|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 23, 2019 0:38:38 GMT
The Phoenix Annual also has an extraordinary comment in a hostile review of the new biography of Peter Sutherland, THE GLOBALIST. In the course of denying that Sutherland was a liberal crusader, it claims that his role in the Pro-Life Amendment was to attempt strengthen the wording so that "the equal right to life of the mother" would not interfere with laws against abortion. The reader with no previous knowledge would assume from the way this is stated that Sutherland wished to reduce or eliminate the right to life of the mother. In fact what he wanted was to remove any positive affirmation of the right to life of either mother or child and reduce the amendment to a guarantee that the courts would not rule laws against abortion unconstitutional. This may have been "stronger" in the sense that it would probably have prevented the X Case (though the ability of judges to find that black is white and 2+2=5 should never be underestimated) but it was rejected by most pro-lifers because it left open the possibility that abortion could be legalised by the Dail. Goldvulture's choice of words here is either unbelievably careless or a deliberate attempt to smear Sutherland in the eyes of younger Repeal voters so as to discredit his socio-economic views by association. (I have my doubts about some of said socio-economic views, but honesty should matter in debate.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 23, 2019 10:38:58 GMT
The Phoenix Annual also has an extraordinary comment in a hostile review of the new biography of Peter Sutherland, THE GLOBALIST. In the course of denying that Sutherland was a liberal crusader, it claims that his role in the Pro-Life Amendment was to attempt strengthen the wording so that "the equal right to life of the mother" would not interfere with laws against abortion. The reader with no previous knowledge would assume from the way this is stated that Sutherland wished to reduce or eliminate the right to life of the mother. In fact what he wanted was to remove any positive affirmation of the right to life of either mother or child and reduce the amendment to a guarantee that the courts would not rule laws against abortion unconstitutional. This may have been "stronger" in the sense that it would probably have prevented the X Case (though the ability of judges to find that black is white and 2+2=5 should never be underestimated) but it was rejected by most pro-lifers because it left open the possibility that abortion could be legalised by the Dail. Goldvulture's choice of words here is either unbelievably careless or a deliberate attempt to smear Sutherland in the eyes of younger Repeal voters so as to discredit his socio-economic views by association. (I have my doubts about some of said socio-economic views, but honesty should matter in debate.) Whatever his intentions were, his globalizing tendencies effectively undermined the right to life, and indeed, all socially conservative legislation, since international institutions such as the E.U. and the U.N. are hostile to life, the family, and Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Nov 23, 2019 12:16:32 GMT
The Phoenix Annual also has an extraordinary comment in a hostile review of the new biography of Peter Sutherland, THE GLOBALIST. In the course of denying that Sutherland was a liberal crusader, it claims that his role in the Pro-Life Amendment was to attempt strengthen the wording so that "the equal right to life of the mother" would not interfere with laws against abortion. The reader with no previous knowledge would assume from the way this is stated that Sutherland wished to reduce or eliminate the right to life of the mother. In fact what he wanted was to remove any positive affirmation of the right to life of either mother or child and reduce the amendment to a guarantee that the courts would not rule laws against abortion unconstitutional. This may have been "stronger" in the sense that it would probably have prevented the X Case (though the ability of judges to find that black is white and 2+2=5 should never be underestimated) but it was rejected by most pro-lifers because it left open the possibility that abortion could be legalised by the Dail. Goldvulture's choice of words here is either unbelievably careless or a deliberate attempt to smear Sutherland in the eyes of younger Repeal voters so as to discredit his socio-economic views by association. (I have my doubts about some of said socio-economic views, but honesty should matter in debate.) Whatever his intentions were, his globalizing tendencies effectively undermined the right to life, and indeed, all socially conservative legislation, since international institutions such as the E.U. and the U.N. are hostile to life, the family, and Christianity. The only socially conservative legislation which was repealed under pressure from Europe (and at that the ECHR, not the EU) was the ban on homosexuality. Everything else was undermined by ourselves. Institutions are only as good as the people running them and the problem is not the institutions themselves, but the fact that they have been hijacked by ideologues with their own agenda. Don't forget as well that Westphalianism leaves minorities with no recourse to outside support, since other nations are reluctant in such a scenario to intervene in another nation's affairs. This would have worrying implications for Christian minorities in Muslim-majority or Communist countries, and is one reason why the nations clamouring the most for absolute sovereignty are also generally the ones that the most authoritarian (and ironically, many of these are Marxist). I agree that the UN has failed spectacularly to address the persecution of Christians, but that doesn't mean we should abandon Christian minorities to their fate (which is what Westphalianism amounts to).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 23, 2019 12:53:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 23, 2019 14:11:00 GMT
Young Ireland, I think our exchanges on this forum could almost fill a book at this stage. Perhaps like this one... Probably a very niche readership though! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2020 22:03:58 GMT
The current PHOENIX jeers and rants at the delay in signing over the National Maternity Hospital site to the State, and insinuates it is all about the Vatican wanting more moolah from the Irish state. The piece is enlivened by references to "fiendish abortions" "dreaded IVF procedures" and similar "pagan practices", the implication being that only a simple-minded bigot or a hypocritical humbug could disapprove of these procedures. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_klage_an
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2020 22:39:32 GMT
In the latest PHOENIX: blasphemous cartoons making coronavirus jokes about the Last Supper, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, as well as an item in their business section gloating over cashflow problems at the Catholic Grandparents' Association. Pretty much par for the course from the PHOENIX then.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 6, 2020 19:47:03 GMT
The latest PHOENIX has a profile of Emer McLysaght and Sarah Breen, the perpetrators of the AISLING novels, which really brings home the extent to which we have lost any Catholic presence in popular culture. For those who are not aware of them, the Aisling books (there are three so far) depict the life of a young woman from a provincial town (rather like the authors) who has an office job in Dublin while intending to eventually move back to her hometown. (She does so, after her father dies at the end of the first book, and opens a cafe). At the start of the first novel she breaks up with her debs-dance boyfriend, whom she had been in a quasi-relationship with for years and whom she assumed she would eventually marry, and goes back on the dating market. These books have sold tens of thousands of copies, presumably because overall it describes a lifestyle which is recognisable and strikes a chord. The PHOENIX profile notes that even fans thought the first book shoehorned pro-abortion propaganda into its narrative in an awkward manner. Basically, Aisling helps a flatmate to go to England for an abortion, and is worried what her mother will think of this. It turns out that her mother is just fine with this and announces that she had an abortion herself because "I could be a good mother to two but not to three". On the strength of this, the PHOENIX profile states, during the Repeal referendum campaign the IRISH INDEPENDENT (once known as"the priests' housekeepers' paper") published an appeal to voters for abortion written by Breen and McLysaght as Aisling. Leo Varadkar then tweeted a link to it with the comment: "Aisling has spoken - now vote Yes for the sake of all the Maeves, Siobhans etc who have to travel". This is the power of pop culture, and a lot of Irish devout Catholics and pro-lifers live in a bubble and don't even realise it exists. This BTW is what Gramsci meant by cultural "hegemony".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 20, 2020 23:39:35 GMT
The latest Phoenix Annual Clerical Errors column seems to have finally given up on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's chances of a red hat, and is lambasting Pope Francis for having referred to the coronavirus as feminine (does this have anything to do with the structure of the Italian and/or Spanish languages?) and calling his latest encyclical FRATELLIE TUTTI (i.e. addressing it to "brothers" rather than "brothers and sisters".) Jeers are directed at the government's failure to recognise that most church congregations will be socially distanced because only the elderly go to Mass any more, and at "the Irish Catholic Choir of Beating hearts" -Michael Kelly, Ronan Mullen, Mary Kenny and David Quinn. Mary McAleese on the other hand is commended for "raising her tiny little voice" against church misogyny and lack of accountability - she is even compared to "a holy spirit". Perhaps some other type of spirit might be involved? I must say I was startled to discover that Brendan Butler of We Are Church Ireland has penned a supposed autobiography of Jesus, proclaimed by McAleese and John Cooney (whom the PHOENIX praises in the most glowing terms) as greatly superior to those reactionary texts penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Methinks this is another illustration of Albert Schweitzer's observation that people who write accounts claiming to uncover the real "Historical Jesus" generally turn out to be writing idealised descriptions of themselves. Incidentally, I was further disgusted to find out just now that the ACP are promoting the same precious text, and at the rate they are going may end up substituting it for the Gospel readings written by the aforementioned four reactionaries, no doubt with Colm Toibin's TESTAMENT OF MARY making up any deficiencies: www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2020/10/my-story-by-jesus-of-nazareth-as-narrated-by-brendan-butler/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 18, 2020 1:44:37 GMT
The latest PHoENIX has a vegan advertisement showing a terrified sheep having its throat cut, labelled "A Frightened Child killed for your dinner". Lower down in the same ad, a lamb chop is labelled "Slaughtered Baby's Flesh". (Note the total equation of animals and human beings?) Hear any squeaks from the same people who denounced graphic pro-life ads and declared that calling abortion murder was a form of shaming and psychological abuse? Me neither. The same PHOENIX jeers at the new Dignity of Life Oireachtas group for being mostly composed of TDs who were thrown out of their parties for having principles. So much the worse for those parties, and for Goldvulture.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 15, 2021 0:01:24 GMT
The latest PHOENIX denounces the new Archbishop Farrell of Dublin, claiming his appointment is an insult to the liberal Dublin clergy and that he is the leader of the reactionary culchie clergy. His statement in an interview with Patsy McGarry that the Church can't bless the rings for same-sexmarriages is compared to Cardinal Connell. In fact, Archbishop Farrell is not seen as particularly conservative (I can think of two other bishops who might be so described) and the piece fails to notice that various trad websites have been denouncing that very interview as far too liberal: ecclesandbosco.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-to-be-popular-with-pope-francis.htmlHas someone put hallucinogens in Goldvulture's water?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 6, 2021 22:04:07 GMT
In the current Phoenix there is an angry rant listing all the historians who criticised John Cooney's biography of John Charles McQuaid for insinuating that McQuaid was an abuser himself and ran the archdiocese as a paedophile ring. The author does not deign to mention the reasons they gave for criicising Cooney's claim. The author winds up by suggesting these historians should all apologise to Cooney because a claim of abuse has been made against McQuaid. Now if the accusations against Dr McQuaid can be proven or seem plausible then they should be acknowledged, but so far all we know is that they exist. Would the author like to be tried in a court where an allegation was treated as proof of guilt? I think John Cooney will have to wait for apologies. The same issue of the PHOENIX has a piece discussing how the IRISH TIMES coverage of the Mother and BAby homes glosses over the existence of similar Protestant institutions as described in the official report. While this is legitimate as far as it goes, we should be cautious about using it for whataboutery because: (a) A subtext of the story is clearly the claim that Christian sexual morality per se is simply the use of irrational guilt and shame to control people. This is not entirely untrue, but we should be aware that the implied standard being promoted is what I call Nietzschosexuality and the French call libertinage - the view that promiscuity is a natural and desirable condition for personal freedom. (b) As Catholics we ought to be aware of the distance between Jesus' treatment of penitents and the way our society - including specially those vowed to God's service - behaved. The fact that Protestants may have behaved the same way doesn't let us off the hook. Indeed, it is a necessary condition of the ever-more-difficult task of defending life and the family that we come to terms with what previous generations got wrong, as well as what they got right, and try to address those failings.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 20, 2021 22:27:53 GMT
The current PHOENIX has a glowing profile of Archbishop Farrell (clearly a riposte to the attack from two issues back) portraying him as an intellectual and theological giant who is building on the great achievements of Archbishop Martin, and presenting the new Archbishop as an ecclesiastical Mary Robinson. (This of course was published before Robinson's bungling of the Princess Latifah of Dubai horror came back into the news.) Methinks some ecclesiastical spindoctor is at work.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 1, 2021 23:31:09 GMT
The current PHOENIX has an item in its avowedly fictional section mocking the DUP for attempting to restrict the wide-ranging abortion licence imposed on Northern Ireland by Westminster. At least the priest and levite in the Gospels did not hang around to throw stones at the Good Samaritan.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 31, 2021 2:16:15 GMT
The only item of interest in the last issue of THE PHOENIX was a cartoon strip in which two characters are discussing how there is nothing to do on St Patrick's Day. One of them suggests praying, but they realise they don't know how to do it. 'Tis true and pity 'tis 'tis true. (Take a bow, catechesists - if RSE was conducted in the same manner the human race would be extinct in a generation.)
The current issue has a long rant implicitly praising the Secretary of State for NI for pushing the implementation of abortion legislation on Stormont, and mocking the DUP for making an exception to its general demand to go step by step with Britain. (To be fair, it also points out that SF has been showing two faces on this matter, trying to avoid alienating either traditionalist voters or the politically correct. Many of the latter, including two of the actresses from DERRY GIRLS who were active in the Repeal the Pro-Life Amendment campaign, are denouncing SF for abstaining in unison rather than voting against. Goldvulture notes that most of the other parties allowed a free vote, which of course is incompatible with SF's top-down military-discipline mindset.) This issue also has an eulogy of Mary MacAleese which praises her as the new Martin Luther and complains that Pope Francis is more like John Paul II than John XXIII, as if it could be taken for granted that John XXIII would have been fine with blessing same-sex unions. BTW McAleese - if correctly reported in the PHOENIX - seems to be implying that the State should secularise church schools if the Church won't change its teaching on homosexuality.
|
|