|
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 22, 2024 13:08:03 GMT
If this becomes actual policy going forward, to me it seems a worrying development. I'm not so sure conservative Bishop's concerns are based on only cultural grounds. Then again I don't have personal knowledge of the bigger picture Rome perhaps has. You could equally argue that the German and Belgian Churches are only pushing the envelope on same sex blessings on cultural grounds. Or financial grounds in the case of the former.
|
|
|
Fatima
Feb 2, 2024 20:03:43 GMT
Post by Young Ireland on Feb 2, 2024 20:03:43 GMT
Personally, I agree with you. I don't think either Russia or China have the appetite for war. But the sort of articles I have been reading by seasoned foreign and security correspondents suggest otherwise and it's scary to think about. I just hope we are right and they are wrong. I agree that as things stand, Russia won't dare risk nuclear annhilation by directly taking on NATO. China attacking Taiwan is a lot more likely simply because it has the advantage in terms of power projection if the weather conditions are right (which is not a guarantee). If however, Trump decides to withdraw from NATO, then a Russian invasion of Europe becomes much more likely as it can withstand France and Britain's nuclear arsenals. It's this scenario that has many military leaders in Europe scrambling (notice that they say that an invasion is a possibility between five and twenty years).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 26, 2023 12:48:43 GMT
I didn't know about the Holiday Inn. That's horrifying. And as I say, I absolutely condemn these riots. Nor do I deny the agency of the rioters. But how responsible is it to continue with the forced multiculturalism of Ireland when we see the forces that are being unleashed, from people-- the people at the bottom-- who believe they are losing out? Varadkar is just going to push on harder with his hate speech. As John McGuirk said rightly on Gript...there WERE many, many peaceful protests. They were ignored and sneered at. We see the same pushback all over Europe now. Is the obsession with open borders worth causing social chaos and even bloodshed? Many of us have been warning against this for years. I mean, I don't in any way defend the Provisional IRA but that doesn't exculpate the British or Northern Irish governments for creating the conditions that made them almost inevitable. Given that the vast majority of migration here is voluntary (aside from the human trafficking, which is a separate issue and which I agree needs to be come down on hard), I disagree with your assertion that multiculturalism is somehow "forced" as if it came out of nowhere. Furthermore, the apparent implication that those who resort to violence ought to have an influence on Government policy they don't like would set an extremely dangerous precedent that could be exploited not just by the far-right, but also by the far-left, by Islamic jihadists or by dissident republicans. It would be a recipe for social collapse. Ironically, the peaceful protestors DID get some of their demands met, as the Government is currently implementing tigher measures for Ukrainian refugees, and has on some occasions abandoned proposals for direct provision centres in certain areas. Moreover, the Overton window does indeed seem to have shifted a bit in terms of discourse on the issue in the media. I will finish with a question not just for you, but for those social conservatives who think that the rioters had some legitimate grievances, even if they do not condone their actions: Is this reckless alliance with the radical right, and the slim prospect of an Irish Trump getting elected, really worth the very real risks of uttlerly stigmatising and marginalising social conservatism in this country for decades, through association with an extremely volatile movement, parts of which have shown that they are willing to use violence to achieve their aims, not just on Thursday, but in several other high-profile incidents this year? Do the potential benefits really outweigh the potentially massive costs?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 26, 2023 10:09:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 26, 2023 0:00:58 GMT
The recent riots in Dublin deserve dishonourable mention here. I notice that some posters on the beargarden that is Politics.ie have found a way to blame prolifers. The likes of Justin Barret dressing up xenophobia and nazi fetishism as religion and patriotism should crawl back under a rock and stay there. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the genuine nature of patriotism. To most people it is simply a part of human nature. The riots can't be supported as endangering human life is never ok. Nevertheless I hold the Irish political and media elites greatly to blame. When dissent and discontent is ignored, stigmatized, and even criminalised, then this sort of explosion is bound to happen. That analysis plays down the agency of the rioters IMHO. Nobody forced anyone to attack gardai, burn buses and loot shops. Whatever about the proposed hate speech legislation, which has significant flaws, nothing, I repeat nothing can justify what happened on Thursday night. The tendency among many Irish conservatives to make excuses for the rioters, though not condoning them, is to me quite shocking and suggests a degree of ideological tunnel vision that will only marginalise us further. Somehow if the rioters were Trots and anarchists, I suspect that there would be rather less understanding...
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 24, 2023 22:41:51 GMT
The recent riots in Dublin deserve dishonourable mention here. I notice that some posters on the beargarden that is Politics.ie have found a way to blame prolifers. The likes of Justin Barret dressing up xenophobia and nazi fetishism as religion and patriotism should crawl back under a rock and stay there. And of course we should not forget the victims of the deranged lunatic who stabbed five children and a care worker. A five-year-old girl is fighting for her life in hospital, yet this has been overshadowed by the violence of last night.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 18, 2023 21:46:25 GMT
How is it bad? They may well be saved if they are not fully aware or do not fully understand the Christian message. There's also nothing xenophobic about it - anyone regardless of racial or religious background is welcome in Christ's Church. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I agree that Ireland's refusal to take in Jews during WW2 was disgraceful and in many cases motivated by antisemitism, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion. I am saying that beliefs have consequences, but you seem to disagree with me. If they(the Jews) were Catholics that were baptized by the Catholic Church you would have accepted them. Alas, that is indeed true and it was a disgrace that it happened. However, I don't think the architects of that policy were motivated by theological arguments about EENS as opposed to garden-variety antisemitism - the Republic has a small but influential Protestant community who have contributed much to society, as have Irish Jews.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 18, 2023 20:52:31 GMT
Sounds bad for the Jews and Muslims. And it is borderline with some xenophobia, maybe it is the reason why Irish Catholics didn't take any Jews during ww2. How is it bad? They may well be saved if they are not fully aware or do not fully understand the Christian message. There's also nothing xenophobic about it - anyone regardless of racial or religious background is welcome in Christ's Church. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I agree that Ireland's refusal to take in Jews during WW2 was disgraceful and in many cases motivated by antisemitism, but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the current discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 18, 2023 12:18:15 GMT
Do you guys believe only catholics can enter heaven? If yes, then what about the none believers and jews? It's important to understand that although we believe the salvation is through the Catholic Church, and someone who believes that Catholicism is true must join the Church for salvation, it doesn't necessarily follow that all non-Catholics are damned per se. The Church does recognise (contra Fr. Fenney) baptism of blood (i.e. martyrdom) and baptism of desire (if a catechumen dies before being formally admitted into the Church), and there is also the possiblility of invincible ignorance on the part of non-Catholics which might excuse their unbelief. There seems to be a misunderstanding among non-Catholics that the Feeneyite (unless you are a physically baptised member of the Catholic Church, you are damned without exception) view is the normative one when in fact it is a fringe view, even among hardline tradtionalists.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 15, 2023 20:41:56 GMT
Looks like Poland is about to fall - the opposition has promised to legalise abortion if elected, which exit polls are suggesting will happen: www.rte.ie/news/europe/2023/1015/1410959-poland-elections/N.B. This is not a blanket endorsement of PiS - but the blunt fact of the matter is that this election was ultimately about whether Poland would be pro-life or not, given the opposition's stance on that matter, and I make no apology for saying that if I were a Pole, I would have voted PiS despite my reservations about some of their policies.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Sept 10, 2023 10:19:50 GMT
One historical narrative which doesn't get as much attention as it deserves is James Lydon's HISTORY OF IRELAND. I'm not sure how much attention it gives to religion, but Lydon's mediaevalism gives him a very strong sense of how the same constitutional issues recurred over the centuries. (It is not strong on pre-Norman Ireland.) The increasing dominance of modern historians within the profession means that these sort of continuities and recurrences tend to be overlooked. Another book from the 70s which is worth a look is Patrick O'Farrell's IRELAND'S ENGLISH QUESTION. It was written by an Australian liberal Catholic with certain axes to grind (he thought Australian catholicism needed to be emancipated from the Hiberno-Roman model and become naturalised) but he does take Catholicism seriously as a causal factor. Mary Kenny's GOODBYE TO CATHOLIC IRELAND from the 90s is a bit self-consciously ditzy but it does try to explore faith as seen from within. Two problems with Irish Catholic history: (a) it tends to be written in a political framework, in terms of relations with the nationalist movement, rather than as a distinctive phenomenon (b) Following the model of Emmet Larkin's monumental multi-volume history of the C19 Irish Catholic church, a lot of it is written from the bishops' perspective. A couple of very distinguished modern historians, both of whom I would describe as pretty secular, have remarked to me that academic studies of Irish catholicism have tended to overemphasise its social role at the expense of actual belief, so I think there is some awareness that there is a gap in understanding. BTW I will say this - I have had some contact with Fitzpatrick (now deceased) and Foster, and while their worldviews are not mine and they can be condescending in different ways, both were extremely fine historians with strong analytical powers who have added a great deal to our knowledge of modern Irish history. They can be disagreed with but not ignored. Can you clarify which Lydon book you are referring to? As far as I can tell, he never wrote a book called History of Ireland (he is listed as an editor of the Gill History of Ireland, but I don't think that's what you mean). Other possibilities would be Lydon's Ireland in the Later Middle Ages or The Making of Ireland or Ireland and the English Crown. All sound quite good, really. I found Foster quite good at times, though maybe not entirely convincing, but I notice you didn't recommend his Modern Ireland. Would you? I simply found Fitzpatrick too prejudiced once he reached c.1930. It didn't feel like I was reading the work of a historian with strong analytical powers, more like the work of university student who is out of his depths. I am always baffled by historians or op-ed columnists who reduce Catholic moral teaching to puritanical attempts to control the private lives of citizens. There is a great wealth of writings on Christian ethics or moral theology all the way back to the first centuries until the present -- but, really, all that is a cover for a patriarchal attempt to impose a prudish Victorian morality? I'm well aware of the failures of the Church in Ireland as elsewhere to explain moral teaching well, and how it became legalistic (see The Sources of Christian Ethics by Servais Pinckaers), but surely a historian worth his salt should be able to see beyond the failures of a generation of clergy to the foundations of the moral teachings he or she finds so disagreeable. Hence my exasperation with Fitzpatrick. But as you said, there has been a tendency to overemphasize the Church's social role "at the expense of actual belief." A side note, re: Mary Kenny. I'm very confused by her position in Irish society and the Church, and I have been for years. She was a very vocal, very radical feminist, who campaigned for easy access to contraception in the name of women's liberation (and her feminism doesn't seem to have ended there). And yet she writes for The Irish Catholic and is a serious figure worth reading on the history of the Church in Ireland? I have read a few articles written by her -- none were enlightening. Does she even have a strong grasp on what Catholicism is about? What am I missing? In relation to Mary Kenny, it's quite possible for people to change their views as they grow older, so I wouldn't necessarily write her off based on that.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 15, 2023 12:33:39 GMT
The second item of interest in the current PHOENIX is a smear on the July 1 March for Life which emphasises the high-profile presence of Justin Barrett and his National Party goons. This is an example of how the NP poisons everything it touches and should be avoided like the plague because of its toxic record of flirting with fascism (to say the least) and stirring up hostility to immigrants. I strongly suspect that the NP is doing what the Trot parties and their front groups do when they take up an issue - they make a strong visual impression at demonstrations and take the most intransigent position possible to make it seem that they care most, when their real concern is not so much to accomplish anything on the issue as to secure recruits for themselves. Some of these recruits will be permanently sucked into the cult, while others may break away but be left burnt out and disillusioned. This is how the far right and far left operate in Britain, and I suspect it will be the same here. The PHOENIX also highlights the presence as a steward of an individual who has been involved in anti-immigrant demonstrations and about whom they make various allegations or insinuations. They note that this individual was photographed with Mattie McGrath TD and other pro-life leaders, and ask whether McGrath is aware of the sort of political forces he is associating with. This reads to me like an attempt to scare away politicians from involvement with pro-lifers. I don't know what basis if any there is for Goldvulture's references to this individual. (Justin the Turkey and his goons, on the other hand, are all too familiar and I respectfully suggest they should be excluded from pro-life demonstrations as far as possible.) Nor do I know whether the PHOENIX's claim that numbers have visibly decreased compared to previous demonstrations is correct - I couldn't make it on the day because of family concerns. I strongly suspect, however, that the PHOENIX account is not the whole story - because at previous demos which I attended there were numerous immigrants of various ethnicities. Indeed, there have been non-white speakers at past demos. It is in justice to these people, as well as out of basic human decency, that we should have nothing to do with racists and neo-fascists however they disguise themselves. I think Goldvulture's article is heavily skewed - I was at the Rally, and it seemed to me that there actually was a slightly larger crowd compared to last year (though numbers did appear to thin out during the speeches). There was also a strong immigrant representation at this one too - in fact there was a brass band from a Romanian evangelical church playing both before and right after the Rally (from the podium in the latter case).
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 1, 2023 22:22:59 GMT
No, the novel takes place 1956-68. The Conservatives were in government 1956-64, and by my calculation the scene where the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears takes place around 1962. The Chancellor's personality seems mildly reminiscent of Jim Callaghan, who was Wilson's first Chancellor, but he is a northcountryman where Callaghan came from one of the southern port cities and represented a Welsh seat. Apologies, I got misled by the reference to the 60s and the novel ending in 1968.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 1, 2023 21:39:04 GMT
JUDITH'S MARRIAGE by Fr Bryan Houghton. Fr Houghton was an English convert priest who, having private means, took early retirement when the NO Mass came in and moved to France, where he acquired a congregation and said public TLMs under the indult. The central character is a bright young woman who converts at Oxford and marries into an old recusant family, suffering various vicissitudes including health problems which endanger her life when she has children, the post-Vatican II changes and their impact on her husband's faith, etc. Note also that the novel climaxes, and virtually ends, on the day HUMANAE VITAE was published in 1968 - that is, the various liturgical freaks described take place before the formal introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969. A few more observations: (1) The "wealthy recusant family" background may seem a bit snobbish but it does have its use, since the characters have the social position, education and money to articulate their discontent and not to be simply brushed aside and gaslighted as effectively as many humbler laity were. (2) The long discussions of the issues at stake have a good deal of sockpuppetry, but these are characters used to ideas - note Houghton's comments in more than one place on the difference between the cradle Catholic who absorbs the faith through upbringing and the convert who learns to articulate it. For example, the disturbing effect of attending a TLM for the first time as an adult is very clearly described. There are also some interesting observations on how Jesuit spirituality, in trying to make unspoken beliefs articulate, can lead to reductionism and syncretism. Remind you of anything? (3) He is lethally sharp on the contradictions between post-Vatican II proclamations of church democratisation and the simultaneous repression of any criticism of the party line - for example, when a convent is to be "reformed" the nuns are allowed to elect their own superiors, but the previous superiors are sent to the back of beyond to keep them from being candidates and the qualifications for election are so tightly defined that the only eligible candidate is the resident malcontent. Indeed, a recurring theme is depiction of clerics who actually hate the laity, despise popular piety, and think the lapsation of all but a select few would be a great improvement. Similarly, the imposition of heterodox new catechesis and the suppression of the old method is justified on the grounds that to allow more than one catechesis would be "divisive". Again, this has contemporary resonance. (4) Fr Houghton rather overdoes his emphasis on the role of marxism and anti-capitalism among the liberals. Admittedly Marxism was flavour of the month to a considerable extent in the 1960s, but secular liberalism could be just as poisonous. (An interesting detail is that a Chancellor of the Exchequer appears as a minor character, but although he is quite a decent fellow he is clearly a Labour chancellor, though at the time depicted the Conservatives were in office, and other characters' complaints about his taxing the wealthy are clearly meant to be taken at face value.) Something of a period piece, but still worth a read for certain observations - alas. Wouldn't Harold Wilson have been PM during the period the novel is set?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jun 1, 2023 21:08:16 GMT
The fact that Brid Smith's 'legalise abortion up to birth' Bill has passed second reading, albeit by a narrow margin, is extremely depressing. What is noteworthy is that this took place with not a single Fianna Failer, and only one Fine Gaeler, voting for it. The single Fine Gaeler was Neal Richmond; since Catherine Martin also voted for it, Rathdown pro-lifers are faced with the unenviable prospect of giving Josepha "Eucharistic Minister" Madigan a higher preference than those two because she voted against it, despite her role in the repeal of the pro-life Amendment. Please find out how your TDs voted and place the worst last. Meanwhile, the legions of the commentariat are calling on the government to show "courage" by making it even easier to kill babies. Any resemblance to Lady Macbeth is entirely coincidental: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrR9RxhIhbcas is any resemblance to another eulogy of those who were "courageous" in doing dirty deeds: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speechesThe record of how each TD voted can be found here: thelifeinstitute.net/news/2023/extremists-are-in-charge-tds-vote-in-favour-of-abortion-up-to-6-months
|
|