|
Post by assisi on Oct 4, 2011 19:55:40 GMT
I have been reading some things lately that have really depressed me. In The Death of Christian Britain Callum Brown notes that the testimonies of social liberalisation in 1960s England are almost always from the liberal perspective; he attributes this to the inarticulate nature of British Christianity. In 50 years time historians examining back Irish Catholic history will also be getting a very skewed narrative and drawing from unrepresentative sources, because almost all those who have endeavoured to write on the topic do so with conventional liberal assumptions. I think we need to put much, MUCH more focus on our history, while there's still time. The tendency to demonize the pre-conciliar Irish Church (a la Fr Vincent Twomey's disappointing book The End of Irish Catholicism) is a temptation which must be resisted. Likewise we must also account for the real failures and flaws that existed, whether circumstancial or the result of decided policy. Until then, I believe it is largely futile trying to engage with secular society, because the perception of Irish Catholicism is now inextricably tied up (whether we like it or not) with its historic social role. Another thing that bothers me is that we have no high-circulation secular/mainstream newspapers, reviews or magazines in which to express a traditionalist perspective --- unlike traditionalist Catholics in France, Italy or the USA. I hate the present but really dread the future. If I didn't have access to old Irish Catholic publications, I think I would go insane (or more insane than I already am). Everything seems so hopeless...no? What do we do? Any ideas or suggestions? First, why is the history of Irish Catholicism that important? Like most versions of history now where there is an accepted (say liberal) version that dominates then there will be inevitably be a counter argument put forward at some point that will challenge that view. What we should be doing better is attacking the consumerist liberal policies far more intelligently than we do at present and putting forward a more Christian solution. For example: 1) Global financial meltdown and misery caused by greed and a consumerism that treats people as purchasing entities. Fueled by advertising that exploits and manipulates people's insecurities and neuroses. Consumerism has failed dramatically and yet the Governments are still allowed to talk the same language of economic recoveries etc without challenge. Unbelievable. 2.) Biggest abuse of children is being carried out by liberal governments and big business. Thousands of young children are on the streets of our towns and cities drinking alcohol, rarely being challenged and often being moved on to a different drinking location by authorities (police. councils, government). Cause - the consumerist society targetting children with alcopops, advertisements that emphasise life as a 'party', looking to have kids as consumers as early as possible. The alcohol situation alone is a timebomb of misery and ill health for the rest of the lives of an unlucky percentage of these children. Society has turned its back - talking about history there will be many a person looking back to these years and wondering why nothing was done. 3.) The liberal agenda, particularly the 'rights' issues should be challenged daily. For example many liberals laud rights for women - while at the same time 12% of the internet is dedicated to Porn and is recognised as a big industry. Treats women as pieces of meat or objects. In short the hypocrisy of much lauded 'rights' against what really happens is breathtaking, yet hardly commented upon. The rights of Children - fine but why at the same time are they being sexualised at an early age by the music industry and this without great challenge. Why don't we close down Facebook if we know it is being used for grooming. Why do we permit sex tourists to go elsewhere for their crime? Gargantuam hypocrisy. I could go on but at times I'm amazed that there are not more Catholic minded articulate commentators hitting home these points ad nauseam.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 4, 2011 21:34:10 GMT
First of all, Shane - don't lose hope. The triumphs of evil are temporary - good has already won where it matters. We must never forget this: Second - Assisi - the reason why history matters is that the way we perceive the past shapes how we perceive the present. What is most significant about Shane's post is the quote that standard accounts of secularisation in Sixties Britain are shaped by liberal assumptions. The key word there is assumptions. Assumptions are what is taken for granted, so that the person who has them doesn't realise that another point of view on the subject is possible; any other view is seen as so self-evidently false and monstrous that it is impossible anything can be said in its favour. Socrates was put to death because he made it his life's work to challenge people's assumptions and realise they had to be thought through - which is a painful process. I often cite as an example of this the nineteenth-century English art critic John Ruskin, who recalled that at a certain point in his life he realised that if his theory of the relationship between art and religion was correct he ought to be a Catholic, but he simply could not do it because "I could no more believe in the living Pope than in the Lama of Tibet". And I often cite Newman's remark in his sermon on THE SECOND SPRING that the great achievement of his generation was making the people of Britain realise that Catholicism was not some gloomy, strange and archaic mystery but that it had to be taken seriously and understood in its own terms. This is the necessary precondition for evangelisation, and that is what is being lost in Ireland today. The history of Irish Catholicism is important because (a) People's perceptions of that history lead many to demonise Catholicism and assume that whatever the ills of the present may be, the answer can't lie there (b) We ourselves need to understand it to avoid making the same mistakes that were made before. For example, industrial schools and magdalen asylums were set up with the best intentions, to deal with real social evils - but they turned out not to be the answer, and because they were surrounded with a religious awe it took longer to assess their actual performance than it should have, and many lives were wrecked as a result. I may comment on your specific points later.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 2, 2011 22:52:05 GMT
Irish Papist notes that the IRISH TIMES is giving Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland a series of articles in its Rite and Reason column, in which he says nothing he hasn't said umpteen times before. Actually, it's worse than he suggests. Nugent is being given this series in reply to an equally interminable series of articles by ex-Professor Mackey of Edinburgh, which set forth his own version of Christianity. Now Mackey's version of Christianity was extremely heterodox by the standards of any form of historic Christianity (he put forward a form of pantheism, expressly denied the concepts of priesthood, sacrifice and atonement, suggested Judaism, Islam and Eastern religions were all closer to Jesus than historic Christianity and especially Catholicism, declared Jesus was a son of God only in the sense that we all are sons of God etc) so by choosing Nugent as interlocutor the IRISH TIMES is implicitly suggesting that the only real choice is between atheism and a brand of Christianity so diluted (and with very dodgy substances too) that it is hardly Christian at all, and outright materialist atheism. I remember once reading an essay by Roger Scruton which portrayed an Open University TV programme which presented the semblance of debate by having a discussion between a Gramscian Marxist (arguing that the bourgeoisie are enabled to exploit the proletariat by their cultural hegemony) and an orthodox "economist" Marxist (arguing that the bourgeoisie are able to exploit the proletariat by their control of the material means of production) without ever admitting for discussion the possibility that Marxism might be incorrect. Naturally, when faced with such a parody of Christianity as Mackey's one instinctively prefers straightforward atheists who do not pretend to be something they are not. In this case, however, Mackey had at least gone to the trouble of inventing his own version of Christianity, whereas Nugent is simply channelling Dawkins and Co - and like them he substitutes sneers for argument. I notice, for instance, that he sneers at the Gospel of Mark for having the resurrected Jesus tell the disciples that those who believe in Him will be able to drink poison And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:17-18) Mr Nugent implies that this is self-evidently ridiculous, but let's look at it a little more closely. Firstly, even if we assume for the moment that atheism is in fact true, the early Christians clearly did not read this passage as literally as Mr Nugent - otherwise Christianity would have died out in the first generation as the early Christians would all have drunk poison! Instead, the early Christians read this statement both as symbolising victory over the perils we face in this world and the next, and as a sign which God of His own will might sometimes work through the faithful and which there is a good deal of historical evidence (albeit varying in quality) that He has in fact worked in different times and places. But that is a possibility too complex for Mr Nugent to entertain, and he does not give a damn about what the early Christians actually believed so long as he can pretend to be cool - so, like a blind guide, he blocks the road for others by making them think it is uncool to look into that possibility, and cool to sneer at it. irishpapist.blogspot.com/2011/10/godless-pulpit.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 5, 2011 12:41:25 GMT
In the current IRISH CATHOLIC Michael Kelly discusses how Charlie Flanagan of FG has inherited his father's habit of making wild accusations, if not his religious opinions www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/charlie-standing-vatican-michael-kellyEXTRACTS On the eve of the presidential election last week, he logged onto Twitter to boom, apparently apropos of nothing, that the ''Church must face up to its responsibility. Gay Mitchell as President he would stand up to Vatican'' [sic]. [THIS IS PARTICULARLY NOTEWORTHY GIVEN THAT PART OF MITCHELL'S SELLING POINT WAS THAT HE REPRESENTED THE CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAT TRADITION IN FG AS DISTINCT FROM THE LIBERAL OR SOCIAL DEMOCRAT STRANDS - HIB] Deputy Flanagan, who in the wake of the Cloyne Report also called for the Papal Nuncio to be run out of Ireland, didn't bother to explain what he meant by his insistence that the Church ''must face up to its responsibility''. Now, if he means that the Church must fully acknowledge the horror of clerical sexual abuse and co-operate fully and appropriately with the civil authorities, then I am in complete agreement with him. What I find perplexing, however, is the rhetoric of ''standing up'' to the Vatican. I assume that is what Mr Flanagan believes Taoiseach Enda Kenny was doing in his now famous attack on Rome in the Dáil. And, to be fair, Mr Kenny had many good and valid points. His speech, of course, was let down by his factual errors, his misquoting of the Pope and -- most damagingly -- his failure to provide evidence or even elaborate on a claim that the Vatican had tried to interfere in a child abuse investigation in Ireland three years ago. It's also somewhat disturbing that Mr Flanagan appears to believe that the role of the President might be to ''stand up'' to the Vatican, or indeed any other sovereign state. Isn't the very point of the presidency the fact that the office-holder stands above narrow politics? ...So, why does Mr Flanagan believe that the role of a Mr Mitchell in àras an Uachtaráin would have been to stand up to the Vatican? Well, to say that he has been hostile would be putting it rather mildly. As noted above, Mr Flanagan called for the expulsion of the Papal Nuncio even before the Nuncio was asked for a response to the Cloyne Report by the Government -- a classic case of shoot first and ask questions later. The Nuncio had questions to answer and it was right that the Government expressed disappointment about a 1997 letter to Irish bishops described by Judge Yvonne Murphy as ''unhelpful'' but everyone deserves at least a hearing, no? Mr Flanagan is also on the record as believing that the upper echelons of the civil service in Ireland is heavily infiltrated by members of what he describes as ''secret Catholic societies''. He's never offered any evidence to substantiate this claim or even mentioned the name of these supposed societies much less name the individuals behind the conspiracy. [TO BE FAIR, HE MAY BE INFLUENCED BY HIS FATHER'S PROMINENCE IN THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBANUS, AND THERE IS A WIDESPREAD PERCEPTION THAT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE KNIGHTS DID HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PRESENCE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, PARTICULARLY HEALTH AND EDUCATION - BUT GIVEN THE EXTENT TO WHICH IRISH SOCIETY, AND ESPECIALLY THE PROFESSIONAL CLASSES FROM WHICH CIVIL SERVANTS ARE RECRUITED, HAS SECULARISED IN THE LAST 30-40 YEARS I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THERE WAS MUCH SUBSTANCE IN IT NOW. CHARLIE F ISN'T THE ONLY ONE ON HIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO TAR OPPOSITION BY CLAIMING DARK SECRET CATHOLIC FORCES ARE HOLDING UP "REFORM" - RUAIRI QUINN HAS BEEN A PARTICULARLY NOTEWORTHY OFFENDER - HIB.] END Part of this "standing up to the Vatican" rhetoric reflects a desire to present himself and his allies as heroic figures battling against powerful dark forces, and to discredit critics/opponents as tarred by association with said dark forces. I wonder also does it owe something to his memoires of 1986 when he was fighting a losing game as head of the pro-divorce campaign in Laois-Offaly while his father led the anti-divorce forces. He may have formed this self-image as David against Goliath then and still cling to it now. BTW the article on his father in the new DICTIONARY OF IRISH BIOGRAPHY - I think by Diarmuid Ferriter - quotes him as saying his father was "manipulated" and "used as a tool" by elements within the Church. This reflects I think the same mindset - unwillingness to accept that the Church's supporters might have minds of their own and act of their own free will. I would certainly say Oliver J had a mind of his own, though I do think there were questionable elements of his political style which his son has inherited. (I do not mean the Jew-baiting, which OJF apologised for in later life - I mean the tendency to reckless accusations and refusal to believe in opponents' bona fides. The fact that OJF apparently saw no contradiction between professions of piety and publicly defending jobbery as a natural and necessary part of politics is also painfully revealing of the flaws within mid-century popular Catholicism which contributed to the subsequent collapse.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 19, 2011 20:04:33 GMT
From the CLERICAL ERRORS section in the new PHOENIX ANNUAL 2011: "When Benedict announces his new bishops, they will be mandated to frustrate sovereign moves by the Government to legalise abortion in accordance with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights..." Note the delicious logic here (1) when bishops, presumably Irish citizens with the same rights as other Irish citizens, oppose a legislative proposal put forward by the government, they are "frustrating" Irish sovereignty - which would logically mean that everyone who opposes the government or takes the losing side in a referendum is infringing Irish sovereignty. [Addendum: Clerical Errors' "logic" holds that since the government are elected by the sovereign people, any opposition to a measure proposed by them constitutes an attack on the people's sovereignty - this would logically imply that the mere existence of opposition parties constitutes an attack on Irish sovereignty. Joe Stalin and Mussolini said exactly the same... And when the voters rejected the government's referendum proposal on Dail inquiries, did the government infringe popular sovereignty, or did the people infringe their own sovereignty by opposing the government?] (2) When the Government does something because the European Court tells them to do it, that is a sacred exercise of Irish sovereignty! Goldvulture has really outdone himself in twisted pseudo-logic. The same article sings hosannas and hallelujahs to the Association of Catholic Priests. Daniel O'Connell said if the London TIMES praised him he would examine his conscience; I think some soul-searching is in order for the ACP. ADDENDUM - and of course Clerical Errors is deliberately echoing the language of INda Kinny's speech and using it to imply that opposing abortion is equivalent to frustrating official inquiries into child abuse.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 20, 2011 18:12:26 GMT
Interesting American discussion of how their courts whittle away religious freedom and the principles underlying this mindset. One interesting point BTW is that the deciding case involved the question of whether American Indians who take intoxicating drugs as part of a religious ritual should be exempt from drug laws, and that the most "conservative" judges supported the decision with the most "liberal" opposed. Our constitutional position is somewhat different from the US, but expect worse trends here (given secularism is stronger in Europe and the US has a stronger emphasis on protecting free speech via their First Amendment in ways we do not). www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/11/4258EXTRACT The Founders’ protection of religious freedom in the First Amendment was in keeping with their recognition of the supreme importance of the individual, who was created by God and subject to God’s natural law. The early twentieth-century Progressives largely rejected this view, as they concluded that man must not be limited by “arbitrary” rules such as those imposed by religion. Modern progressives have seized upon this viewpoint, especially in their attitudes toward sex. The State will teach children about sex, and it will do so by disconnecting it from its most important component—the spiritual. It does not matter that such teachings are, by nature, within the rights of parents. Progressives have carried these attitudes to federal, state, and local governments, and the result has been an unprecedented assault on religious values and religious practice. Governmental authorities embrace the view that access to contraception (and abortion) is a fundamental right vital to sexual freedom. Similarly, homosexual conduct must be completely normalized and accepted. The law must prohibit even private preference for heterosexual norms, and if religion teaches such a preference, religion must yield. These attitudes must be taught to children in the public schools in order to affirm, in the state’s view, the full self-realization of every person—and as shown below, parents who object to the assault on their right to bring up their children according to their religious values have discovered that the courts will not protect their rights in this regard. Churches and other people of faith have relied on the judicial process to protect their First Amendment freedoms. But litigation takes an enormous toll in time and resources. Even worse, as many disappointed litigants have discovered, courts grant extraordinary leeway to government and government schools in advancing so-called neutral, generally applicable laws. The courts will follow the lead of the people in defining the parameters of religious liberty; if the people abdicate, the courts will not intercede to protect that liberty... Although older Supreme Court authority acknowledged the fundamental right of parents to control the upbringing and education of their children (Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Wisconsin v. Yoder), the post-Smith courts have severely limited those holdings to their unique facts. Now, courts are more likely to hold that parents relinquish, as a practical matter, their First Amendment right to control their children’s education when they choose public schools over private schools or homeschooling. As one court said, parents “have no constitutional right . . . to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.” The denigration of religious freedom extends to areas of purely private, commercial conduct. Governments increasingly apply nondiscrimination statutes to force private individuals and businesses to participate in conduct that violates their religious beliefs. So far, defenses based on the First Amendment have been unavailing... In none of these cases did the religious defendants discriminate against homosexuals just because of their orientation—i.e., they did not refuse to serve them in a restaurant or work on their cars or give them standard medical care. Rather, they declined to participate in an endeavor, such as same-sex marriage or adoption, which was inconsistent with their religious beliefs. But the courts and agencies found that nondiscrimination trumps religious values... The hostility of courts to such claims of First Amendment violations is unlikely to change, especially in light of the governmental officials’ gravitation toward the European attitude about religion—that it is a divisive influence that must be contained and marginalized. As jurists and legal scholars flirt with the idea of consulting foreign law to evaluate claims under our Constitution, this attitude could take deeper root in American soil.... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 21, 2011 15:54:17 GMT
An interesting comment on how the Prime Time documentary used visual techniques to convey the message that Fr Reynolds was evil, the church a sinister organisation, and the Pope criminal. Some commenters (e.g. the IRISH CATHOLIC TV critic have noted how when covering church scandals RTE routinely uses shots of shadowy churches, clips of Latin chant, etc to present Catholic churches, ritual, priests and religious etc as inherently sinister - the stuff of horror movies. It is perfectly correct to say that there are affinities between this and the visual style of certain types of anti-semitic propaganda: www.newenglishreview.org/Theodore_Dalrymple/How_To_Hate_The_Non-Existent/EXTRACT Not long ago, while I was in France, the centenary of the final separation of church and state was celebrated. It was presented as the triumph of reason over reaction, of humanity over inhumanity, and I am not entirely out of sympathy for that viewpoint: I certainly don’t want to live myself in a state in which a single religion has a predominant or even strong say in the running of it. And yet the story was far more nuanced that that triumphantly presented. For example, a fascinating book was published on the occasion of the centenary reproducing the iconography of the anticlerical propaganda that preceded the separation by thirty years; and on looking in to it I saw at once that it was exactly the same in tone as anti-semitic propaganda. There was the wickedly sybaritic hook-nosed cardinal in diabolical scarlet, the thin hairy spider, representing the economic interests of the church, whose sinister legs straddled the whole globe, and the priest who welcomed innocent little children into the fold of his black cloak. One has to remember that almost the first consequence of secularism in France, as in Russia, was unprecedented slaughter. Perhaps one of the reasons that contemporary secularists do not simply reject religion but hate it is that they know that, while they can easily rise to the levels of hatred that religion has sometimes encouraged, they will always find it difficult to rise to the levels of love that it has sometimes encouraged. END www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/11/five-questions-the-irish-missionary-union-are-asking-rte/#commentsRory Connor November 20th, 2011 at 11:55 am To the Irish Missionary Union. I am pleased that you are putting pressure on RTE but the truth is that you are dealing with an anti-clerical organisation that behaves no differently from anti-Semitic or racist groups. Anti-clericalism is NOT a morally acceptable form of hatred that is somehow superior to other types. Have a look at the topic in www.Politics.ie called “RTE Settles Defamation Case”. The following is the text of comment no. 121 that describes the atmosphere of the “Mission to Prey” programme insofar as it refers to Fr Reynolds. (It’s not my comment by the way.): www.politics.ie/forum/media/175916-rte-settles-defamation-case-13.htmlI put that edited excerpt onto YouTube. I would remove it immediately if I thought it was doing any damage whatsoever to Fr Kevin Reynolds. The reason I put it up originally was partly because RTE removed the original broadcast from their site, an action I perceived to be an attempt to lessen public objection in seeing the clip in the light of Fr Kevin Reynold’s complete innocence. [THE EXTRACT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED FROM YOUTUBE BECAUSE RTE CLAIMED IT INFRINGED THEIR COPYRIGHT - HIB] I wanted people in particular to see the devices used in the program, the foreboding music, the shaky camera view of Fr Reynolds saying Mass, the barbed wire shot outside the church, the utter fabrication of the mother of the Kenyan girl’s testimony, if indeed she was even shown a picture of the man prior to telling her story, and especially, especially how they show the Pope, as if with an ‘evil smile’, waving to crowds while the menacing music begins again. This program is laced with agenda. It is so discouraging to see the repeated recurrence of commenting that ‘heads should roll’ at RTE. This means nothing. In fact, the defamation damages probably mean nothing to RTE either. As I believe one poster pointed out, RTE may well have ‘libel insurance’. One of the real travesties in this matter, apart from the grievance done to Fr Kevin Reynolds, is that RTE will undoubtedly skulk away from having to answer the real killer question – why they did this. I think leaving that video on YouTube is a reminder for people not to be so gullible as to fall prey to these devices again when used in that sort of sensationalist manner. This is precisely how an anti-Semitic broadcaster would depict Jews! So keep on the pressure but don’t assume that RTE made an unfortunate mistake and will do better in future. I suspect that the next thing on their agenda will be how to get revenge on the Catholic Church for their humiliation! END OF EXTRACT More from an INDO journalist on RTE's disgraceful behaviour The commenters make such interesting points as this: EXTRACT Sean 2 days ago Apart from knowing the amount of the award it would be revealing to know which box the RTE staff ticked in the religion category of the 2011 census. 11 people liked this. Like Reply Frankie 2 days ago in reply to Sean They tick the anti-Catholic box. There has been anti-Catholic bias in RTE going back to the 1980s. This was first highlighted in a report in The Irish Times on 10th February, 1986. The newspaper reported: "Mrs. Mary McAleese, Professor of Law at TCD, said yesterday that she was satisfied that anti-Catholic prejudice had influenced some members of Dublin Broadcasting Branch of the National Union of Journalists, when it decided that her membership of the union should be suspended". She said one week after she appeared at the New Ireland Forum with a delegation of Catholic bishops in 1984 the branch spent considerable time discussing her involvement with them. It was agreed that a special meeting be held to discuss double jobbing. The meeting took place in March, 1984. She was the only person named as engaging in it, though many members of the NUJ seemed to be doing it, she said (such as Brian Farrell of the Todday Tonight programme, who was Associate Professor of Politics at UCD). Asked if she really believed that anti-Catholic prejudice had been operating against her, she said: "I have no doubt whatever about it. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I had gone to the Forum with a Church of Ireland, or a Jewish delegation there would not be a word about it". She said that there was never any problem about her union membership until she appeared at the Forum. Asked if the union was not inconsistent in retaining Brian Farrell in memberrship, while he continued to be Associate Professor of Politics at UCD, a RTE union spokesman replied: "Yes; there are anomalies". If you don't like a newspaper, you don't buy it. But we are forced to buy a licence fee that goes towards paying gross amounts to RTE "celebreties" and, in return, we get unbalanced anti-Catholic diabtribes and ambush televisioin like what hapened on the final Frontline programme before the presidential election. END www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/bitter-lesson-for-rte-in-reynolds-libel-case-2939629.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 23, 2011 20:02:57 GMT
A poster on Politics.ie calls Patsy McGarry's modus operandi what it is. Anyone who read McGarry's recent IRISH CATHOLIC article denying the media is biased against the Church will recognise this at once: www.politics.ie/forum/media/176265-vinny-browne-22-11-11-fr-kevin-reynolds-rte-s-prime-time-12.htmlToday 07:23 PM #119 Fr. Hank Tree Politics.ie Regular Join Date Feb 2007 Posts 5,339 Thought yer man Patsy McGarry really made a plonker of himself last night. Breda O'Brien made a point about some survey showing that a significant no. of people think the percentage of priests who are abusers is higher than it actually is, or something like that. She then suggested that the manner of the media reportage of the various scandals was responsible. Patsy McGarry then basically attacked her for saying this (he made a few accusations which were not relevant). He claimed that the findings of the various statutory investigations themselves were responsible, not the media. Of course, this does not make any sense. Do the statutory reports contridict O'Briens assertion of the no. of priests who are actaully abusers? Of course not, therefore, they could not possibly be the reason why people think there are more bad apples than there are. Thus, it becomes a matter of accounting for that difference between the perception and the reality. O'Brien submitted that it was the media that is primarily responsible, which is actually fair enough. Afterall, the reason people overestimate the numbers is that a crucial fact is often neglected in these types of stories, relating to context. This is that the church in Ireland was traditionally so vast and omnipresent across society that the percentage of abusers seems higher even though it is equal proportionately to abuse generally in the country. Of course, if you want to draw links between catholicism and the abuse scandals, so as to undermine catholicism in Ireland, as part of a broader agenda, you will play down this fact. And as Susie Donnelly and Tom Inglis have written (sorry you need a subscription to read the full article), the major role played by the media in these scandals has been part of a broader malevolent agenda of secularisation in Ireland. Maybe next time, Windbag McGarry can let these things be discussed instead of attacking those who make some attempt to point it out. Last edited by Fr. Hank Tree; Today at 07:55 PM. Vote McGuinness No. 1
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 26, 2011 20:13:30 GMT
David Quinn has a very strong piece in the current IRISH CATHOLIC pointing out that the current Forum on Catholic-managed schools is not merely setting out to get the Church to divest itself of many schools, but that it has made statements suggesting it sees denominational education as inherently divisive and wants denominational (especially Catholic) schools to be compelled to have only non-denominational prayers, a mixture of denominational/religious symbols and a clear separation between religious teaching and the curriculum - in short, denominational schools are only to be allowed to present their beliefs as one option among many and not to teach that Catholicism (or Protestantism, or Islam, or whatever) is actually true. I would recommend that everyone read this. It doesn't seem to be available online yet or I would post a link. Meanwhile, let me draw your belated attention to this very outspoken piece by John Waters from last week's IRISH CATHOLIC pointing out how the government and especially the Labour Party are speaking with forked tongues to disguise their real agenda from those who still need to be duped: www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/view-government-bigots-john-watersEXTRACT The Government doesn't even have the courage of its convictions, but seeks to hide behind subterfuge and dissembling. Rather than state that it has declared war on the Catholic Church, it prevaricates about cost-cutting. Eamon Gilmore denies that there is an ulterior motive in the embassy closure, while several of his ministers go around the place whooping triumphantly about their great coup. The Tanaiste's Labour Party colleague, the Minister for Education, works day and night to drive the Catholic Church out of the education system, and then avails of a Catholic platform to pretend he has no desire to do this. Earlier this month, speaking at the Mater Dei Institute in Dublin, Rúairi Quinn purported to give a ringing endorsement to the importance of religious education in our culture. Describing himself as ''a practicing atheist'', he said that beliefs were vital to the healthy growth both of individuals and societies. ''Religious education'', he said, ''is part of a vital set of tools that people need if they are to be active citizens and they are to make informed choices about issues.'' He criticised the failure of many Irish Catholics to take their faith seriously and linked this to some of our current difficulties: ''Everyone has a belief system, whether it's religious or not. We are all born into a belief system, but it is as adults that we have to take responsibility for and ownership of that. If more people took that seriously, we might not be in the economic mess in which we now find ourselves.'' Enlightened This would have seemed like an enlightened intervention had Mr Quinn not been among the most vocal and active of those who now seek to saw through the tent-pole which has sustained Irish society for 1,500 years. You would think from this that it must be a different Rúairi Quinn who leads the atheist charge on the Church's role in education and urges parents to move in to dispel Church representatives from school boards. The very least we Catholics might ask of Government ministers is that, in pursuing the destruction of our culture, they might at least desist from patronising us... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2011 21:48:04 GMT
Ah good old Mr. Waters, so insightful and devout I just cannot help having a crush on him. He is right, what do we put in the chasm when Catholicism is chased away? It gives us a view of the world and of our place in the world, and of others of course. I dread to think where we will by the time I get old. I am surprised that newspaper is still employing him considering he is in line with Church teaching.
Mr. Quinn criticises us for not taking our faith seriously, if as many of us who want the Last Rites attended to the sacraments between now and the day we die Mr. Quinn would have a problem pushing through his policies. He counts on apathy. I can't be doing with that faux sincerity.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 28, 2011 20:29:30 GMT
I am amazed about how open some politicos have become about their atheism or otherwise now. I never recall it before.
BTW, isn't Ruairí Quinn pals with the Abbot of Glenstall?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 29, 2011 21:53:05 GMT
Quinn is quite open about his atheism in his memoirs which were published in 2005. Ivana Bacik's claim at an Atheist Ireland meeting last year that she was the only "out" atheist in the Oireachtas wasn't true when she made it and hadn't been true for some time. A more striking sign of how the wind blows in that regard was that Ciaran Cannon's statement when PD leader that he was an atheist didn't pose any problem at all for his acceptance by FG and election as a TD in Galway East. MArk Patrick Hederman certainly seems to have some interesting Labour friends. Michael D Higgins went to Glenstal for a pre-inaguration period of reflection/spirituality.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2011 14:04:24 GMT
Thirsty Gargoyle comments on the Breda O'Brien-Patsy McGarry exchange noted by the Politics.ie post cited above. It appears Patsy McGarry directly accused her - and by extension anyone who criticises media coverage of the scandals or expresses scepticism at any time about individual accusations - of belonging to "the provisional wing of the Ctholic Church" and of actively helping to cover up abuse: EXTRACT Let the Character Assassination Begin! At that, the word 'media' acted like a dog whistle and Patsy McGarry, the Religious Affairs Correspondent of the Irish Times since 1997 or so, and a man who I suspect has depended more on clerical abuse stories for his bread and butter than anybody else in Irish life over the last fifteen years, leapt into action: ‘Can I point out also that Breda comes from the Provisional wing of the Catholic Church, and never resists an opportunity to have a go at the media and has been doing this for years, often to the detriment of the emergence of this tragedy.’ Breda pressed him to explain this, pointing out that it was a very serious allegation, and asked him to clarify it. Had Patsy really said that she had been a party that acted in a way that was detrimental to the revelation of abuse, that she had defended the Church in such a way that delayed the emergence of the story? Patsy responded to this by saying that this was indeed the case: ‘I was saying, Breda, that you and other people have found yourself in situations where you have defended the Church in contexts where things happened that were not defensible, that delayed the emergence of this story. [...]For instance, you cast doubt on people like Christine Buckley when she first came out about the abuse in Goldenbridge. There was doubt cast on -- I can't remember all the incidents...’ I’m not entirely sure that Breda did cast doubt on Christine Buckley and others, but assuming for the sake of argument that she did, surely there are two questions that need addressing. First, ought we to accept heinous allegations without recognising any possibility of doubt, or should we treat them with a healthy scepticism? As a historian, my instincts are to doubt and test everything. Second, did Breda's supposed scepticism in any way hinder the emergence of the story? I think it’s pretty obvious from the figures that voices of caution have hardly held sway in this matter, such that any influence Breda might conceivably have had has been very slight. No, unless it can be shown that Breda’s actions had the effect of delaying the emergence of the story, this would have to be recognised as defamation on Patsy’s part; to me it looked like an outright ad hominem attack, designed to discredit somebody who was sitting right next to him and who was likely to take a line contrary to his own. It was, as Breda said, ‘a little bit of character assassination’, and the most perfect example of a phenomenon we now have in Ireland where ‘anybody who challenges the consensus on this and who says there is more than one side to this gets this treatment, gets called “people who have delayed the truth emerging”.’... Given how magnanimously she treated Patsy for the rest of the programme, and how resolutely she focused on the issues, notably the fact that were it not for the determination of the Association of Catholic Priests an innocent man would have gone to his grave branded as a rapist, I doubt Breda will make this story about herself. The fact remains, though: what Patsy McGarry said was defamation, pure and simple, and if he isn’t sued for this, he shouldn’t just consider himself lucky; he should be profoundly grateful for Breda’s charity and her willingness to forgive. END OF EXTRACTS Thirsty Gargoyle goes on to note that McGarry claims that people's tendency to overestimate the percentage of abusers who are priests derives from the revelations about clerical abuse and not from the way the media reports them, but that a brief inspection of the IRISH TIMES online archive shows the IT reports abuse in ways which encourage overestimates of clerical abuse - for example, priest child abusers are routinely described as "paedophile priest" whereas when the perpetrator is not a priest they are almost always described as "journalist" "farmer" "teacher" etc rather than "paedophile journalist" "paedophile teacher" "paedophile farmer"... EXTRACT Patsy accepted that most people vastly overestimate the amount of Irish clergy who are guilty of sexual abuse, attributing this to the fact that since 2005 we have had the Ryan Report into the industrial schools and into how abuse allegations were handled in Ferns, Dublin, and Cloyne. ‘Don’t tell me,’ he said, ‘the media is responsible for the climate in which these awful things have happened! It’s not the media – it’s the abuse that caused this!’ Crunching the Numbers That sounds very convincing, until you start looking at the figures dating well before 2005, and do so while keeping in mind how the only serious large-scale survey of abuse survivors in Ireland indicates that under 1.7 per cent of sexual abuse in Ireland was clerical. The SAVI Report which established that figure also cited an article which noted that between 1993 and 2000, the term ‘paedophile priest’ had been used 332 times in the Irish Times, while such terms as ‘paedophile teacher’ and ‘paedophile journalist’ were nowhere to be seen. I’ve scoured the archive since then as best I can myself, and found that of all the articles, columns, and letters published between September 2000 and August 2011, More than 22 per cent of all pieces using the word ‘paedophile’ did so as part of the phrase ‘paedophile priest’. There were 295 uses of the phrase ‘paedophile priest', three uses of the phrase ‘paedophile teacher,’ and still not even one use of the phrase ‘paedophile journalist’. 46 per cent of all pieces that used the phrase ‘sex abuse’ did so as part of the phrases ‘clerical sex abuse’ or ‘clerical child sex abuse’. Almost 49 per cent of all pieces using the phrase ‘child sex abuse’ did so as part of the phrase ‘clerical child sex abuse’. At the time of my search, 89 of the hundred most recent pieces referring to abuse did so with reference to abuse committed or allegedly committed by office-holders in the Catholic Church. In the month prior to my survey, the Cloyne Report, which definitively revealed only that two men had not followed their own agreed policies but had broken no laws, had been mentioned 163 times, whereas the SAVI Report of 2002, which had revealed that 27 per cent of Irish adults had been abused in their childhood, with almost all of them being abused by people who were not Catholic clergy, had been mentioned just 63 times in nine years. Is the Irish Church to blame for how it's currently viewed? Sure, but it's not the Church alone that's to blame. Are we really going to keep on pretending that the Irish media’s telling the truth on this? It’s not. I’m not saying it's biased, but in its pursuit of what’s probably been Ireland's biggest story in decades, it's developed tunnel vision, and has done so in such a way that innocent people are assumed guilty, the plight of hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens has gone ignored, and the real dangers posed to Irish children now and in the future are hardly mentioned... END OF EXTRACT thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.com/2011/11/dangerously-one-eyed-view.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2011 18:38:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 6, 2011 22:39:39 GMT
|
|