|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 17, 2013 9:58:04 GMT
I really think this is a very important argument Dreher is making.
I'm tired of the "whistling past the graveyard" response to secularization-- it's a good thing because it forces us to make a deliberate choice about faith, it's not happening because people phone psychic lines and go to astrologist's, it's not happening because there is a resurgence of (mostly, in my view, ethnically motivated) religious feeling in the Islamic world and in the Hindu world, it's not happening because America is the most modern country and is notably religious (America seems to be an anomaly and it is secularizing, though at a slower pace).
I'm not suggesting we should lose heart, certainly not that we should despair. But I do think Dreher is right that secularization is a very bad thing, and not just from a sociological point of view, either. I think somebody living in a culture imbued with a Christian ethos and Christian categories and Christian ideas is much more open to conversion than somebody in a culture where everything about Christianity seems novel and strange. I might be wrong but that is what I am inclined to think.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2013 21:29:27 GMT
Peter Hitchens discusses the significance of the recent European Court decisions on anti-Christian discrimination in Britain. (NB his dislike for the concept of "natural law" on which he notes his disagreement with Catholic friends, propbably derives from the traditional Anglican belief in muddling through and dependence on state/societal ethos. HE also seems to think the concept of natural law/human rights is Enlightenment whereas it is already found in the classical and mediaeval worlds: hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/01/human-wrongs-and-the-long-war-against-christianity.htmlEXTRACT Lord Justice Laws at the Court of Appeal had earlier made a judgement of great harshness against Mr McFarlane, using language which bruises the ear if read out loud. But he was giving a true account of the laws of England as they now stand, an country which is, by law and custom, no longer Christian. The continued existence of a few symbolic baubles – the Cross on the Crown of St Edward, the figure of Jesus Christ still retained on the front of the Law Courts, the diffident presence of a few hesitant prelates in the House of Lords [SUBSTITUTE IRISH EQUIVALENTS HERE; I CALL THE PHENOMENON DESCRIBED BY HITCHENS A SPIRITUAL NEUTRON BOMB, AND PLENTY OF ONCE-CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS WITH A FEW FORLORN STATUES AND OTHER SYMBOLS LEFT STRANDED IN AN UTTERLY SECULARISED ENVIRONMENT CAN BE SEEN], a few Christian services on the radio, some anthropological examination of Christianity in the schools [WHICH RUAIRI QUINN AND CO ARE PRESENTING AS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE FORM OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION], do not make a nation or a people Christian. On the contrary: ‘The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. [THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF LANGUAGE WE HEAR WHEN PRE-1970, OR EVEN PRE-1990 IRELAND IS CALLED A THEOCRACY] The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.’ I personally regard these words as profoundly mistaken about the nature, origins and purpose of English law itself, for reasons I have often stated here. But they are a true explanation of our laws as they now stand and as people must learn to expect them to be interpreted by our most senior judges. If you don’t like it, what are you going to do, exactly ? Vote Tory? [OR, IN IRELAND, VOTE FG OR FF?] Ho, ho... For me, this episode was a test of the tolerance of the new rulers of our society. Having, in the name of tolerance, secured major changes in the laws and customs of the nation, would they then show tolerance to their defeated opponents? No, they wouldn’t. Nothing would do except total acceptance of their beliefs. And this is what we repeatedly find. Christian conservatives are lured into conflicts where they can be classified as ‘phobes’ or as suffering from some other pathology, and are then punished for it. [AND OUR SELF-PROFESSED "PLURALISTS' OF YORE ARE JUST THE SAME] Two of the seven Strasbourg judges, to their credit, saw some justice in Lillian Ladele’s case. But this is a Human Rights Court, and Human Rights are not really about justice, but about a new post-Christian dogma, and it is necessary, as that dogma takes charge, for it to show a particularly harsh face to its defeated enemy. This is particularly satisfying for the new ruling class, as they tend to be sycophantic and apologetic when confronted by Islam in Western societies, so it's nice to feel a bit macho when telling Christians to get lost. (It’s true, they can be very militant towards Islam in foreign wars, but the very people who support such wars tend to be the most active in conciliating Islam at home, an interesting paradox not often enough examined). Christians, whose ideas once ruled, must be repeatedly and rather angrily re-educated into understanding that they are now just another minority. If they attempt to act as if their beliefs are still the accepted national religion, they must and will be humiliated [AS HAPPENED TO THAT CARPENTER WHO BROUGHT A COURT CASE TRYING TO ENFORCE THE BLASPHEMY PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE SUNDAY INDEPENDENT]. Eventually, they will learn, as subjugated peoples do eventually learn, often some years after their formal subjugation takes place. And as our nominally free society has decided that the main method of controlling speech is the threat of unemployment, it will be in the workplace that these clashes will almost always happen. As a recognised, registered and duly patronised ‘minority’ (the patronising laid on thick so that they can never forget their reduced standing) Christians may be able to wear crosses on their clothes provided an officious health and safety officer doesn’t rule them unhygienic. Indeed, it crosses my mind that it may be useful to the authorities, one day, when ‘human rights’ have progressed a bit further, if Christians can be *required * to wear a visible sign of their commitment, but, hang on, doesn’t that remind me of something? It was once suggested to me, in a long-ago debate on Human Rights at some party conference, that the whole idea of Human Rights was in fact an attempt to replace Christianity with a new code. I think there’s something in this. My Roman Catholic friends tend to say that ‘Human Rights’ may have an origin in the idea of ‘natural law’. But I don’t see this. The whole thing appears to me to have been made up by people who thought that, because Kepler and Laplace could predict the motions of the planets, God was no longer needed to explain the universe. This has always seemed to me to be an odd confusion of ‘how’ and ‘why’, but people believe what they want to believe, as I never tire of pointing out, and the 'enlightened' men of the 18th century wanted to believe that religion was a childish folly, best left behind. They then proceeded to prove, by repeated effusions of blood (mostly other people’s, but quite often their own too) , that they were wrong, but they still haven’t learned the lesson.... END OF EXTRACT More comment on this from Rod Dreher's blog HERE www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/human-wrongs-peter-hitchens/#post-comments
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 18, 2013 22:15:46 GMT
In that single post we see the best and the worst of Peter Hitchens. The best; his independent mind and ability to see through the myths of the age. The worst; his lack of any kind of metaphyical or dogmatic grounding, any solid tradition to stop him from veering into over-reaction and idiosyncracy.
Hitchens insists that nobody can know if there is a god and ultimately, the act of belief is a free choice. I don't think anything so tentative could be the foundation of a worldview or society, especially when challenged, and a fortiori when persecuted.
Of course, as a Catholic he would not be permitted such near-agnosticism, since the First Vatican Council decreed: " If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." Although quite a lot of Catholics are unaware of this aspect of our faith, too.
I think the point he makes about the four cases are good; the one that was won does indeed seem the most questionable of the four, as well as the least important.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2013 21:50:05 GMT
I agree - I get the impression that Peter Hitchens combines a sharp analytic mind with a highly emotional nature and the latter often drags the former off course.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 23, 2013 21:31:50 GMT
Fr Blake comments on Fr Thomas Brodie OP who has just been fired from the Biblical Institute in Limerick after he published a book arguing that Jesus did not exist and the Gospels are fictitious narratives based on Old Testament prophecies. (It is certainly the case that the Gospels are structured to show how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies - that does not mean Jesus did not exist. One of Hitler's adjutants wrote a memoir of him modelled on Einhard's LIFE OF CHARLEMAGNE - that does not mean Hitler was simply a fictitious character based on Charlemagne.) Apparently Fr Brodie has been expressing these views in private since the 1970s. He was plastered all over the front page of the IRISH SUN a few days ago and is being taken up by certain atheist sites which argue Jesus was mythical (although I should make it clear that Fr Brodie does believe in God.) www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-priest-disciplined-after-claims-Jesus-never-existed-in-controversial-book-187717531.htmlwww.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/news/4754775/Pulpit-Fiction.html I decided not to post this on the ACP thread as Fr Brodie seems to be quite separate from the ACP (though some of Fr Blake's commenters bracket them below). The ACP should not be saddled with him unless there is some proven connection between them, other than the point that if you believe in abolishing the magisterium as the ACP appears to want, how can you exclude such a clearly heretical view as Fr Brodie's from the Church? marymagdalen.blogspot.ie/2013/01/another-irish-heretic-and-rant-against.htmlEXTRACT Any Renewal, or even Evangelisation, is impossible if there is a lack of clarity about what the essential message of the Church of Christ is actually proclaiming. The ambiguity of post-Vatican II Catholicism's "religious freedom" has done incredible damage, to the point of treating heresy as partner in dialogue rather than a serious violence to the Faith of the Church, revealed down the Ages by the Holy Spirit. I quite understand why Abp Lefebvre was concened about religious liberty, though I wonder if his followers through opposition to Peter are falling into it. Their arguements for dissidence are beginning to sound like those of the Irish dissident ACP! END OF EXTRACT On Fr Brodie, these comments on Fr Blake's post may be interesting. The final remark about Platonic influence on his views makes me somewhat uneasy as I tend to think my mindset is more Platonic than Aristotelean (I am not a philosopher and have little acquaintance with Aristotle). Am I getting out of my depth without realising it?: EXTRACT EFpastor emeritus said... Thank you Father. I agree with you, after all I published the following on my blog last April : " I have no love and little respect for the above named Association of Catholic Priests. Many of them, despite their claim to be "thirty or forty years in the priesthood", seem to have not grown spiritually or intellectually in that time -. Some have the very same views and attitudes that I heard them express over forty years ago. They were against Paul VI and most things traditional then and they denounced or dismissed as reactionary and as prophets of doom anyone who dared to question them. Some of its present day members long ago appeared to interpret Vatican II to suit their own agenda while ignoring what did not suit. Some were Seminary professors! I have no doubt that some of the present day members are sincere, even if misguided. Many of the younger members studied in Seminary under some of the older members who were professors or lecturers. It is easy sometimes not to see feet of clay in those whose enthusiasm captures and whose language and attitudes, in another context, would be called appealing to the mob. Most of the seminarians would have been in their late teens or early twenties and very impressionable. I venture to suggest that they could have been easily moved by what I hesitate to call the demagoguery of some lecturers and professors. Now I think they should sit back and look again at where they are being led." 22/1/13 7:32 pm ..... RJ said... I don't think this is an isolated case. I have direct experience of an Irish academic institution where I believe such views would be regarded as perfectly tolerable - 'academic freedom' etc. Is this something to do with the alleged split between the 'Christ of history' and 'the Christ of faith'? Unfortunately, I suspect I would find a wide range of unorthodox liberal views in my own parish in England: a lady recently informed me that the definitive teaching on the impossibility of ordaining women was 'just the Pope's opinion'. The poison is widespread. I don't agree that we should hate heretics (hate the heresy, yes) although I do find myself inclined to make a robust response. 23/1/13 12:38 pm RJ said... I suspect what we are seeing in Brodie's work is the effect of philosophical assumptions stemming from the post-Cartesian tradition, which reimported the Platonic mind/body split to Western thinking: if there is a mind/body split, then there is a mind/world split, and if there is a mind/world split, we cannot have direct knowledge of the world, only of the contents of our own consciousness. On the same grounds, historical knowledge of the world (e.g. the life of Jesus) is also impossible. Thus, in our consciousness, we can have 'faith' in Jesus, but this is not the Jesus of history, who lived in the real world of which we have no knowledge. The abandonment of Thomism in Catholic academe has a lot to answer for! 23/1/13 1:02 pm END Fr Levi [Church of Ireland] offers his own thoughts on Fr Brodie at the link below. He sees his position as utterly untenable and wonders how he could have been allowed to function as a priest, or indeed in any Christian denomination, while holding such views: thewayoutthere1.blogspot.ie/2013/01/fr-brodie-and-fiction-of-jesus.htmlUPDATE HERE: marymagdalen.blogspot.ie/2013/01/good-news-irish-domicans.html It seems Fr Brodie has been dropping hints for years but only stated his views clearly and unambiguously in the book (published last October). It was the Dominicans themselves who removed him on learning of his views.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 24, 2013 9:04:54 GMT
I'm just trying to draw breath. Fr Flannery is one thing, but Fr Brodie is quite another. It reminds me of the opening dialogue in Bulgakov's 'Master and Margarita' where the editor Mikhail Berlioz argues with the poet Ivan Bezdomny (Homeless) that Jesus never existed. The official Soviet Dictionary defined Christianity as a cult centred 'Jesus Christ, a mythical figure'. I should state 'mythical' does not necessarily mean 'non-existent'. I know Fr Blake praises the Dominicans for dealing with Fr Brodie, but did they really? He had these opinions for a very long time and in the end, the sanction was that his term was not renewed, after he served three rather than two terms as director of the Biblical Institute behind which he was a driving force.
(As a side-bar, in general, I am in favour of investment, whether public or private, outside Dublin; but I think the Dominicans were crazy to spend so much money in developing a Scripture Institute in Limerick when the third biggest source of significant scriptural manuscripts in the world - not in Ireland, the British Isles or Europe - is in Dublin's Chester Beatty Library. Anyway, they did).
The tolerance Fr Flannery got in the Redemptorists is reflective of the Irish province of that congregation - the Superior General's message on the matter was very clear and I would say does not bode well for Fr Flannery's future.
I should state that orders work differently from the diocesan structure; nearly every one has its own distinctive way of doing things; and the history of dealing with this type of religious is very patchy. There is a school of thought out there among the neo-orthodox (to whom most of us belong; I know Tobias doesn't - btw, I did laugh at the horse burger jokes, Tobias) that the Irish Dominican province is a model of how religious orders should be and that the Redemptorists are the model of how they shouldn't be. Well, at the end of the day, Fr Flannery pales into insignificance beside Fr Brodie and the manner in which the Dominican province dealt with him over four decades does not earn them any plaudits.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 13, 2013 22:58:16 GMT
An interesting piece on the need to recapture the celibate vocation, though it might be stronger if it acknowledged one reason for the reaction against the view that religious vocation involves God choosing you rather than vice versa (namely that it lends itself all too easily to a situation where in theory it is God who chooses and who overcomes your will, but in fact it is your parents, the teachers in your religious-order school, etc). www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/06/called-to-celibacy-unchosenSome of the commenters on this post by Fr Zuhlsdorf seem remarkably blase about the statement by a recently-deceased elderly Spanish sister (who spent over 80 years in her convent) that she never wanted to be a nun but her family pressurised her into it wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/long-lifetimes-of-faith-and-prayer/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 18, 2013 17:10:16 GMT
Fr Gerard Dunne, the Dominican Vocations Director, comments on fr Brendan Hoban's book and on the lack of enthusiasm shown by many/most Irish dioceses and religious orders for promoting vocations: irishdominicanvocations.blogspot.ie/2013/06/lets-have-debate-about-vocations-in.htmlEXTRACT The fact that Fr Hoban writes about the so-called 'vocations crisis' does us all a favour, I would like if many more had the courage to do so. However, many of his proposed solutions are predictable and tired. The call for ordaining married deacons and inviting priests who have left to get married to return are not answers but misplaced pipe dreams. He knows as well as I do that this is not going to happen. These 'solutions' are a real distraction from the core question - what to do about actively promoting vocations to priesthood and religious life in Ireland? It is important for readers to know that there has been a great lack of enthusiasm or initiative from the church in Ireland to promote religious and priestly vocations. With the exception of the Year of Vocation in 2009 (with mixed reactions and outcomes), the malaise is further deepened with much negativity around vocations within and without church circles and a distinct lack of leadership regarding working towards any solutions. With rare exceptions (for example Vocations Sunday), it is almost impossible to hear a sermon preached about the divine call to the hearts of men and women (and I don't mean religious and priestly vocations exclusively - but marriage and the single life too). It was therefore very heartening to hear the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, Archbishop Charles Brown, highlight vocations during his address at the annual Corpus Christi procession in Cork last weekend - in the context of the Eucharist. Both vocation and Eucharist are inextricably linked. It is very discouraging to hear of a not insignificant number of priests and religious who declare (many openly) that they would discourage young and not so young men and women to think of pursuing a vocation. It is even more discouraging that some new groups of Catholics in Ireland (priests and laity) do not even begin to consider what the root cause of the lack of vocations is. Their tendency is to blame the church and the 'institution' for everything! Indeed, some of these groups will say that the Holy Spirit is speaking to the church in Ireland and that is the reason for the great decline in vocations. That's a real insult to the Holy Spirit! So, before we go blaming other bodies or institutions outside of ourselves, it seems to me that the church in Ireland has many questions to ask of itself in the first instance. Searching for information on priestly and religious vocations in Ireland. Given the accepted fact that the vast majority of people interested in thinking of pursuing a vocation in this day and age will ordinarily check the internet and social media for readily available information, I decided to do some research as to what they might find in the Irish context. As an aid to understanding where Irish dioceses stand in promoting vocations through their websites, I trawled through the web pages of 25 of the 26 dioceses in Ireland. I found that just 2 dioceses had dedicated websites for vocations, 6 dioceses made no mention of vocations at all, 9 dioceses did have information that was between three months and four years out of date, 7 dioceses had minimal information after a tedious search for same (one of those 7 dioceses had copious amount of information on the permanent diaconate, but not on priesthood) and just 1 diocese had information that was clearly accessible. The religious orders (male and female) don't fare much better either. Having looked at the orders affiliated to Vocations Ireland, the umbrella body responsible for religious and missionary vocations in Ireland - the following information is stark. Of the 61 female apostolic religious orders, 34 had no information on vocations or their websites did not function, while 27 had some information. The contemplative female orders fared a little better - of the 26 websites searched, 14 had information on vocations available while 12 did not or their websites were not functioning. There are 13 female missionary congregation in Ireland - their websites are very good. 10 of the congregations had vocational information, while 3 did not. The male religious orders are divided into a number of categories. Firstly the congregations with priests and brothers (including the Dominicans) - there are 27 such orders affiliated to Vocations Ireland. Their websites show that 8 had no information available or their websites were broken, while 19 had partial or comprehensive information. There are 9 religious orders of religious brothers affiliated to Vocations Ireland - their websites show that 6 have some form of information while 3 have no information at all. The 7 communities of monastic or contemplative men fare best. All of them have excellent information available. Finally, the 9 missionary male congregations have one excellent dedicated site on vocations, 3 have limited information while 5 show no information at all. The main conclusion to be drawn from this information is that there is much work to be done in the simple and effective way of promoting a way of life. Understandably, resources can be limited for many and maintaining a web presence can be time consuming - however, there is little by way of excuse these days with so much external help available. Anecdotal evidence suggests that when potential enquirers come across no information or old information, they will just look elsewhere.... The church can hinder the vocations effort To return to the beginning, the Fr Brendan Hoban contribution is posted on the website of the Association of Catholic Priests. I can say with certainty that the vast majority of people that I meet in the course of vocations ministry are shocked and perturbed by this particular association. They see the agenda of the organisation as one that is divisive and also sending the wrong signals to an educated and evangelical young Catholic population. Their perception is that it always has a negative message and sows the seeds of mistrust in ordinary Catholics throughout Ireland. I have to confess that I agree with the sentiments of those discerners. Many would tell me that it would hinder their thoughts about committing themselves to a life that is represented by negativity. Similarly, the efforts of some congregations of religious that try to conceal their religious identity or indeed portray a form of life that can be far from living authentic religious life is very unappealing to those considering a vocation. This is a pity because many (women particularly) would love to give themselves to religious life but find the lifestyle of religious life as lived by many in Ireland as to be far too integrated into secular life. They find that religious have fundamentally lost their identity, even though the contribution of religious in the past is highly respected. Married deacons or returnee priests who have left ministry won't solve the crisis. Looking at how we can do the simple things well around vocations will. But more than anything, let all the interested parties who have a care and concern for the promotion of vocations talk to each other and have a proper debate - one that is respectful and realistic. Enough of the soundbites. And let's get back to basics and fall on our knees and pray the Lord of the harvest to send labourers to his harvest. END The whole thing is well worth reading - note the point which I have heard anecdotally but rarely expressed in public fora, about some priests and religious actively discouraging vocations PS On 7 June Fr Tony Flannery responded to Fr Dunne's post on his twitter account. His post might be summarised as '"Shut up", he explained.'
|
|
|
Post by chercheur on Jun 20, 2013 23:48:44 GMT
All one has to do to answer the canard that female/married clergy woud solve the problem facing us is point to episcopalianism. Could there be a more inclusive quasi ecclesial body? Could there be a more irrelevant one?
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jun 21, 2013 12:09:37 GMT
All one has to do to answer the canard that female/married clergy woud solve the problem facing us is point to episcopalianism. Could there be a more inclusive quasi ecclesial body? Could there be a more irrelevant one? There's a saying in the US that Orthodoxy is the right religion practiced by the wrong people and that Episcopalianism is the wrong religion practiced by the right people. I know there is a lot more sophiscation behind the arguments you mention, but a lot of the weight behind them in popular perception is based on the social cachet of the Anglican Church wherever it seems to exist.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 21, 2013 22:32:10 GMT
RORATE CAELI picks up on some recent antics of the Limerick Redemptorists. A Clown MAss is certainly a far cry from the original builders of Mount St Alphonsus, who were profoundly impressed by the knowledge that the Mass is to the New Covenant what the Temple services were to the old, and by desire to bring to the people of Limerick the beauty and wonder of Catholic practices of which they had long been deprived by oppression. In days of yore the Redemptorists deliverd fiery denunciations of sin. Now, at least in the case of the Redmptorist featured in the second video, they reserve their fiercest denunciations for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, as celebrated by St Alphonsus and by their forefathers of his congregation. This priest's boasting of his ignorance of the EF and his determination never to dilute that ignorance is really striking. I wonder if this can be read as a direct or indirect attack on the ICKSP presence in Limerick, and whether if so they can have any hope of redress for the slander on priests who are as much in good standing as he is. He finds "gay liturgies" more to his taste, so long of course as no-one is so indiscreet as to exhort the participants to chastity. (In fairness, he does get in a criticism of Endipas's "I'm a Catholic but not a Catholic Taoiseach" and points out that life and faith can't be separated in that way and a remark about the need to stand up for life which suggests opposition to the PLP Bill; I suspect RORATE did not pick up on that point because they are not au fait with the Irish context.) One odd little detail; when praising the Soho Gay Mass he says Soho is in the Archdiocese of Southwark. Southwark is south of the Thames; Soho is north of the river and hence in the Archdiocese of Westminster: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/let-this-give-us-hope-ireland-brick-by.htmlRORATE CAELI is very often mad, but it is such antics as those of the Redemptorists featured here that drive it and those like it up the wall. The Redemptorists have been stung enough by RORATE's expose to preach against it, little realising that they are supplying it with more ammunition. I wonder if Bishop Leahy's presence during this denunciation bodes ill for the ICKSP, or is it just diplomatic to keep the differet factions in his diocese onside: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/06/let-this-give-us-home-part-2.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 17, 2013 20:44:06 GMT
A couple of little niggles I have noticed: I have just been reading James Hagerty's biography of Cardinal Heenan. One interesting little detail is that during World War II he visited Ireland and wrote a series of articles on it from the CATHOLIC HERALD. One of these provoked a protest from Archbishop McQuaid - Heenan suggested that talking to Dublin taxi-drivers etc he got a sense that Irish Catholicism tended to reduce itself to rote recitation of prayers and performance of rituals, and that this sort of Catholicism might face serious problems in the future. Admittedly McQuaid's view may have been partly related to the fact that Heenan's mission was intended to influence Ireland in a pro-Allied direction and that he was critical of Irish neutrality in a way (given the recent past) that might reasonably have raised Irish hackles, but subsequent developments do suggest Heenan might have a point. Similarly, the Irish Manuscripts Commission recently published a report on Irish migrants to Britain which was prepared jointly for the British and Irish hierarchies in the 1950s but was not published at the time. The reason it was not published was that the Irish bishops (particularly McQuaid) objected to the entirely accurate statement that many Irish Catholic migrants abandoned their faith soon after their arrival in Britain, and that suggested that their faith had been based on environmental conformity rather than on deep personal conviction. Again, this may reflect an Irish sensitivity to perceived Brit condescension, but it also suggests a refusal to face problems which would cost Irish Catholicism dear in the long run, and an "us against them" mentality refusing to accept that "they" might ever be right about something, and "we" might ever be wrong. (One of the striking points I remember seeing in the discussions surrounding the Ryan Report was a report in the McQuaid archives from a "spy" whom McQuaid had sent to report on a play critical of the church by a writer who had actually been in an industrial achool and included several references to the system among its criticisms of the church. The report gave an accurate account of the play's content, but took no interest in the question of whether any of the criticisms might actually be true - it just assumed that any criticism of the church must be unacceptable per se.) Again, on this thread on CRISIS magazine, discussing the onward march of pro-abortionism in Ireland, we get the following comment (I think by the same person who blogs as Supertradmum at Ethelberta's Place and elsewhere): www.crisismagazine.com/2013/ireland-the-victim-of-orwellian-deceitEXTRACT Marie Dean • 7 hours ago I was talking with a holy priest at the December, 2012 rally in Dublin (I am in Dublin) and he told me that this moving away from the Gospel values and Church was a long time coming. Father stated, as we were standing with candles in the street outside the government buildings, that the adult population of Ireland did not appropriate an adult faith, but stayed like children-not reading, not studying, not praying or taking responsibility for their own souls. The result of this is a feel-good faith rather than an intellectual assent and a willingness to put politics before principles. Most Catholics have not read the CCC here, for example or Humanae Vitae. They have not interiorized adult ways of apologetics and discussing with those who do not believe. In addition, we discussed whether or not the lie of socialism led to the softening of the adult Catholic consciences here. One cannot be a socialist and a Catholic, as more than one pope (in fact all back to 1848) have said. Socialism creates a false dependency on the State and deadens individual responsibility. The Irish people have voted these people in and they get what they deserve. If the vast majority repent of being irreponsible to date for their faith and take hold of the Catholic view of governing, which is not socialism, maybe then there will be a change. In addition, there are many so-called Catholic women who contracept, especially the younger ones. Abortion and contraception mentalities overlap. Change? I doubt it. The years of personal compromise led to this horrible decision. As to blaming bishops, get over it, I say, as God is going to judge me, a lay person and not say at my particular judgement, "Oh you poor thing, you had a bad bishop". I am responsible for my own salvation, with the grace of God, in and through the Church, We can get to heaven and hold the Truth up in the public sphere bishops or no bishops. END I wonder is the anti-intellectualism she mentions a product of traditional anti-intellectualism, deference and conformism (our nationalism, which strongly emphasised group loyalty, is a more likely culprit than her suggestion of socialism, given that socialism has had relatively little influence here until the 60s. Then again, her definition of socialism may be elastic)? Or was it a product of post-Vatican II anti-intellectualism (I am told that seminary candidates were often dropped for being too intelligent/intellectual in the post-Vatican II era in Ireland, the argument being it was more important to get along with the people) and the vacuum created by the dropping of neo-scholasticism and traditional apologetics? A bit of both, I suspect
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 18, 2013 15:12:32 GMT
From the CATHOLIC HERALD, two rival views of the Irish situation. First, a pessimist who points out that the ineffectiveness of the resistance to the PLP Bill and the fact that the Government thinks it can get away with forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions raises the question of how far Ireland is still Catholic: www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/08/09/how-catholic-is-ireland-today/Then Mary O'Regan suggests all is not lost, and puts what IMHO is excessive hope in the consecration of Ireland to Our Lady at Knock on 15 August. The usual contingent of Grunerites turn up in the combox www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/08/15/ireland-has-not-lost-its-catholic-identity/EXTRACT It would be easy to assert that Ireland has ‘lost’ its Catholic identity. I, however, argue that this is not so. Yes, there has been a switch from total respect for the faith to hardly any respect. When the oldest generation of Irish people were at school, they would be given a statue of St Jude for good work. When I was at school, I was excoriated by classmates for having the name Mary. Statues of Our Lady and the saints were yanked from school hallways and thrown into skips like they were causes for embarrassment. A radical change from celebrating the faith to condemning it. In each case, the faith was and is the burning issue. Even today, as Ireland is being consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady, I am tight-lipped about discussing the Consecration with other young friends who might get cross at my mention of a Catholic ceremony. It would not be such a matter of current controversy had we said “goodbye” to Catholicism... END
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Aug 26, 2013 15:51:43 GMT
The first quote is reasonable, if depressing. It certainly is accurate. One hopes the guy is erring on the pessimisistic side but fears he is right.
Mary O'Regan, I have usually found, inhabits a different planet to the rest of us. I don't believe anyone called Mary was "excoriated" for any reason other than the name being so common. For heaven's sake, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese would have been presidents at the time she was in school. There may be a little exaggeration in the text here as elsewhere in her writings.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 26, 2013 22:00:18 GMT
The bit about her being ridiculed for being called Mary may not be so far-fetched as all that. I don't know how old she is so I can't say what generation she belongs to, but I have often seen secular commentators remark that while up to 30 years ago or thereabouts Mary was a very widespread girls' name in Ireland, its use has now dropped off quite steeply. This piece, on how many/most American Catholics have lost any sense that they should normally call their children after saints, may be relevant here - the role of American pop culture in this development certainly is. (Note, for example, that although this article is written for a conservative Catholic outlet which maintains some distance from pop culture, the writer assumes that her readers will not need to have the origins of the name "khaleesi" explained to them - it's a title of nobility held by one of the female characters in a fantasy TV series produced by the cable channel HBO and widely described as soft porn, or as near as makes no difference.) www.crisismagazine.com/2013/one-small-way-to-restore-catholic-cultureEXTRACT Culture is dynamic. It need never be lost so long as significant numbers of people still wish to keep it alive. In our discouragement over negative trends in the broader culture, we are sometimes inclined to forget that culture is not a monolith, and that sub-cultures can be powerfully influential in their own right. If committed Catholics regard the revitalization of culture as a lost cause, it surely will be. By the same token, however, committed Catholics can choose to revitalize that culture, and opportunities to do so arise with surprising frequency. Not many of us, it is true, are in a position to name buildings. Quite a lot of us, however, can honor our favorite saints with something far more precious: a child. It always warms my heart to attend a Catholic gathering at which a roll call of the little girls in attendance is a veritable litany of Marian names. The Lu clan has no little girls as of yet, but we have established our own tradition of naming each boy for a major religious order. When I explain this to fellow Catholics, I find that many regard the custom of naming children for saints as something of a quaint anachronism. They mention that their grandparents did it, but for their own children they follow the mainstream culture in choosing deliberately-misspelled surnames or the names of popular television characters. (I am told that “Khaleesi” is a fashionable girl’s name for 2013. Well done, HBO.) Popular culture is depressing enough in its own right, but it is far more discouraging to see practicing Catholics submit to it even in something as personal and as significant as the selection of names. What better way to emphasize our communion with the saints than by keeping them in our midst in the form of flesh-and-blood namesakes? How can we blame the popular culture for the demise of these beautiful customs when Catholic parents remain free to resurrect them at will? Adopting a defeatist attitude about Catholic culture may make us less assiduous about seeking out these small but significant opportunities to reinforce our and our children’s Catholic identity. In my experience, many American Catholics feel paralyzed by the belief that their tradition has been lost, and that attempts to recreate it will thus make them into anachronistic oddities, closely akin to obsessive Civil War re-enactors or Renaissance Fair enthusiasts. As a convert myself, I fully appreciate how the piecemeal revival of old prayers and traditions can feel inauthentic or even a bit hokey. We are keenly aware that we lack much of the context that originally made these traditions meaningful, and this makes us self-conscious. In general, though, I think we are better off when we simply embrace our identity as “tradition amateurs” and allow ourselves to have fun with it. It is unlikely that our children will be damaged by a historically-inaccurate recreation of an older custom. It is far more likely that they will suffer from a dearth of any meaningful cultural connections to their faith. Moreover, tradition is itself a product of repetition, so whatever customs we revive or adapt will become more authentic as time passes. END OF EXTRACT
|
|