who said "shame on you" to the controllers at RTE radio 2 when programmes mocking Our Lord are aired on Good Friday? Who said "shame on you" to the likes of Brian Friel for the content of his plays - he who once was a student for the priesthood? We used have Parochial Halls. These were renamed Community Centres in an effort to be inclusive. Dreadful depressing dystopian plays are presented regularly in them. Nobody shouts STOP.
|
|