|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 19:21:39 GMT
Thanks for the links Melancholicus.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 19:20:17 GMT
Well here's a funny thing: I used to post - a little - on fisheaters too (though I'm not Trad) and paid a visit there this week after a looong absence. It was your post that brought this forum back to mind. Thanks for clearing that up about the women priests, though I was sure it couldn't be so. Returning to the early church is a much abused excuse for all sorts! Ger Hear hear, welcome back Ger (though in all probability this is the first time that we have crossed paths ;D). The forum has been getting much livelier recently, so I hope you enjoy yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 19:17:54 GMT
Back in 1994, when the English translation of the new Catechism appeared in Ireland, I remember its appearance being announced on the television news on RTE. I cannot remember everything that the newscaster said about it (I was a pretty thoroughly lapsed Catholic in those days) but one thing stands out in my memory: the viewers were told that masturbation was no longer described as a 'mortal sin' but as a 'grave sin' instead. Now I cannot say that this reporting (which, as far as the text of the Catechism goes, was accurate) was spun by RTE in order deliberately to undermine the concept of mortal sin—I shall give the heathens the benefit of the doubt at least in this instance—but the point of the article to which you link seems to be to draw attention to a perceived deficiency in the wording of the Catechism, a deficiency picked up by RTE, even if the media mavens would not have considered it as a deficiency. In this, at least, I would be in agreement with the writer. The new Catechism has its problems (not least its swollen and prolix length, and the loss of the clear, direct precision of earlier catechisms) but at the same time it does not signal a departure from historic Catholic teaching at least in the matter of sin and sexual morality. Anyone familiar with moral theology knows that 'grave sin' and 'mortal sin' are synonymous, even if the Catechism does not use the traditional term in reference to sins against chastity. As to why the Catechism does use the term 'mortal sin' in reference to certain sins stemming from lying, envy and anger but not those against chastity... I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it is curious, is it not? Nevertheless, the context within which the Catechism's teaching on sexual morals is placed should leave no room for doubt that sins against 6 and 9 are serious, that they destroy charity, and that they expose the soul of the sinner to the possibility of perdition. I think that there may be something there all right, but I doubt that it is very significant. As you said, mortal and grave are virtually synonymous in Catholic theology, and telling the difference between then is like splitting hairs. Furthermore, with this in mind the fact that RTE trumpeted that masturbation was "no longer a mortal sin" (in 1994, imagine) just goes to show the level of ignorance of Catholic doctrine around Montrose.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 19:13:29 GMT
I find this thread extremely interesting and thought-provoking, as I actually live in the United States and so what is being discussed here is particularly relevant to the circumstances of my life. I strongly believe that if we are to see a true conservative in the White House—as opposed to just an establishment Republican, who may not be conservative at all—some form of rapprochement between Catholics and Evangelicals is absolutely necessary. Sorry if that smacks of Sillonism, but that's just the way it is. Without prejudice to St Pius X, we live in a very different world to that of 1910. I understand the appeal of Evangelicalism, particularly in its Biblical fervour and its emphasis on the direct personal relationship with our Saviour. The Evangelicals as a whole are also much more likely to uphold traditional Christian morality than the generality of American Catholics, but they are not without their flaky liberals either. Their worship services, on the other hand, are horrible—what Ann Barnhardt has referred to as "superfun rockband church"—unless you're a Southern Baptist, in which case worship tends to be more sober and dignified. Here in central Texas I am unable to receive EWTN on my car radio, so I listen to American Family Radio ( www.afa.net/Radio/) instead. This is a solidly Evangelical effort. My first observation is that their coverage of social, political and economic issues blows EWTN out of the water (although overseas listeners might be somewhat fazed at the amount of attention given to issues which are really of interest only to Americans). There is a lot of religion, but very little anti-Catholicism on this station; their coverage of Pope Benedict XVI, for instance, was surprisingly sympathetic and supportive and they fully backed the Catholic bishops in their resistance to the HHS mandate (i.e. that clause of the Obamacare Act that makes it a legal requirement for employers—even at Christian institutions—to provide coverage for contraception and abortion in their employees' health insurance plans). AFR is also staunchly committed in the culture wars, and their robust defence of traditional marriage and the family has led to their parent organization—the American Family Association—being branded as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I second rogerbuck's observation about the extent of the support for Rick Santorum in the American South during the 2012 presidential campaign; it was both amazing and encouraging and gives us a hint of what may be possible in the future, but there are tremendous obstacles to be overcome before we can see a candidate like Rick Santorum actually win the nomination of the Republican party. Following the defeat of the establishment candidate in the presidential election last November, several senior Republican figures (such as John McCain) went on record criticizing social conservatism, blaming the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stance of many Republicans for Obama's victory, and recommending a retreat from these positions—in effect making the Republican party look more like the Democratic party. Establishment Republicans such as McCain and Karl Rove are not interested in social issues; their concerns are almost entirely fiscal, economic and military—which in part explains the extraordinary performance of Rick Santorum, who would easily have secured his party's nomination if only the establishment had had the courage to back him, but the establishment is solidly against socially conservative candidates. Clearly, establishment Republicanism is failing to address the concerns of conservative voters. I also venture to think Santorum would have had a better chance against Obama than Romney ultimately did (although whether he would have actually defeated Obama is another matter). The principal reason that Catholics and Evangelicals need to co-operate if we are to see a true conservative in the White House is that both camps are themselves divided. Approximately half of Catholics, for instance, voted for Obama last November. Whose fault is that? I have strong ideas who to blame, but I'm not going to name the culprits here. A considerable portion of Evangelical voters—unwilling to vote for a Mormon who in any case was no true conservative—just stayed at home. In the last election, a non-vote was itself a vote for Obama—particularly in the decisive swing states. Call me pessimistic, but as things stand I really cannot see a Republican—let alone a conservative—winning the White House in 2016. Obama's rule has transformed American society. The Republican party is perceived as the party of the rich and of big business. The Democratic party is the party of welfare, of handouts, of whatever kind of sex you want to have whenever you want to have it, and of free stuff. It is hard for American voters to resist the lure of free stuff, particularly in a struggling economy. I believe we have passed a tipping point: in 2012, the proportion of the US population paying income taxes fell below 50% for the first time in the nation's history. This is bad news. We now have a larger number of people on some kind of government benefit, and a correspondingly smaller number of people paying in revenue through taxes. In a notorious leaked video clandestinely filmed at a Romney fundraising dinner, Romney declared that 47% of the US population would never vote for him anyway, since this is the number of people in receipt of some form of government benefit. This was of course true—but saying so may have cost him the election. Truth is, nobody on welfare is going to vote against the Democrats, so if you can get that 47% up to 50% and beyond, the Democratic party will have a stranglehold on the White House that may prove wellnigh impossible to break. Obama has played his cards very cleverly. Now there is an immigration reform bill in the offing, pushed by the administration and supported (stupidly) by many Republicans. This will in effect 'legalize' the illegals already in the US and if they acquire the power to vote, that is yet another huge block of voters that will vote solidly Democrat. The prospects for 2016 are not at all good. If it goes on like this, the US may even evolve into a one-party state. Frightening. I would have just one quibble with Melancholicus on his post. I think that if the Latino immigrants can be properly evangelised, we may be able to undo some of the damage to the Church in the US. However, were we to deport the majority of them en-masse, the Church would be seriously weakened and all the hard work of prelates like Arbp. Chaput and Cardinal Dolan would have come to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 29, 2013 19:08:44 GMT
Sadly, the Catholic Voice, unlike Alive!, doesn't publish articles on-line, so I'm afraid that you missed the boat. I agree that Catholics ought to have nothing to do with MDM if they know what's good for them.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 23, 2013 21:08:54 GMT
We must remain aware of these attacks and try to counter them. Amen - and the profound question is: how? Part of this may involve understanding better what Hibernicus means when he uses the word "deliberate". Another part involves understanding that so-called inclusivity really amounts to a form of exclusivity in that one is being subtly asked to change one's faith when one says "happy holidays" instead of "happy Christmas" ... But really I am desperate to understand the how question here and would welcome other's opinions on this matter of how to effectively counter these things ... Rogerbuck makes an excellent point. In this case, I think the solution is as simple as dropping a subtle hint in saying for example "Merry Christmas". Nothing over-confrontational, but even little things such as this is evangelisation.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 23, 2013 20:29:24 GMT
The Irish SSPX is at least as extreme as the British SSPX. I tend to think they are more so. We have a lot of the nuttier element of SSPX supporters in Britain coming here to start farming in the midland counties convenient to the Society's chapel in Athlone. I agree with Alaisdair.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 22, 2013 21:00:26 GMT
"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace; where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; and where there is sadness, joy."
-St. Francis of Asissi
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 22, 2013 18:59:06 GMT
The manner in which the word 'love' is being used in this thread illustrates the poverty of the English language in this regard. There are many different kinds of love, and in English one word is used to cover them all. St Thomas defines love as "to will the good toward another". It does not seem to me to be "willing the good" toward either another or oneself to draw another into a sinful relationship with adverse consequences for the salvation of both. In these weak, debased times, personal happiness and fulfillment are regarded as the highest goods, such that even the perennial standards of Christian morality must bow to them. In addition, the sacrifices demanded by love are often overlooked when love is reduced to mere sentiment. I do not see why homosexual people ought to be treated as a special category here; if they can have their sins legitimized, why cannot my sins also be legitimized? If homosexual practice is to be regarded as a moral good, then anything and everything between the proverbial consenting adults becomes fair game. It is the end of sexual morality, period. What then becomes of the perennial teaching of the Church and the authority of the Scriptures (both are which are crystal clear on the matter of homosexual practice)? It is a dangerous thing to use the concept of a "social norm" to establish the foundations of morality, as social consensus may embrace and approve the most diabolical evils. Think of the anti-semitism of the Third Reich, for instance. In the United States, where I live, the "right" of access to "safe, legal and rare" abortion is just such a social norm. Does that make it right? Our ideas of right and wrong are God-given, they are not the product of consensus. I think that Melancholicus is spot on. Consensualism can bring dire consequences, and we Irish of all people should know this from experience. I would argue though that communal weddings are not the preserve of anarchism and hippie-ism. The Unification Church is a very good example.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 18, 2013 20:19:06 GMT
Why aren't they highly regarded, Alaisdair?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 15, 2013 21:19:15 GMT
What I find most striking is that the media are not using O'Lubhai's alleged actions ( I say alleged because we don't know if they are true yet; I certainly have no brief for his politics) to attack the Irish language lobby. If he was a priest, he would (and should) be named and shamed. The fact that the allegations were swept under the carpet is disconcerting to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 15, 2013 20:08:15 GMT
Your prayers are requested for the victims of the explosion during the Boston Marathon a couple of hours ago. It is not known yet if there are any fatalities.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 15, 2013 10:53:37 GMT
Firstly, I will start off by replying to Louise and Alaisdir.
Louise: I am not a member of Y2K myself, however most of my friends who are serious into Catholicism would be. From what I gather, as well as annual gatherings in Clonmacnoise, there are also local Y2K prayer groups. AFAIK these are independent of the Church. I wonder if there are any Y2K members lurking on this board, perhaps they would have a greater idea of the exact events. I agree that Y2K members have very strong bonds and that this is a positive.
Alaisdir: re cathechesis, Y2K does not provide catechesis itself, but it expects its members to receive it to avoid a vague spiritualism. In effect, it is up to the members how they are catechised. More thoughts later, I'm on a tight schedule at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2013 21:59:06 GMT
OK, so I will start with the positives. I believe that Youth 2000, in spite of having some differences with their spirituality, are an integral part to any New Evangelisation. If you pick up any copy of Alive, you will see that many young Catholics have picked up their faith via Youth 2000. 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.
Another problematic tendency with Y2K is that they have a very uncritical attitude towards private revelation, especially Medj. I will cover this and its consequences in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2013 21:50:12 GMT
Given that the spirituality of this group has been rather sparingly discussed on this board, and that it is a growing movment, I think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on it. In the next couple of posts, I will outline my own opinions on them, positive and negative.
|
|