|
Post by Young Ireland on May 7, 2013 19:50:42 GMT
Following up from our last item, here is a link to a piece by Rod Dreher arguing that the sexual revolution (of which gay marriage is the latest offshoot) has far deeper implications for Christianity than is usually recognised, and stems from a breakdown of the overall Christian worldview. He cites Rodney Stark's argument that in the Roman Empire Christian teaching on chastity was actually seen as liberating as compared to pagan sexual enslavement and exploitation: www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/And the irony lies in the fact that the self-professed liberals do not get this.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 7, 2013 10:47:28 GMT
Warm greetings, Maidrin Ruadh. Not sure I can welcome you, in the same way as Youngireland, as I haven't been here long myself. But I am very grateful to hear your voice here and very encouraged about what you say regarding the appreciation of tradition there. Gives me hope! Thank you for giving me hope ... Now I just want to repeat a question which I originally posed to Youngireland (who has perhaps been so busy with his much-appreciated series elsewhere that he hasn't had time or noticed it) You mention that Y2K is "a growing movement" ... I would really be interested to know more as to how big it is and what "growing" means. Do you means as in "leaps and bounds" or more gradual? In general, I would love to hear more about the youth in Ireland vis a vis the faith ... I would be grateful to hear from anyone on this ... Sorry, Roger, I forgot about that. Y2K would be reasonably big in comparison with other Catholic movements in Ireland. Its growth has generally been gradual, but it has come to more and more attention in recent years. As a college student myself, I would be familiar with the experiences of Irish youth and Catholicism, and I will elaborate later on in the day.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 7, 2013 10:04:42 GMT
Youngireland - just want to say again, this is very appreciated. Although your first post covering the last centuries contained much that was familiar to me, the closer we get to the present day, the ever- more enlightening it is for me. I look forward to the upcoming instalments. And after their completion, I would love discussion regarding where the issues stand today in terms of preserving Irish Catholic culture and massive globalisation - or Anglo-Americanisation, because so much of Ireland's globalisation would seem to be really just Anglo-Americanisation. For globalisation, in many cases, may just be a euphemism for Anglo-Americanisation ... No problem, Roger. I think that Irish Catholic culture is preservable, however I don't think that it will survive in the form it has taken over the last 50 years. On the other hand, imho, a lot of Catholics here seem to view Catholicism as merely a badge of tribal identity (though this has always been true to an extent). Especially in rural areas, youn g people would go to Mass every Sunday, but that would be it faith-wise. OTOH, these same people enthusiastically play GAA, traditional music and are generally positive towards Irish culture. You would only see hostility to these pursuits from either staunch atheists who see Catholic and Gaelic as interchangable, or among more wealthier Catholics in south Dublin (I am probably over-generalising here, but this is broadly accurate.) As for practicing Catholics, I think there will be a considerable resurgence of "Gaelic" Catholicism in the coming years as resentment over the IMF bailout festers, while a minority will reject this and try a more inclusive approach to reviving Catholicism. In effect, we will see people being shifted away from middle-ground FF-type nationalism and more towards either SF or the subculture often derided as "West Brit"-ism.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 6, 2013 10:19:11 GMT
They do this via various retreats over at Clonmacnoise during the summer, as well as over events during the year. Youth 2000's approach towards spirituality could be seen as Marian-charismatic with a particular emphasis on Eucharistic adoration. Now the latter is certainly a very worthy exercise, though I would question whether it is appropriate to have the Host exposed during, say, a disco. I would like to chip in my tuppence ha'penny worth on Youth 2000. Now first let me explain where I'm coming from. I'm a fifty-something-year-old woman, so not a member of Y2K but I've helped out over 3 summers in Clonmacnois, serving in the Canteen, and last summer I spent 3 weeks there, as I was involved in the catering for the set-up and dismantle crews. My own faith background is that I'm an ordinary Mass (OF) going Catholic, involved in organising Eucharistic Adoration in my parish, and also involved in pro-life (with varying degrees of involvement) since 1981. My impressions of Y2K are nothing but good. I would really be extremely surprised if there had ever been Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament at a disco. I have seen nothing but the height of respect for the Blessed Sacrament at the Clonmacnois festival. Also, the only time in my adult life I was at an EF Mass was at the Y2K Clonmacnois festival. Everyday, they'd be a Mass just for the volunteers and on one occasion, the priest officiating chose to say Mass in the Extraordinary Form. I tell you this just to point out that the Y2K leadership are not averse to tradition. I am impressed on how sound they are on morals. In another thread, I've seen a lot of mention of crossover between Y2K and YD. I wouldn't know about that, but a good few of my fellow canteen volunteers are active in PLC. Also at the summer festival every year, the following pro life and/or pro chastity groups have either a stand or conduct a workshop: PLC, YD, HLI, Pure in Heart So whatever criticisms you may have, I would really feel that Y2K are sound and a force for good within the church Hi Maidrin Ruadh, welcome to the board. I certainly agree with you that Y2K are a force for good in the Church. Nice to hear also that the EF is being promoted in Y2K. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding re the Blessed Sacrament. From what I heard, the Sacrament was exposed throughout the Festival, which would naturally include the disco. Now of course, you would know more about this than I would. I also agree that Y2K are morally sound. Pure In Heart in my opinion is particularly praiseworthy. So Maidrin Ruadh, thank you again for coming on here and it is nice to hear another opinion on Y2K .
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 4, 2013 8:47:40 GMT
Point taken, Hibernicus. I did not intend to establish a direct link with the TP, hence the words "to a degree". Indeed, the differing opinions on the national question (the ITP reject a united Ireland in favour of an independent Ulster), is an example of this. Nevertheless, there are imho similarities. It should be pointed out that the ITP also advocate corporatism. Now I accept that Ailtiri may have been naive, but I still believe that Ailtiri may have been a (admittedly minor) influence on the Irish TP.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 3, 2013 12:07:54 GMT
Thanks to Hibernicus and Alaisdir for the clarifications. Since Alaisdir has already written an excellent piece on MD which I broadly agree with, I will skip on to the Irish language revival and Ailtiri na hAiseirighe.
As I said in my previous post, the Irish in the early 1920's had every right to be upset at the way they had been treated under British rule. It is admittedly understandable, therefore, that they would want to eradicate all British influence from the country, however small. The English language was an easy target. From the early 1920's, successive governments sought to revive the Irish language by making it compulsory (and ideally to have all subjects taught through it) . Irish was also mandatory for those seeking to enter the civil service.
This aversion to all things English repeated itself in the GAA. Until 1971, members were forbidden from having anything to do with "garrison" games (soccer, cricket, rugby, et cetera). Amhran na bhFiann was and still is played at all matches, even in the North. The Irish language also played a major part here (indeed the All-Ireland Minor Championships are still broadcast as Gaeilge to this day. )
Now, none of this is particularly extreme, even to the most hardened anti-nationalist. The same could not be said, however of Ailtiri na hAiseirighe. This was the Irish equivalent of the Nazi party in Germany, albeit on a much smaller scale. Its main aim was the creation of a "Catholic" corporatist dictatorship (i.e. pre-war Italy with a greater role for the Church.) Its policies included making the English language illegal, anti-Semitism, mass conscription and the forcible conquest of the North. It also sought to expand its ideology worldwide. Needless to say, it sympathised with the Axis (like SF, but more committed to fascism) during WWII. Fortunately, the party failed to gain any national representation at all, winning only a couple of local authority seats. In spite of the Allied victory, it continued after the war without any change in its policies. It slowly faded out of existence, though its legacy, to a degree, lives on in the Irish branch of the Third Postion, a neo-fascist grouping which I will discuss in later posts.
My next post, which will hopefully come on Tuesday, will cover the period from Vatican II to 1983. (I am doing this because this post has spilled over into the 1950s, and there would be little else to write about as a consequence.)
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 2, 2013 21:31:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 1, 2013 21:25:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 1, 2013 21:22:34 GMT
OK, as promised, here is the first of many posts about the relationship between Irish nationalism and Catholicism. My first post will deal with events pre-Independence. Anyone else who would like to contribute is more than welcome to do so. I will start with the Middle Ages, when Pope Adrian issued the Bull Laudabiliter, which allowed the English to invade Ireland in order to bring the then Celtic Church in line with Rome. As the Anglican schism would not happen for another 400 years, it was irrelevant to the Church what shield Ireland was under. For 400 years, the Norman English and the Gaels got on very well and inter-married, the Anglo-Irish were seen as "more Irish than the Irish themselves" and British rule was in practice restricted to the Pale around Dublin. The roots of the tendency I referred to at the beginning did not materialise until Henry VIII broke with the Church, dissolved the monasteries and all that. For the first time, Irish people were being slaughtered simply for being Catholics (a good source on the Irish marytrs who died can be found in Alive!, a free Catholic newspaper whose archive can be found here: www.alive.ie/archives.html )and such atrocities as the Cromwellian invasion and the Penal Laws only added fuel to the fire. As a result of these events, the struggle to protect Ireland's religious identity became intertwined with the struggle for Irish "freedom". Although the Penal Laws had been all but abolished by the late 1700s and Catholic Emancipation gave Catholics the same political freedoms as Protestants, the Irish Famine would have been the straw that broke the camel's back as it were. Although the British response to the Famine was woefully inadequate, this was due mainly to its laissez-faire economic policies at the time ( a similar Famine broke out in the Scottish Highlands around the same time which elicited the same response ), and the real oppression of Catholics did not help matters either. I don't believe, as some (most notably Tim Pat Coogan ) do, that the British deliberately started the Famine as a form of genocide, but there is no denying that British rule was no bed of roses for Ireland. A variety were responses were elicited by British rule. Some, like Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone and the Fenians, believed that violent revolution was the only answer to the Irish question. Others, like the Church hierarchy, Daniel O'Connell and the Home Rule Party, sought a more Christian route and negotiated many concessions from the British, so that by 1900, there was little difference between a small farmer in Somerset and a small farmer in Kildare. Yet many people, so bitter at the manner they had been treated by the English, sought to remove all vestiges of its presence and formed groups like the Gaelic League and the GAA. Although both were non-political to begin with, they were soon infiltrated by militant Irish nationalists. By 1916, with the help of these groups, the militant nationalists had enough support to launch a Rising. However, the IRB led by Eoin McNeill pulled out a week before it was due to take place, leaving Patrick Pearse to carry it on. Now Pearse's views were rather interesting. He compared his "blood sacrifice" after the Rising to the Crucifixion, while another leader, James Connolly had rather far-left views. Needless to say, the rump Rising failed and most of its leaders were shot. Many innocent people who had nothing to do with the Rising were interned, which only led to further bitterness. Of course, I am only skimming the surface there, however, this link should give a good idea of what happened: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_revolutionary_periodMy next post will cover events from independence to the end of World War II.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 1, 2013 20:11:13 GMT
I will try to reply in reverse order. You accept that God created homosexuals but not their inclinations. But if they do not have the inclinations, then they are not homosexuals. Not sure where that leaves us. Melancholicus already told you that the inclinations come from original sin. It seems procreation is demanded of them as a condition of marriage which they obviously cannot deliver. Well yes, procreation is one of the purposes of the marital act. Because of the anatomy of the reproductive organs, this is simply impossible for two men or two women to accomplish. In relation to my view on the command to love one another, I would draw your attention to your previous post (Jn.8:11) I think, rather than concentrate on the woman, the point of the account is more directed towards the people who were condemming her. Jesus forgave her but had nothing but contempt for her accusers. It is not for me to judge people. God is the only judge and I know he will judge fairly. But He also told the woman "Go and sin no more". We must not condemn people, but we most certainly can condemn actions. Jesus said that "If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments". He also entrusted the power to bind and loose to the Papacy. Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that homosexual acts are gravely sinful. If you do not accept this Tobias, then you really need to take another look at what the Church teaches. Many contributers here seem to worry incessantly about how marriage is under threat both from the practice of co-habitation and now from the possibility of gay marriage Co-habitation is only sinful when there is sex or lust involved (otherwise it is an occasion of sin). Gay "marraige" refers to an impossibility which is why we oppose it. I don't see it that way, Three of my children are now married after living together for various periods of time. Another is getting married later this year. All of their friends are now married after having lived together. All of these were church weddings. That amounts to quite a few people. All my grandchildren were born in wedlock so I think marriage is well regarded among young people. How do you know that these marraiges will last, especially with the divorce culture now commonplace in Ireland? In any case, the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and anyone who consciously refuses to accept that is putting themselves in danger.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 1, 2013 14:46:38 GMT
What I was alludinge to was there has long been a drive by certain Irish Catholics (especially those sympathetic to the SSPX) to link Irish Catholicism with a rather extreme form of Irish nationalism. This isn't a particularly Irish phenomenon at all (it is actually far stronger in Spain and France) and can be observed in all western traditionally Catholic societies. I think it would be helpful to take a broader perspective than risk entertaining, however remotely, the notion of Irish exceptionalism, which only leads people down a blind alley. To examine supposedly unique Irish Catholic characteristics in isolation from other historically Catholic societies will not aid understanding. But Shane, I never said that it was peculiar to Irish Catholicism. I am well aware of the attraction of certain SSPX supporters to the FN and similar groups. Roger and myself were discussing this in an Irish context, so naturally we were focusing in on its application to Ireland. I never intended to claim that this was purely an Irish phenomenon. Roger, I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable and I'm sorry if I did. I will post as promised some time after 6.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 30, 2013 17:10:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 30, 2013 17:05:55 GMT
I think that it would be a good idea in theory, however I don't think it will work due to the bipartite nature of Irish Catholicism, since any such organisation will probably be seen by both groups as biased towards the other.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 21:35:20 GMT
One minor point - the old British tripartite system was a knock-off of the German model, which is much more developed. The reason why they went comprehensive is that they never really developed the technical system at all, and the secondary moderns were seen as second-rate; they never really had the sense that the different arms of the system enjoyed equal status and were aimed at developing different natural aptitudes. ONe little development which hasn't attracted much attention is that Ruairi Quinn recently came up with a regulation stating that all schools, private or public, whoever runs them, have to employ qualified teachers only - in other words the teachers have to have gone through the teacher training colleges and undergone indoctrination in "progressive" teaching techniques; even if you have a Ph.D. in the subject you are teaching you are still "unqualified" by this definition if you have not done one of these courses. This certainly limits the scope for the hedgeschools Alasdair has suggested from time to time. (One of the strong points of the British private schools is precisely that they are not bound to employ only the sort of "qualified" teachers I have mentioned.) Hibernicus has read my mind. It was only that the old British system was in my head at the time of posting. I would also support the German system. And Quinn's latest actions are further proof of what I have outlined above.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 20:09:10 GMT
"On the other hand, there is a disturbing culture of collective punishment in Irish schools which has its roots in Ireland's post-independence education system." Was punishment in Irish schools in 1925 very different from what it had been in 1915? If so, how did it differ and what prompted the change? "Take the Stair na Gaeilge (abolished in 2011, I was in the last year to do it) for instance." I did Stair na Gaeilge for honours Leaving Cert Irish in 2008. I recall being taught about the factors in the decline of Irish (I specifically remember the establishment of Maynooth as an English-speaking institution) and its revival but I can't remember any partiality at all. Even if it had been political, I don't think it would have influenced our opinions; we took a very cynical attitude to the subject and simply memorized chunks off for points purposes. That applies for all subjects, I think. I very much doubt that school is as influential in forming the opinions of young people as many assume; I think family, culture and friends are incalculably more forceful in shaping the worldview of youth than what their teachers tell them. The first bit was an oversight on my part. I apoloigse. However, I disagree that education doesn't influence people. Granted, family and culture are also important, but what is worrying is that there has been interference by social liberals in the education system for a long time in an attempt to drum up support for their agenda. I am only speaking of my own impressions of Stair na Gaelilge, which were that Irish history was not dealt with in a very neutral manner. But I think the problem in that case was that part of the course had not been revised for some time, and so outmoded ideas slipped through the net. I agree that the format of the LC lends itself to cynicism.
|
|