|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 26, 2015 18:54:45 GMT
Two days ago the IRISH TIMES had a piece by a gay activist lauding the "national healing" taking place as a result of the passage of the marriage-abolition referendum. Today its agony aunt column had a letter from a gay person who was refusing to have any further contact with their family because they had been so nefarious as to vote No (it is clear from the letter that the family did not flaunt this information but admitted it under interrogation). I wonder how the Tara Street Pulpit would react to a NO voter who declared that they were disowning their relatives for voting YES? Some healing - I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 1, 2015 8:04:55 GMT
I don't know how many of you find Irish easy, but this is a piece worth working through: www.irishtimes.com/culture/treibh/t%C3%A1-ginmhilleadh-in-%C3%A9irinn-cheana-ach-d%C3%A9anann-ryanair-%C3%A9-a-cheilt-1.2371286The writer comes from a similar background as many of us, 1st year in Presentation Convent, Terenure when the X-case broke, a convinced pro-lifer who was anti-divorce in 1995, due to parental influence, yet is now herself divorced and her mother voted for same-sex marriage recently. The piece is sincere and I can detect some sympathy, but this is someone whom encountering the "real world" changed. I suppose it can be read on a number of different levels, pro-life, religious education/practice, changes in Irish society. So whether you use babblefish and check against the original or try to work through it with an on-line dictionary (Ó Dómhnaill is the best; and in the online situation, though it's an Irish-English dictionary, it can be used as an English-Irish dictionary as the hard copy can't be used. I never got a word in de Bhaldraithe - the official English-Irish dictionary - that I was comfortable with until I cross checked with Ó Dómhnaill), I think the piece is interesting, and tragic.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 1, 2015 12:07:35 GMT
I'm afraid that my Irish is at an appalling standard through lack of practice. I've often wondered how the Irish-language IT articles compare to the English ones; part of me wondered if they were actually more conservative (I think partly tongue-in-cheek). These kind of stories are indeed tragic, and I think representative of so much that has happened in the lives of Irish people. How is it that across the world, in so many countries and cultures, the Church has been outflanked and hamstrung by its opponents? It makes the conspiracy theory approach seem to have some merit (although that route only short-circuits any real attempts at diagnosis). I know that it's seeing things in a very worldly way but these things have a huge impact. I remember hearing a homily on this Gospel passage which struck me very forcibly: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016The priest said that the passage which says: '8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.' isn't meant to say that we should accept that the children of the world are shrewder, but rather that we should learn to be even shrewder in our dealings in the world; I suppose along the lines of being 'gentle as doves and cunning as serpents.'
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 1, 2015 20:33:55 GMT
My Irish is not good and I'm afraid my patience is worse. Agreed, it's a sad story and I suspect one which is all too common. This sort of personal tragedy will always happen, but as the "default condition" of society's attitudes changes it becomes harder and harder to do the right thing. This is one reason why it's not enough to believe the right things - we need to work to create viable subcultures whose members find it easier to live the right way, because of mutual support. This won't be easy and it won't always be pretty. I read a memoir of Frank Sheed and Maisie Ward by their son (who himself had lapsed) and the son recalls how, in the period of post-Vatican II chaos, he asked his father what individual doubts might make him give up the faith. Sheed replied that it was not a question of individual doubts - just that he might wake up some morning and decide the whole package didn't make sense any more. I think that is what happened to an awful lot of Irish Catholics over the last five decades.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Oct 2, 2015 13:01:31 GMT
I think that nails it, Hibernicus. Lots of practicing Catholics (myself included) have individual doubts from time to time, or even continually. Yet these don't prevent them from believing the creed and staying in the Church. It seems to be something more fundamental that that.
What do you think this is?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 2, 2015 20:46:41 GMT
It's a matter of seeing the faith as a whole, not as a series of disconnected edicts, and having a fundamental commitment to it. I think many of the post-Vatican II changes have the effect of weakening both these things, going beyond what the broader trends would have brought anyway. Downplaying sacrifice is a big part of it.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 3, 2015 10:13:17 GMT
It's a matter of seeing the faith as a whole, not as a series of disconnected edicts, and having a fundamental commitment to it. I think many of the post-Vatican II changes have the effect of weakening both these things, going beyond what the broader trends would have brought anyway. Downplaying sacrifice is a big part of it. On a conceptual level, I agree entirely. But I think we have to do with something inscrutable here, beyond the teaching of concepts such as sacrifice or sin or the fragmentation of concepts. In terms of the Vatican II aftermath and of solid commitment … I think a lot to this quote from Tolkien: ‘The only cure for sagging or fainting faith is Communion…. Like the act of Faith, it must be continuous and grow by exercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals.’ Certainly I find daily communion a treasure. It gives me whatever strength and fire I have. And it was far more common before Vatican II … I have no doubt that Our Lord is present in the New Mass, but I do wonder if the new liturgy is like a _sieve_ compared to the old. Without a proper container, certain graces at least can dissipate or not be fully/properly received. Certainly, people do not care about the new liturgy the way they did with the old ...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 3, 2015 11:16:41 GMT
‘The only cure for sagging or fainting faith is Communion…. Like the act of Faith, it must be continuous and grow by exercise. Frequency is of the highest effect. Seven times a week is more nourishing than seven times at intervals.’ Certainly I find daily communion a treasure. It gives me whatever strength and fire I have. And it was far more common before Vatican II … Also beautiful is Tolkien's quote on Eucharistic Adoration from a letter to his son: www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/tes/quotes11.html (scroll down, it's near the bottom) That said, while I'd agree that daily communion was probably more common in the early 20th century, remember that it was actually very uncommon prior to Pius X, who changed much of the practice regarding communion!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 3, 2015 22:14:58 GMT
I agree; faith grows by exercise and withers without it. Part of the issue is that faith as custom/routine is dying back, at least in the West, and faith as conscious commitment has been thrown into crisis (at least among Catholics and mainline Protestants; evangelicals and fundamentalists are a bit different). I don't think it is enough for people to receive communion, frequently or otherwise, unless they have a sense of Who it is they are receiving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2015 12:17:19 GMT
I agree; faith grows by exercise and withers without it. Part of the issue is that faith as custom/routine is dying back, at least in the West, and faith as conscious commitment has been thrown into crisis (at least among Catholics and mainline Protestants; evangelicals and fundamentalists are a bit different). I don't think it is enough for people to receive communion, frequently or otherwise, unless they have a sense of Who it is they are receiving. Pardon me for just dropping in on this conversation, but from what I can see a big part of fundamentalist Protestantism is deeply rooted in conspiracy theories, with a special emphasis on the Catholic Church and/or Pope being the Whore of Babylon/Beast/False Prophet/Anti-Christ. That seems to be the big magnet for Protestant fundamentalism. They accuse the Church of paganism, etc; yet they don't seem to realise that Protestantism is just extremely watered down Catholicism (especially in the modern world). My point is that conspiracy theories are really all fundamentalists have to go on. By rallying the troops against the "Satanic Catholic Church", and because everyone who believes in Jesus Christ apparently goes to Heaven (with a large list of exceptions depending on the denomination), it's easy to see how fundamental Protestantism has stayed so strong. If you believe that by baselessly attacking the "Satanic" Church you are doing good work, it's no wonder fundamentalism lives on. People become more set in their convictions when there is a conflict of some kind. Then there is a tendency on the part of Protestant fundamentalists to just make excuses for why something is the way it is if it doesn't fit their narrative; for e.g., it's obviously another conspiracy theory to re-write history, etc.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 4, 2015 15:18:11 GMT
I agree; faith grows by exercise and withers without it. Part of the issue is that faith as custom/routine is dying back, at least in the West, and faith as conscious commitment has been thrown into crisis (at least among Catholics and mainline Protestants; evangelicals and fundamentalists are a bit different). I don't think it is enough for people to receive communion, frequently or otherwise, unless they have a sense of Who it is they are receiving. Pardon me for just dropping in on this conversation, but from what I can see a big part of fundamentalist Protestantism is deeply rooted in conspiracy theories, with a special emphasis on the Catholic Church and/or Pope being the Whore of Babylon/Beast/False Prophet/Anti-Christ. That seems to be the big magnet for Protestant fundamentalism. They accuse the Church of paganism, etc; yet they don't seem to realise that Protestantism is just extremely watered down Catholicism (especially in the modern world). My point is that conspiracy theories are really all fundamentalists have to go on. By rallying the troops against the "Satanic Catholic Church", and because everyone who believes in Jesus Christ apparently goes to Heaven (with a large list of exceptions depending on the denomination), it's easy to see how fundamental Protestantism has stayed so strong. If you believe that by baselessly attacking the "Satanic" Church you are doing good work, it's no wonder fundamentalism lives on. People become more set in their convictions when there is a conflict of some kind. Then there is a tendency on the part of Protestant fundamentalists to just make excuses for why something is the way it is if it doesn't fit their narrative; for e.g., it's obviously another conspiracy theory to re-write history, etc. 'Not one man in ninety [in post World War One Britain] really disapproves of praying for the dead. The War, in killing many million men, killed that pedantry and perversity. Not one man in ninety is either a Calvinist or an upholder of Faith against Works. Not one man in ninety thinks he will go to hell if he does not instantly accept the theological theory of redemption; perhaps it would be better if he did. Not one man in ninety believes the Bible infallible, as real Protestants believed it infallible. Of all that wonderful system of religious thought, thundered against Rome in so many sermons, argued against Rome in so many pamphlets, thrown out scornfully against Rome in so many Exeter Hall meetings and Parliamentary debates, nothing remains. Of all that, as it affects the forward movement of the educated classes, and the future of the world, nothing remains. But there is something that remains. Anti-Catholicism remains; though it is no longer Protestantism, any more than it is Albigensianism or Donatism. And that is the factor we must grasp and estimate, if we are to estimate the outlook to-day. Protestantism is now only a name; but it is a name that can be used to cover any or every "ism" except Catholicism. It is now a vessel or receptacle into which can be poured all the thousand things that for a thousand reasons react against Rome; but it can only be full of these things because it is now hollow; because it is itself empty." G.K. Chesterton, 'The Well and the Shallows'.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 5, 2015 20:33:54 GMT
I think Chesterton's comment has a good deal of truth when applied to people like the Kensitites protestanttruth.com/or to the rowdier sections of Orangeism, but it's a bit overstated. I certainly have met evangelicals who believe in classical Evangelical Protestantism - as a positive thing, not as a negative definition against Catholicism; indeed I suspect in the Republic you are more likely to find this sort of self-definition (against Catholicism above all) among the sort of ex-Catholics who infest the opinion pages of the IRISH TIMES and IRISH INDEPENDENT rather than among professed Protestants. There has even been a revival of classical Calvinism in America in recent decades, because it's the most rigorously worked-out form of Evangelical theology, so people who have some degree of intellectual sophistication, rebel against the anti-intellectualism, emotionalism and autodidacticism which are besetting sins of evangelicalism/fundamentalism and are not willing to consider Rome or Constantinople seriously are likely to wind up becoming Calvinists. That of course has its own problems - which Chesterton, as someone whose parents were brought up strict Calvinists and reacted against it, was well aware of - but Calvinism is certainly not as dead as Chesterton thought it was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barthen.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 6, 2015 7:24:07 GMT
The Irish Times can publish this story without any sense of irony.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 7, 2015 8:17:06 GMT
Saw this on the front page of The Irish Times. Anyone going to make a connexion between these companies and donations made to the "yes" in the same sex marriage referendum? The term "light touch" is coming back to bite, according to Derek Scally in the opinion pages. Meanwhile, the front page of the Irish Independent gives us this, which I would regard as the least of our worries in regard to education in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 10, 2015 9:37:09 GMT
I have to give The Irish Times full marks for this. In the same issue we have a rant from Patsy McGarry. I would like to see the unabridged versions of the speeches by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin which he quotes from. Mr McGarry is very much in the business of creating the perception of the Archbishop that exists out there. Nevertheless, the Times knew what they were getting when they took him on as Religious Affairs correspondent. On the same topic this morning, we have this report on how religion is actually taught in Catholic schools, which though promoting an agenda is a reflection of reality. There is a response to this in the opinion pieces by Fr Aelred Magee OCSO of Mount St Joseph, Roscrea. At the moment, Catholic ethos education is a battleground. This piece in The Irish Catholic a couple of weeks ago should serve as a reality check.
|
|