|
Post by Oliver, on Jun 12, 2015 23:00:50 GMT
Hello,
I am a Catholic and I'd like to express what I believe to see if its alright. As this board is on atheism I thought I'd just start with that.
Having been an atheist when I became a believer I really like the Little Flower's story and her suffering of not knowing God towards the end of her life. I think somewhere I read that she said how much she sympathised with unbelievers, you know had compassion for them in their suffering of not knowing God.
You know I thought this was great. It was like a new way to approach atheism. Its a cross. Its suffering.
(As an aside - it could be a suffering and cross which is induced by the bad representation of God by us the Church, holding us responsible. Actually, considering our Lord's huge problem with the religious people badly or misrepresenting Him, I think yes definitely we are responsible to some measure by our failure to represent God as He really is, and anyone who thinks the Church represents Christ well or successfully in todays world I think must be joking, I mean I don't represent it well nor my parish, certainly not my diocese. And also, considering the secularisation of Europe over the past centuries doesn't this suggest to us that for some reason from the Middle Age we started to badly represent God until we've arrived at the gaping whole in our representation today which has resulted in the post-Christian era we live in today. I prefer this theory than the idea we are a remnant-because the idea that we are a special remnant today has a connotation around it that we are elite, and doesn't encourage us to take responsibility as Christians for our neighbour's Godlessness -end of aside).
So if atheism is a cross. Without patronising atheists but genuinely loving them, we would actually see their lack of joy of knowing God, and the sureness of his values, as suffering. Deep down when I was an atheist, if I was given the choice between believing in God or not, clearly being a logical man, and clearly as most people are to some degree logical in weighing the advantages/disadvantages of a choice, I think most atheists would if the scales fell from their eyes as they did with me, would in the light of day choose Christ. Therefore when someone discovers the treasure in the field is a mystery in God's time, and as I said is somehow to a degree a shared responsibility. You know I don't know the Bible that well as you can probably tell but in the New Testament I don't think atheists were the main culprits. It was the bourgeois and their bourgeois "Church" which killed Him. It was the bourgeois mentality in the religious authority who wanted honour from the world which he attacked, which he really got angry about, and because of which you could say is why He gave the priesthood a distinct ethic in contrast to laity; that as official representers of Him they should be careful of seeking honour from the world. These religious instead of speaking to the people in the people's own terms, you know as our Lord did with fish and bread and trees and sheep, these religious hid used traditions to disguise their bourgeois desires for worldly honour.
Considering all this, I don't know why some Catholics militantly have a bad feeling and use bad tones against atheists. In my view, considering the anger of God towards those who mis-represent Him, and who are supposed to represent Him, and on whose well representation the very salvation of people and their happiness of their lives on earth depends..............considering this, wouldn't it be healthy for our priests particularly but the laity too, to have a general council of examining in what way they are failing Christ's ethic he gave them especially, that is to be careful not seek honour from the world.
The sweeping statement I will make at the end is that if anyone has eyes and a heart they can see our Church seeking honour from the world not only dramatically in the last century till now, but also I believe slowly and gradually in the whole modern era, as it was influenced and fascinated by the discourse, artistic, intellectual, moral fashions of the power centres. What a bourgeois Church we are.
And personally seeing that our Lord was the perfect representer of Himself, wouldn't we be better off speaking to the people "in their own terms" more often. I certainly don't mean in the terms of the power centre which currently the bishops think are the peoples own terms. I mean in opening the peoples hearts to wonder, to life, to the realities of Him - as a poet can, as I believe Chesterton was trying to do, as I believe the Church should be encouraging all its priests to do, to speak a living language which inherently contains a new vision, a vision which is odds with the words and vision of the power centre, a vision in which people really can see God again in all their lives. To me our bourgeois church, is, though having attempted to change course (Vatican II being a complete failure, to say the least, but giving credit it was an attempt) shares responsibility for the suffering of atheists. . I mean no offense to my fellow Catholics, I'm just putting down a train of thought, and hopefully, people can help me change it if its sinful and put me in better standing. Its better to bounce such thoughts off other orthodox Catholics then out on the streets as it were.
Jesus is Lord!
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2015 10:04:59 GMT
Welcome to the boards Oliver!
I think there is a lot in what you say. It's remarkable that Jesus never seems to so much as address atheism and that all his harshest criticism seems directed towards the devout. However, he does condemn atheists indirectly (I think) when he says: "Whoever believes and is baptised has life, and whoever does not believe is condemned." St. Paul certainly seems to be condemning atheists strongy when he says: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)
I actually would not agree with you about the bourgeois church. First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with being bourgeois per se. Even if we look at Christ's parables, how many of them are mercantile in nature and take the business of buying and selling for granted? I think the Church is already "opening the peoples hearts to wonder, to life, to the realities of Him - as a poet can, as I believe Chesterton was trying to do, as I believe the Church should be encouraging all its priests to do, to speak a living language which inherently contains a new vision, a vision which is odds with the words and vision of the power centre, a vision in which people really can see God again in all their lives."
The liturgy, church architecture, sacred art, the rosary, all these things (I would contend) are an attempt to open the peoples' heart to wonder, to life, and to the divine reality. I'm not sure what you mean by a 'living language', could you expand on that?
I suppose the question is, on what grounds do you accuse the Church of seeking worldly honour? It's not that I entirely disagree with you-- I think the Church, especially in Ireland, has been too timid in proclaiming its doctrine when it goes against current fashions-- but, on the whole, surely the Church HAS been on the receiving end of a tremendous amount of criticism in the nineteenth century onwards, precisely for sticking to its doctrine in the spirit of St. Paul: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, though. In any case, welcome to the boards and I'm so glad you made the same journey as me, from atheism to belief.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver, on Jun 13, 2015 12:17:16 GMT
Thank you so much for getting back to me. This is the first time doing such pots and it feels great to be discussing with people.
You know I just put a post on the Bible on the relevant board in this forum where I said I am influenced by Desmond Fennell's arguments. I want to present and so work through some of his arguments on this board, not all of what I say is based on his arguments just to say. I just want to give a kind of notice that some points I will be drawing on his thought. As so many people are affected by reputation I thought it would have been good to present an authors thought through my - though always very flawed -interpretation and representation, instead of mentioning him explicitly but I change course.
Thank you again for your post.
I'll try and get to grips with what I'm thinking....
Well when I say bourgeois I am not talking about riches or a broad class, I am thinking about a mentality and position in relation to power (well probably a most of a small class actually). When I consider the people in the power centres of the world today, be they London, or New York, or say a regional one like Dublin, and the "ruling people" in such power centres. The people who have an interest in the imperial aspects of that power system. That is what I mean by bourgeois. Lets propse "Dublin 4" for example, though I haven't thought about it rigorously.
For me the death of Christ depicts the bourgeois interests in the death of Christ, i.e, the Jews of Jerusalem -the regional power centre- of the Roman power centre, who protecting their worldly interest in that power system, killed Him.
(Very much as an aside - bourgeois interests in provincial power centres can and do rally against the power centres when it is judged to be a advantageous, for example I sort of see the bourgeois interest in, lets just call them, the "nationalist" Jews of our Lord's time as an example -for example their interest in Barrabas etc, and other things)
So if our Lord's death show us the "spirit of the world" in the secular reality, considering in his death the religious authority of his day was very much culpable, and that this is central to Christ's death, considering this and why the religious authorities did this, I would say it was because they were drawn by "the spirit of the world", a protection of their position in the world, and this is what I mean when I say bourgeois Church. It is to examine this spirit which through Christ's death and words he showed us is a great temptation of a religious authority. Our Church then becomes the subject of an analysis of this bourgeois mentality -though it is more a kind of position of the soul- and to see how it rears itself today or in our history.
With regard to what you said about St Paul......."certainly seems to be condemning atheists strongy when he says: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." "
.............I am of the view, which I think was behind Chesterton's artistic programme, that "his eternal power and divine nature " are not being "clearly seen" and "being understood from what has been made". In the modern urbanised, industrialised societies it is very hard to "clearly see" from "what has been made". This must be clear, not only from our divorce from our nature be it in an extreme imbalance to our economy in the loss of a substantial smallholder ethic crucially in its rural form (I'm taking a Chesterton view there, but "imbalance" is inarguable), but importantly the distorted view of our nature, be it familial, sexual, communal, religious, which are contained in the "protestant/secularist" ideologies of the recent centuries.
From this reason I'm trying to return to the valid point that Christians aresomehwhat responsible for unbelief in an atheist today. The reason why is it is primarily our responsibility to actually re-present God and reality. The reason we have failed is because we have not built and speak "a living language" and speak to the people in their own terms. I agree the Church has attempted. Vatican II was an attempt-though failure due to the bourgeois trait I mentioned of desiring a niche in the worldly power system. But its changing of forms was an attempt. The love of traditional liturgy is an attempt, in the Chesterton sense of the inherent wonder in it. And writers like Chesterton and the works of apologists are an attempt by re-presenting the world as it is in "new" light, but which is in its actual light but represented in new terms.
And that's the point of the matter, a living language is a re-presentation of life and humanity as it really is! As Chesterton did with his love of children, and family, and patriotism, and piety, as John Paul II partly did in "Love and Responsibility" in his re-presentation of Catholic sexual morality.
In this world of excessive mis-representation, taking the lead from apologetics -be they philosophers or artists or both or neither- we need to realise that the correct action to take is collaborative action of revelatory thinking, a kind of collaborative representation of what reality really is. I agree the Church is trying to do this -for that's the nature of a Church!- but if we are conscious of this, if we seek to consciously build the potentialities for such an endeavour, which would mean for example:
the maximisation of "collaboration" as in the building of a community, what this forum is doing!
or the approach in Catholic education to build critical thinking by focusing on a few texts but thoroughly,
there are many ideas,
the point of is to be conscious of the perhaps unconscious method of apologists and great evangelisers, and begin a multi-communal collaboration (such an endeavour has to be multi-communal) directed at representing life and reality as it really is (representing a good life vision -as opposed to the bad life vision promoted by the power centres) by a collaborative revelatory thinking on a programmatic scale. Considering our dehumanised condition, and Chesterton's "artistic programme" which I believe was extremely intuitive of our situation, such a re-presentation involves not only the -representation of God but also the re-presentation of all aspects of reality, like family, patriotism, everything, the true nature of economics/politics, for, as in Chesterton, this only adds to and builds up our successful representation of God.
On the reflection of the success of the early Christian communities, it was in their representation of a good life vision expressed in institutions -the primary one being language, that was collaboratively developed in community, and was different and liberating compared to the bad life vision and mis-representation of the Pharisees and civil powers; that changed the world. Christ instigated that. He was the perfect representation both in his person, acts and words that spoke to the people "in their own terms".
Wherever in the world such a you might say such an "intentional" (to use a contemporary term) community begins, where a new life vision is won and sustained in language, there is the "re-newal of Christianity. Think of the early Gaelic monastics travelling to the world with their good life vision imbued in their persons, their acts and words. A light to the nations.
As I am Irish I really hope we can get such a collaboration going here, and as I said, Irish Catholics' forum, is doing its part, and so a great service to God.
And many thanks
Praise you Lord God of heaven and earth!
I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Many thanks Maolsheachlann!
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2015 13:20:57 GMT
You're welcome, Oliver.
I do have a broad notion what you are saying although I'm not sure I follow you in every regard.
I think my own answer would be that Christianity is in a perpetual state of rebirth and reformation-- as are individual Christians. That is why we have frequent confession and the renewal of our vows at Easter. I don't think we necessarily have to come up with a radical new language or approach, we just have to keep doing what we are trying to do already-- what we have been doing for two thousand years.
I think there is a danger of idolising the early Church. The early Church was not perfect, as can be seen from the many rebukes in St. Paul's letters, and the mentions of early heresies in all the apostolic letters, and in the Revelation.
I'm not actually convinced of the need of a re-presentation of all aspects of reality. Here you are actually joining in a debate which has been going on in this forum for some time! I do very much accept that we should always be open to new way to present the gospel, but I think we should also always ask whether the old ways are often in fact the best. I would even say that a passion for reconceptualisation and revaluation is at the root of a lot of our current social ills.
I realise I might be accused of complacency for saying all this. But really, I'm not being complacent. I think it's often harder just to keep slogging away at the time-honoured approach, rather than hoping to find a new and better one.
Of course, we are both speaking in abstract terms, so perhaps more concrete examples might help?
After Vatican II, and more recently, there was a perception that old methods of catechesis and apologetics were bad-- too methodical, too mechanical, too dry-- and that they should be replaced by a new, fresher, more inspiring approach. So the penny catechism was out and instead we had a lot of cathechesis programmes that were well-intentioned but did not really give solid knowledge. And we have several generations of children leaving Catholic schools with barely an idea of the basic doctrine of the Church.
Of course, this is not to say that ALL new ideas or new approaches are bound to fail and should not even be considered. St. Paul told us to be all things to all men, and generations of Catholics have presented the gospel to their contemporaries in the terms they would understand-- St. Patrick explaining the Trinity via the shamrock, even though that story is apocryphal. But I think we should be aware that there are also huge potential pitfalls in this approach.
We also need to bear in mind the emotional and poetic value of tradition. A lot of what Catholicism has going for it IS its tradition and its heritage.
I hope I haven't misunderstood you, apologies if I have.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver, on Jun 13, 2015 17:04:17 GMT
Thank you Maolsheachlann,
Yes some of reality is represented well this being a human society and one just departing from a Christian one, and so you could say there is only need to represent some aspects of reality. Latent though in the representation of reality that needs to be represented, like family, the sacred, God's life with man's, the sexes; is a representation of all reality. So I don't think it matters whether some or all is used.
Also just to confuse myself even more, communities and people being all different in different parts of the world, it would as I said be a mulit-communal representation of reality, so we would have the various art forms, perhaps slightly different emphasis of certain aspects of the faith as can be still seen in the national churches today, all keeping in union with the Chair of Peter. So I think it really would be a representation of all reality. It would be the building up of culture, local, regional and national and as the Church. I suppose you might say I'm asking how are we really going to build a culture of life, a Christian culture?
Anyway I need to have a break from this talk of representation, misrepresentation, reality....my head is spinning.
My example of the early Church was a reflection, not meant at all as an example of perfection.
Using penny catechism as a time honoured approach doesn't really tell us that it was once new and innovative, and that people were once illiterate, and that printing presses didn't exist.
Can you elaborate on "time-honoured approach" and "keep doing what we are trying to do already-- what we have been doing for two thousand years". I think it would reveal what we're on about here.
And on "rather than hoping to find a new and better one", isn't that what we've always been doing to a degree, within the tradition and teaching?
Of course "A lot of what Catholicism has going for it IS its tradition and its heritage" but I don't think the tradition today is enough for man, I think because of three post-Christian revolutions in the twentieth century(Commnist, Nazi, and American),and because of the increase secularisation of society in Europe over the past centuries. From that I think a broad number of my European ancestors and fellow men and women of present day Post-Europe, would agree with me that its not enough.
To believe that pre-Vatican II the church was on to a winner with regard to Europe is ridiculous. With regard to Ireland, yes, it was flourishing! But the Tridentine model that was flourishing in Ireland for particular local reasons, was not flourishing in other European nations, and was radically being rejected.
In relation to this I think "the time honoured approach" mentality in Catholics could be a pitfall of modern European history. This is making me return to atheism again, as I do think we have responsibility for the Godless-ness in modern Europe.
Come on Ireland! Sorry football is on tele.
Peace Maolsheachlann
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 13, 2015 18:28:13 GMT
I suppose I'd really need to ask you for specific examples of what you mean. From your earlier posts it seemed like you were suggesting a radical break with the entire Catholic past. You also seem to be touching on the idea of inculturation, which has been practiced in the Church for some time already.
I personally think there are limits to inculturation. The Catholic Church is the universal Church and part of its appeal is its universality.
You ask how are we going to build a culture of life, a Christian culture? I would say we have to do what we should have been doing all along (and HAVE been, to some extent), which is preaching the gospel in as many forms as we can. Different strategies may be appropriate to different places or situations, but I worry that is a mistake to look for a 'big idea'. The last big idea, at least as it was implemented-- I mean Vatican II-- was a disaster.
Of course, I could still be misunderstanding you, but again I would need to hear more specifics. Do you mean the idea of 'collegiality'? This seems to be the drift of Pope Francis's thinking. To be honest I am sceptical about it-- especially looking at our own bishops in recent decades!
|
|
|
Post by Oliver, on Jun 14, 2015 3:25:41 GMT
Maolsheachlann,
Thank you for your post. I apologise for the hurried nature of the last post and the direct-ness which came out of that I hope no offense was taken.
Thank you again for your patience. My thinking on all this isn’t coherent but you’re helping me. I am touching on inculturation. And so I am also touching on the possibility of the Church’s colonisation of people. The opposite perhaps of inculturation.
Reflecting on Inculturation and Colonisation in the implementation of the Novus Ordo Inculturation implies a sort of collaboration between the people of God, say the Irish Church, -priest/bishop/laity- who thoughtfully and taking care and discussion, try and develop a Catholicism that is something of say love and serenity and holiness to them and without the characteristics of colonisation.
The whole process involved in achieving the optimal inculturation would involve a very considerable amount of study/debate around the concept of culture, for example, “what is culture in a totalitarian society?” or “what is culture in an age of globalisation?” or “what is culture in a post-colonial society?”. Let us call the findings of this research “the culture ethic”. Research would have to be done on the methodology of how to achieve effective collaboration. Let’s just say, after research, that with regard to a “Revised Liturgy” it is declared that the bishops will decide the form of the “Revised Liturgy” with the advice of local liturgical specialists, possibly with an input from a “representative” segment of the laity and religious, all in the light of “the culture ethic” applied to their specific Church and its history.
Also implied is that, as the results of this new collaboration could not be forced or “encouraged” on people –an inherent principle of inculturation- ways would have to be developed so that dioceses and parishes have a real choice to practise the traditional liturgy or the “Revised Liturgy”. This would mean deciding in a similar way, but obviously now without liturgical specialists, to the Bishops as stated above. This also implies new Canon Law on penalties for those forcing or “encouraging”.
Also implied is that the Bishops would have to consider dioceses that are in areas that have a distinctly different culture to their church as a whole. So in the case of a different language or ethnicity in a region of a country-say the Gaeltacht in Ireland- the bishops of the diocese, in the similar manner to the larger church could perhaps decide.
At some point considering the dangers involved in the revising of the liturgy. A “representation” of the bishops of the church as a whole would meet in Rome and decide, by comparing the proposed “Revised Liturgies” of all the local Churches and with the advice of the “representative” liturgical specialists, on what would be the optimum bounds in which the revision of the liturgy could change as a whole. This optimum bound let’s call the “The Limit of Revision”.
Applying this to the Church in 1965: first of all, the considerable amount of study, debate and trial to achieve the optimal inculturation would have taken a long time (take the least three years). Then the collaboration in the churches-say the Irish Church- would take place, in the light of the "culture ethic" (take 2 years at the least). They would send their planned “Revised Liturgy” to Rome. Then the Bishops acting in the way stated above, would set the bounds for “The Limit of Revision”. This would then entail requesting some of the Churches, perhaps Holland say, to go back to the drawing board, and amend their “Revised Liturgy” in the light of “The Limit of Revision”(1 year) Then with Papal Approval, the “Revised Liturgy” of the various churches would become lawful to practice. (all together taking at the very least 6 years) The fact that in line with the principles of inculturation and upheld now by canon law, the “Revised Liturgy” could not be forced on the people of the Churches or their dioceses, and parishes, or encouraged over the “Traditional Liturgy”, would mean that its uptake -if any at all- would occur naturally. The use of the “Revised Liturgy” would grow very slowly, could die off, could become popular, etc, depending on the Church. The German being very different to the Irish, and Brazilian and Nigerian.
The above process was not impossible and once done, would have been easier again for the Church to do in her future.
It sheds light on the real impulse of Vatican II. That it used talk of Inculturation as a smoke screen for a movement of colonisation. There was no inculturation, no variety, no choice -it was imposed, and the whole Catholic Church received the same “Revised Liturgy”, the Novus Ordo. No real regional or local variation.
Considering Inculturation remains unexamined by the Church, and so a “culture ethic” undeveloped by the Church –one that considers what culture is in the light of globalisation, totalitarianism, post-colonialism, one understands how it came up with and implemented the Novus Ordo as it did. In the examination of culture it would have become aware of forces acting on itself, like Modernity, and its provincial mind-set in relation to it. This would have thrown up new action in the light of this. I think the provinciality of the Church evident in Vatican II was a growing phenomena in the history of the Church in Modern Europe. I think this provinciality which turned to the world and away from Christ has been the single biggest factor in our failure to evangelise Europe in the past centuries. I think it’s a factor in the Church now. I think therefore it will prevent us from building a culture, a culture of life. In my attempts to talk about community and language I have been –confusing as it has been (I’m not that good a writer or thinker at all) –trying to show the action of the Church after her awareness of her provinciality. I think she is coming to this awareness very slowly. But once she does I think she will begin that extensive revelatory thinking which is nurtured in community, which wins a good life vision in its language and instituitons, which it brings to the world. Where it happens be it in monastic communities as it once did, or even online ones, or in parishes. What I think though is that aware of this now there are certain things we can do. You know thinking about Inculturation has thrown up some things. It's certainly very complex but not something impossible for the Church to develop an ethic around. I do though sense it has latent in it a kind of "democratic Church" thing. Have to think about it Take care Maolsheachlann
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 14, 2015 10:38:32 GMT
No offence taken at all, Oliver. It's good to have more people posting on these boards.
I think the central point in your whole argument might be the idea of cultural imperialism. I'm not so sure this is a big problem.
I'll just give one little example. This St. Patrick's day, one of our priests in Ballymun-- who is a Nigerian-- told us that his country had been evangelised by Irish missionaries and therefore Nigeria's patron saint (I think) is St. Patrick. He told us: "I, too, am a son of St. Patrick." So here is a Romano-Welsh figure bringing the Gospel to Ireland and, through the Irish, to a faraway people in Africa-- and no hint of resentment or arrogance in any of it.
I agree this is just a vignette, but it seems representative. Why do you think cultural imperialism is a big problem?
|
|
|
Post by Oliver on Jun 14, 2015 12:38:48 GMT
I appreciate the richness of a pluralism of Catholic cultures. I acknowledge a people’s different sensibilities towards Catholicism, both as communities and individuals, and their right to practice accordingly within the bounds of Catholicism. The Church has a mission to help people, communities/individuals, to find a way in Catholicism according to their sensibilities (spirituality). This for me is part of evangelisation. I think the Church could improve on how it does this. Acknowledging this theme is in Vatican II, I am interested but see the implementation of Vatican II as going against the Church’s mission to help people, communities/individuals, to find a way in Catholicism according to their sensibilities (spirituality). And so bad evangelisation. Vatican II’s implantation begs the question has the Church learned its lesson from it. Considering the not widespread sense that the implementation was bad, and the contrary defence of it, I’m worried it probably hasn’t learned. Then I ask myself can the Church adequately evangelise today? Probably not? I am trying to think of ways the Church could help improve in its task to help people in this regard. Re-presenting Vatican II’s bad implementation, would help people come to real view of things and help steer a discussion on how and why? Perhaps it was its lack of rigorous study? Or that the theologians and movements for change that were largely from the most secular countries in Europe, had a disproportionate influence on the Church? Why is this if so? Or was the problem due to seminaries? From this corrective action would be made. Very little corrective action I believe has been made.
But on thinking on this I began to think of how the richness of the pluralism of Catholic culture had been diminishing in Modern Europe –not just in contemporary times as a result of Vatican II’s implementation. Why? Secularist/Protestant ideology grew in Europe, and seemingly affected the plurality and richness of culture, which was originally Catholic culture to some degree? The Church for some reason –why?-couldn’t hold onto fullness of that culture, things were lost, and we are here today with what we have, an impoverishment.
Was this necessary? Why wasn’t the Church able to counter the growing protestant/secularist ideology of Modern Europe? Was the Church necessarily “at the mercy” of such ideology? Did she really do enough? Was the Church doing something wrong, failing Europe? I suspect so, yes.
Together with Vatican II, I realise the Church hasn’t been able to counter the growing secularist/protestant ideology, and presumably as nothing’s changed won’t? I see the attempt in seed form in Vatican II an attempt to try and tackle the growing protestant/secularist ideology, but this seed was lost and was not really conscious of. So what do we do, in the light of the Church’s consistent failure in Modern Europe to counter the still growing secularist-protestant (but now less protestant) ideology?
I think as a church we should be conscious of this, discuss it, and come up with action. Would it be something radically different to what has been in the Catholic Church in Modern Europe, a new impetus? It would of course but it wouldn’t be new in the history of the Catholic church. It would probably be something that was in the Catholic culture of the Church when it was doing well, and evangelising society?
I'm suggesting, faced with this problem, the correct action to take could be a Church led programme for collaborative action of revelatory thinking. Which could therefore include
the maximisation of "collaboration" as in the building of community in diocese, parish and larger, the encouragement of critical thinking in the Church by active promotion of revelatory Catholic thought, journals etc, or using Catholic education to build critical thinking by focusing on a few texts but thoroughly, and the bringing back of Latin and Greek,
there are other ideas..............
But if we don't reflect on why the Church hasn't been able to counter secularisation in Modern Europe. I suspect the Church in Ireland could disappear, Italy, Germany, very rapidly, you know.
Something "new" needs to happen yes, but not "new" in the context of 2000 years, we were doing it before, just something went wrong circa 1500AD to present, what is it?
yours,
Oliver
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 9, 2015 20:36:39 GMT
Just thought I would note, and of course condemn, the recent murder of an atheist blogger by Islamists in Bangladesh. (This is not an anti-Muslim point; the murder should be condemned just the same even if Christians did it.) I'll say a prayer for his soul.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 28, 2015 20:42:33 GMT
David Quinn shows up the dubious assumptions behind Michael Nugent's (Atheist Ireland) piece in today's IRISH TIMES which claims that only a completely secularised state education system can be "inclusive", etc. Amongst other things Quinn points out that Nugent completely disregards the question of parents' right to choose denominational education for their children. (Here's an interesting exercise - imagine this is the 1920s, substitute "Catholic" for "secular" and "Protestant" for "denominational" and see what Nugent's arguments look like.) www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=4039
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 16, 2015 18:52:03 GMT
A former Christopher Hitchens fan offers some thoughts on what was wrong with Hitchens, and incidentally gives an idea of Hitchens' attraction for intellectually troubled American adolescents reacting against a religious upbringing: www.crisismagazine.com/2015/the-cult-of-christopher-hitchensEXTRACT ...It’s clear to me now that Christopher Hitchens was one thing above all: an entertainer. He was (and I’m speaking here of his public persona) really only a more cultured version of Lenny Bruce. Dial down Bruce’s caustic, streetwise stylings and add some burnished English charm and effortless erudition and you’ve got the Hitch. His appeal is precisely that of a celebrity. One is tempted to trot out the cliché “larger than life” because Hitchens fits with what most people mean when they use that phrase: his character is written in broad, bold strokes and we feel we can know him without needing to acquaint ourselves with the private being that dwelt in the shadow of that vivid façade. One could just as appropriately say “smaller than life” then, if that private being, in its frailty and nakedness and immutable beauty, is what matters most about each person, as I believe it is. Hitchens has been called a narcissist by a few of the many enemies he won for himself with his undaunted style and ideological idiosyncrasies. I think there is some truth in that accusation. Reading him, you never feel you are being confided in, you never feel trusted as a reader. There is always this distance of lacquered artifice. You are being treated to a performance, often a very impressive one, but you remain always a spectator. Hitchens requires only your rapt attention. Anything more, anything like the intimate contact of souls that every reader of a religious inclination yearns for, would be a sentimental embarrassment for him. Humility, on the rare occasions he attempts it, has a hollow ring in his prose, looks as transparently affected as an infomercial grin. He was evidently a man who did not suffer fools gladly (to indulge another apt cliché). And he drew a stark line between foolishness and wisdom, clearly convinced that his finely calibrated intellect would never fail him in discerning the difference. Is arrogance excused if it is parcelled out in witticisms and blazoned with indignation? How narrowly delimited was the scope of his compassion if he took such delight in dousing his opponents with scorn? How could he then be expected, after indulging so shamelessly in polemical fervor, to do justice to matters of moral seriousness? He is as vulnerable to these questions as any shock-jock or TV pundit. This doesn’t make Hitchens a stand-out amidst the ranks of cultural warriors, but it surely undermines the gilded image of him in the minds of his most avid fans, as a man of unshakeable principle and iron integrity. Hitchens took on matters of profound importance, and he did it with a fierce passion. But when I think of the rhetoric he deployed, and the vehemence with which he deployed it, I can’t help but see him as a demagogue and a charlatan. One of his most oft-repeated quotes is “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” This is, from the perspective of both science and philosophy, a recipe for obscurantism and intellectual irresponsibility, and a disastrous idea for anyone with an interest in truth to take to heart. Its appeal is the same as much of Hitchens’ rhetoric: when invoked it provides the intoxicating pleasure of putting your foot down in an argument. It’s a flashy rhetorical gambit that says, “I need say no more.” Though happy to present himself as a champion of science, Hitchens was clearly ignorant of the philosophy of science and its most important developments in the twentieth century; otherwise, he would not have uttered a remark so redolent of verificationism. Popperians must shudder when they hear that quote... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 30, 2015 23:16:15 GMT
Edward Feser has a nice post on the distinction between intellectually serious atheists and those who posture as a means of making themselves feel superior, without bothering to think about the subject at all. (Remember BTW that Feser used to be an atheist himself, and that in a couple of posts on his blog immediately following this one he criticises an evangelical apologist who claims that all atheists instinctively know that GOd exists but deliberately repress this knowledge): edwardfeser.blogspot.ie/2015/10/walter-mitty-atheism.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 31, 2016 19:49:53 GMT
Richard Dawkins falls foul of feminists yet again. I am bound to say the two parties in this dispute deserve each other; in the past Dawkins has publicly told a female atheist who complained about being propositioned in a lift at 3 am at an atheist convention (not by Dawkins, I should add) that her complaint was distracting attention from the oppression of women in Islamic countries, while the feminist mocked by Dawkins appears to be a foul-mouthed bully. Eccles comments on this squabble amongst the self-professed advocates of reason: ecclesandbosco.blogspot.ie/2016/01/the-book-of-st-richard-chapter-24.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 2, 2016 21:12:11 GMT
Having now actually looked at the Youtube video which Dawkins has got into trouble for "Liking" (see previous post; I had not checked it out previously because I rightly assumed it would be puerile), I side with the feminists on this occasion. The video ends with the Islamist asking the feminist "Is it OK if I rape you now?" to which she replies "It's not rape when a Muslim does it". Such a portrayal, implying that she deserves and even invites such a fate, would be outside the bounds of decency even when applied to a fictitious Ms Generic Feminist; applied to an identifiable individual and posted on the internet, there is unquestionably an element of menace. Dawkins seems completely oblivious to this. (BTW I suspect that if a self-professed religious conservative had posted this atrocity, not only would he be deservedly vilified but it would be used to tar all religious conservatives.) BTW the author of said YouTube video calls himself Sargon of Akkad - the ruler of the first major empire to arise in the Fertile Crescent. Presenting yourself as an oriental despot is an odd guise for a self-proclaimed devotee of reason and civility.
|
|