|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 23, 2014 21:49:22 GMT
This CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT piece seems to me to suffer from a bad dose of rose-coloured glasses when contemplating pre-1978 (or pre-Vatican II) Ireland. Leaving aside for a moment cover-up of clerical abuse, industrial schools, Magdalen laundries, mother and baby homes and the like, I have heard a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that the phenomena of priests using their status to minimise their duties and getting the laity to do as much as possible of their work for them, and the attitude that religious education in schools could be skimped on in the service of passing exams because the pupils would pick it up from the broader culture, were already quite widespread well before Vatican II. One other depressing feature of the pre-Vatican II Irish church was the utterly dismissive attitude whenever English Catholics pointed out that large numbers of Irish immigrants lapsed soon after arriving in England, suggesting that their faith at home had been skin-deep and only maintained by social conformity: hallidaysutherland.com/2014/06/08/the-suitcase-in-the-cellar/comment-page-1/www.irishmanuscripts.ie/servlet/Controller?action=publication_item&pid=113Admittedly the snob English Catholic sneering at the Irish peasants was a well-known phenomenon, but the utter refusal of senior Irish churchmen to these reports from England went beyond any rational response and was straight into ostrich territory. If we want to make things better we have to come to terms with what was done wrong, as well as what was done right, in our Catholic past. www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3203/john_paul_iis_warning_and_irelands_choice.aspx
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 23, 2014 22:10:29 GMT
Ireland was so overwhelmingly Catholic pre-Vatican II that, it seems to me, there is a third possibility that never seems to be taken into account, either by the pre-Vatican II idealisers or the pre-Vatican II cynics: that there were a huge amount of Irish people who were seriously and enthusiastically and reflectively Catholic, and ALSO a huge amount of Irish people that went to Mass because it was the done thing. And, doubtless, any amount of gradations in between.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 15, 2014 18:27:04 GMT
A sad but true piece from the IRISH CATHOLIC - Archbishop Neary of Tuam thinks the Church has "lost the battle with secularism" at least in the sense of keeping Ireland predominantly Catholic, and that we are witnessing "the death rattle of Christendom" irishcatholic.ie/article/church-has-lost-battle-secularism-archbishopMichael Kelly comments on Archbishop Neary's statement and says we need to become a missionary church. (The problem IMHO is that to be a missionary needs clarity about what you are trying to say, and there is an awful lot of confusion); irishcatholic.ie/article/church-here-finishedThis is indispensable reading - a lot of faithful Irish Catholics are still living in our own little world and don't realise just how much indifference, contempt and hostility towards the Church there is in this country.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 15, 2014 20:27:07 GMT
What frustrates me about this is that we say "We need to be a missionary church" but then, being missionary often seems to boil down to being good people and setting a good example in our everyday lives. We hear talk about how Christianity is "caught" rather than "taught", and endless repetition of that thing St. Francis never said. (I know you all know what I mean and I can't bear even to type it.) That's all very well but it's evidently not working. We quite obviously need to confront secularism intellectually, culturally and socially-- I don't mean in an obnoxious and antagonistic way, but confidently.
Today in Dublin city centre, as on most Saturdays, I passed an Atheist stand, a Humanist stand, an Islamic stand, and a group of rapping African-American Evangelicals. No Catholic stand. Ever. When I've made this criticism before, I've been told that there are Legion of Mary legionaries doing person-to-person street evangelisation and I've been pointedly invited to join them. I do value such person-to-person evangelisation but it's not as visible or CONFIDENT as a kiosk or stand. (Also, I don't think I'd be good at that myself. I try to make my own contribution in my own way.) And of course, I mean this as a general indictment of the way Catholics seem reluctant to shout their message from the roof-tops.
I know I'm preaching to the converted here as everybody who contributes here is active in some kind of evangelization, whether through the written word (such as the Brandsma Review) or in some other way. I just find myself pondering what else could be done. Sometimes I wonder if a semi-social, semi-discussion group would be a good idea....an incubator for ideas and arguments. Recently I've met a couple of Irish Catholics who are writing novels and I really think this is important. I would also like to hear more about Hibernicus's "culture first" strategy--actually I was thinking about this only a few hours ago. I really think that is the way to go, although of course I'm not sure exactly how he envisages it.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 15, 2014 20:59:27 GMT
I am reading a book about Britain in the seventies right now and it is remarkable how the Thatcher revolution was launched by a small, but very focused, group of think-tanks, study groups and individuals. Obviously I am holding up the Thatcher revolution as an example, not as something to be admired in itself.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 16, 2014 19:04:19 GMT
The Legion of Mary actually used to operate a book stand near the GPO for much of its history - I'm not sure when or why they stopped doing it. The point about the Thatcher revolution being implemented by a small but focused group of individuals and think-tanks is a good one. One little drawback is that they were not the only small but focussed group around - the Bennite LEft, who thought they could turn the UK into a state socialist society and that that was the way society was going, might meet the same description. (And I might add that they could point to a good deal of evidence to say that history was on their side. Oddly enough, they had a sort of left-nationalism which saw the nation-state as the basic building block of socialism. Anthony Coughlan the anti-EU campaigner comes out of that sort of world; one of the many paradoxes of Thatcherism is that it deployed the language of British nationalism but one effect of its assault on the state has been to weaken British identity both internally - because privatisation and deindustrialisation have weakened the link between the central state and the regions, and because economic globalisation has internationalised the economy.) My thoughts about culture first were based on the view that simply passing laws or retreating into a self-sufficient fortress Ireland, even if we could do it which we can't - wouldn't serve to regenerate the country - the laws were changed because people's beliefs and lifestyles were already changing. A few points that culture first might mean: (1) We need to come to terms with the ways in which Irish society has changed in the last 40-50 years. The idea that real Ireland is rural Ireland, or that the Irish people are instinctively Catholic and are only waiting for a proper lead, is delusional. Newman's remark that he would believe in the Catholic Church if it would send missionaries into the new industrial towns to preach the Gospel and suffer for it as the Apostles did applies in spades to the edge cities in Ireland where the population is increasingly concentrated; but where are we going to get such missionaries? (2) We need to draw on the past to understand the present, but one requirement for this is that we recognise how the present differs from the past. Another is that we need to understand what went wrong with the old Catholic Ireland. (3) We need to develop some sort of self-sustaining and self-correcting networks, rather than relying on a few individuals. Messianism, devotional or political, is really dangerous. (4) We need to learn from Catholic groups elsewhere - I think America is the obvious source because they are so much more articulate and better-organised, but they also come with a lot of American political baggage. We need to practice discernment there (just as we should in relation e.g. to European monarchist nostalgism). It's not enough to read and pray. We have to learn and to find some way to share the fruits of our contemplation so they are not lost again. (5) The big problem with a culture first strategy is that the opposing forces, of state regulators and culture-forming commercial media, are so powerful and so increasingly hostile. We have to be willing to prepare for the catacombs, without lapsing into paranoia. These are just a few jottings, I wonder if I will ever find time to flesh them out.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Nov 17, 2014 11:45:31 GMT
I wonder to what degree the stands are effective? It would be interesting to find out if any of them get many converts. I've passed pairs of Mormon boys evangelising on Grafton street several times and have wanted to engage them, but unfortunately I never see them when I have time to stop. I did overhear them very ineffectively trying to convert a student recently. It was interesting to see how articulate he was about his agnosticism and how they just rinsed and repeated the stock phrases they had been taught. I see that the Mormons have a temple now out on the way to the airport (I forget which road exactly).
Once or twice I've helped out with Nightfever, an apostolate that aims to invite people into a church with the offer of a candle to light. I think it's been quite effective; they go out on a Saturday evening, and the candle is such a strong culturally Catholic symbol that has a lot of resonance with people (I mean, it's such a stereotype that 'granny will light a candle for my exams/health/so I can get a job'). Once inside the church there are volunteers to welcome them in, the whole church is candlelit and the Blessed Sacrament is exposed on the altar with soft music playing. There are a fair number of priests sitting around as well and whoever comes in is informed that if they would like to, they can go to the priests either for Confession or just for a chat about faith. Other volunteers sit and pray for those who come in. When I did it myself several hundred people came in and visited who hadn't been in a long while. The idea is that it's a gentle model and that people are invited to go as far as they wish without pressure; I thought it worked quite effectively but obviously there's a need for many different forms of evangelising. I'd be the first to agree that we need more that just our example, Maolsheachlann, and I feel the same way about saccharine misattributed quotes (somebody once quoted that phrase to me to imply that a Catholic shouldn't speak so much during a debate about abortion) but we can't forget that the example is important too so as to show that we're authentic about the words we speak... and I'm the first person who need to remember that!
Thanks for outlining your thoughts on that Hibernicus. I think that coming up with these kind of strategies is a critical part of renewal. I know that it's clichéd to say so but I do think that we suffer from a lack of vision in the Church here. I think that your third point is especially critical; I think that in the absence of strong authority from the bishops, people turn to anyone with a strong personality and will follow them off the edge of a cliff. I get the impression often that there's no room for disagreement on purely prudential issues in some quarters in the Irish Church.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 17, 2014 19:14:16 GMT
One thought that really does haunt me sometimes is that large sections of the Church have lost the missionary impulse because they are not too sure why they are Catholics themselves anymore. The contrast with the tremendous enthusiasm that went into backing the missionary movement abroad for much of the C20 is really striking.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Nov 17, 2014 21:36:44 GMT
I hope we're not getting too off-topic here, but I thought I'd just to add to your thoughts on culture first, Hibernicus. It occurs to me that there are two key areas that directly touch upon and shape every other area of society. One is media and the arts, by which I mean every form of news and artistic medium, from newspapers to television to novels to the internet and everything in between. The other is education, primary, secondary and tertiary. All other areas of society are ultimately dependent on these two. Everybody consumes some form of news and some form of entertainment, whether it's reading Homer or watching Love/Hate. And everybody goes through primary and secondary school, and a sizeable portion goes through third level (almost everybody who goes into a position of influence in society, whether political or professional, goes through some form of college). I don't think you'll dispute that the opponents of the Church in Ireland have taken control of almost the entirety of the first area, and they have taken control of third level education and made serious inroads into primary and secondary and are hoping to wrest them entirely from religious patrons (not that said patrons have done much to ensure that there is a Catholic ethos in any of these schools). Take a look at this from the Independent: www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/catholic-fear-and-loathing-in-our-universities-30729163.htmlI can tell you it's quite true; in almost every single university in the Republic, there has been considerable resistance to the setting up of pro-life/Catholic societies on the part of the students in positions of authority. Some of those I knew who were politically active during my undergraduate degree described themselves as followers of the Italian Marxist Antoni Gramsci, who advocated the infiltration and takeover of cultural institutions by stealth in order to effect the Marxist revolution. I remember also a lecturer, a specialist in children's literature, who advocated using children's literature to inculcate 'liberal' values, which she defined as undermining parental authoirty and encouraging children to rebel against their parents. We were told as well that children's literature in which the characters had strong, positively portrayed parental figures was 'conservative,' the implication being that it was inferior in some way. I think that any attempt to renew the Church here must encompass serious attempts to engage the areas of news media, the arts (in the broadest possible sense) and education in order to carve out a cultural space in which we can offer people our faith and our worldview as an alternative. And it has to be professional and even-handed if it is to survive. I think the question is how to go about the specifics. Is there anything I've left out? On a separate note, how exactly would we go about building 'self-sustaining and self-correcting' networks as you term them? I would agree that it's incredibly important to build up contacts, build bridges, to try and pull together our divided house if we're to have any success.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 18, 2014 9:20:44 GMT
I think Gramschi is a key figure here; but in a way it illustrates that the Church was confronted by various oppositional forces in the post-war period: Darwinism; Marxism; Freudianism; Nihilism; feminism - not by any means an exhaustive list. The Second Vatican Council seems to have been far too optimistic, launching at lot of initiatives which, whatever the Council fathers intended, involved jettisoning so much of a sense of Catholicism among priests and religious as much as the faithful that you had an absolute collapse. I understand that the piece in the Irish Catholic emphasised the negative and played down the positive in Archbishop Neary's sermon referred to, but that doesn't matter as Michael Kelly has his own understanding of where the Church is at which is not a million miles from this forum.
I am aware that the main model we have for evangelisation is American and that is driven by certain political factors we would not necessarily be comfortable with. It might be good to scour places like Quebec, Flanders or the southern Netherlands to see if there are any working local initiatives to try. The problem with the trad world is that it becomes cozy for those inside, but unwelcoming for those outside and also it gets trapped into side-lines, like European monarchism. Nightfever is an interesting idea.
On the other hand, I wonder if people would wake up to the world we have found ourselves in. I am not going to gloating about reaping the whirlwind, because I have a stake in all this too - none of us can afford to let our guard drop. The ivory tower liberal lecturers in our third level institutions, media outfits and specialised units of the civil service need to take up writers like Theodore Dalrymple and study them carefully. Because the bourgeois may be comfortable with a bit of easy partner-swapping and freedom of movement from one family unit to another, the ripple effects are much more intense than they imagine. The attacks on the Taoiseach and Tánaiste's cars did not come out of nowhere and our value-free education (as if this could be possible) has create a Love/Hate fantasy world. I attended a talk for parents on cyber bullying during the last week, which left many parents see how innocent our childhood was. But I wonder how many would make the connexion between our pushing the envelope in the last couple of decades and what we see now. The sexual revolution generation are grandparents now; and lest we forget the post-WWII sexual revolution was prefigured by a similar event in the 1920s which was seen in Ireland too. And I'm not thinking of just sexual morality.
Hibernicus mentions the edge cities. There is a development pattern in the US at work here called the doughnut effect whereby the centre of towns and cities decline and there is a race to the outskirts. I've seen this happening in a few Irish towns, but it struck me that Dublin is exhibit A. Linguistically, the Dublin accent is disappearing in Dublin City and moving to north and south counties, but also into Wicklow, Kildare, Meath and Louth. With this comes much unsettlement. Pastorally, these people are not gravitating towards their new parishes (though one Meath diocesan priest told me he always got a great reception from the Dublin working class people who moved into his area; they welcomed him, asked him to bless their houses and religious objects, but he could not persuade them to come to Mass). For all the praises sung of the Dominican Order, they were presented with a golden opportunity in Tallaght in the 1970s. These people were still Mass-going when they moved there. Whatever the O.P. tried to do, it doesn't seem to have worked.
So, in conclusion, we have a huge work before us which none of us can shirk.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Nov 18, 2014 15:52:26 GMT
I honestly don't know what it will take for people to wake up... I remember being in a Catholic youth club as a teenager where many of those attending were from traditionally working class areas. They were by no means financially deprived, but it was my first experience of how divorce can affect children's lives so incredibly much. Yet in spite of the incredible amount of sociological and anecdotal evidence regarding the negative effects of divorce, nobody seems willing to question it. There was an article in one of the English papers recently by an expert in the area of divorce's effects on developmental psychology explaining how much trauma and difficulty the kids go through that society has been blind to, and in the end she basically concluded by saying the solution was for divorcing couples to be 'more aware' of this, as though calling for an end to divorce, or at least restrictions, did not even occur to her. I'm afraid I can't think of which paper off the top of my head but I will link to it if I do... my point is that when people don't want to see something, they don't see it. So I don't think there'll be a 'waking up' per se until it's too late. They thought that Rome would last forever too...
I think that we can't rely on a 'waking up' effect, we have to try and transform the culture, and I think we need to prepare what Rod Dreher refers to as 'Benedict Option' style communities in case these efforts aren't enough.
I'm not a traditionalist myself, although I have a lot of sympathy for and indeed am friends with many trad Catholics, but I think that the 'cozy' effect you mention Alaisdir is not confined to just trad groups, I find myself often being shocked all over again when meeting some of my more secular friends (if I can call them that) after not seeing them for a long time, even though I know intellectually what the world outside the Catholic circles I'm in can be like.
As for the Dominicans in Tallaght, well, I went on a school retreat with them years ago. We answered psychology questionnaires about our families and our feelings, then lay down on cushions in a dark room as somebody who might have been a nun, but there was no way of telling, told us some weird new age story about throwing stones at faces we see in the water. I got the impression that it wasn't exactly a stellar institution of the Catholic intellectual life. You can see a genuine renewal in some Dominican centres like Dominic Street, which has a big outreach to the Polish community for example, but the same can't be said of them all.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Nov 18, 2014 15:55:53 GMT
The Alive! did say recently that there was a massive boom in conversions in South Korea and Iceland in the last 5-10 years, I can't remember the exact figures but South Korea in particular was an exponential increase, my eyes were bulging at the numbers of vocations and adult baptisms. A very different culture that presumably doesn't have our baggage, but still might we learn something?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 18, 2014 21:04:48 GMT
There was a very strong Catholic missionary presence in South Korea in the pre-conciliar era - the imprisonment of IRish missionaries by the North Koreans during the 195-53 war attracted a lot of attention here at the time - and a tradition going back to the C18 Korean Martyrs. The status of the Church was raised by its role as a centre of independent activity under successive dictatorships (Kim Dae Jung, a major opposition figure elected president in the 90s, was a Catholic). There have also been widespread conversions to Protestantism (I believe Presbyterianism is pretty strong.) In Iceland the growth is starting from a very low base, and I suspect is partly accounted for by migrant workers - though there may also be some intellectuals interested in the mediaeval cultural heritage, as you get in other Scandi countries, and also some may see flirting with Catholicism in that context as an expression of "bohemianism". The famous Icelandic novelist HAlldor Laxness was briefly a convert to Catholicism in the 1930s(but not for very long).
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 19, 2014 8:47:42 GMT
I think Iceland is even below Estonia as the least Catholic country in Europe. I can remember that the Legion of Mary had a project of sending young people to Reykjavik as missionaries (more assistants to the Franciscans there). I gather Iceland is as secular as the other Nordic countries (which I would include Finnland and Estonia). I think all of these show a growth in Catholicism precisely because of the low base.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 19, 2014 8:51:35 GMT
Well, Ranger, I have a relative now ancient, in a Dominican convent in England where the custom of maintaining the habit has been preserved. This sister is from an old Tallaght family, so she's known in the Priory and among the Dominican sisters living close by and her convent has been the object of jokes for years. The New Agery among Dominican sisters and some of the Fathers is unbelievable, but there is more of the good initiatives among the male Dominicans at present than among others.
How much interaction do the Discalced Carmelites have with Nightfever?
|
|