|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 1, 2018 10:44:44 GMT
I didn't know the best way to title this thread. "Church and society" might be a better title, but more ambiguous. I'm really talking about the foothold that Catholicism retains as the national religion of Ireland, in the public (as opposed to the private) sphere.
(Hoping nobody picks at my terminology. I'm not just talking about the State, but about the public sphere in general.)
Even amongst Catholics, there are different views of how far Catholicism's public role should be retained. Indeed, many Catholics seem eager to jettison every last vestige of Catholicism as the national religion, or the civil religion, and to do away with cultural Catholicism. Partly I think this is fatigue at hearing secularists complain about it, and partly it's a resentment at cultural Catholics who identify with the Faith but don't seriously follow it in any way. Obviously, I'm writing this in the wake of the abortion referendum one week ago.
I thought this would be an interesting stock-taking exercise. How much is left? And do we want to get rid of it all?
First of all, there is the Constitutional vestiges. Famously, or notoriously, our Constitution opens with a preamble in the name of the Holy Trinity. There is also a reference to women's special role in the home, which is seen as a relic of Catholic Ireland by many.
Then there is the Angelus bells broadcast on RTE. It's amazing that these have survived as long as they have, in my view.
At Christmas-time, there is a Christmas crib in the GPO in O'Connell Street, Dublin. There's also been a nativity scene in the middle of O'Connell Street in the last few years, at least, in a kind of glass covered case. There's also a statue of Our Lord erected by the taxi drivers, in the same street.
In UCD, where I work, there is a chaplaincy which employs two Catholic priests, one Methodist cleric (a woman), and a non-denominational Christian chaplain. There is a church which is open all year around, and there is a lunch-time Mass every day during term. I presume all this is paid for by the university.
There is a chapel in the Ilac shopping centre, in the Omni shopping centre in Santry, and in the Blanchardstown shopping centre (at least, there was a few years ago). I presume there are similar shopping centres elsewhere.
Obviously there are still a huge number of Catholic schools in Ireland, most of which seem to be an embarrassment to both Catholics and secularists. David Quinn of the Iona Institute thinks that the vast majority of these should be divested. Of course, many are Catholic only in name.
How about Catholic hospitals? I know these have Catholic chaplains and chapels. My knowledge of the health service is very limited, though.
I remember an army chaplain talking at the 2016 commemoration of the Easter Rising. I recently went to the funeral of a retired garda which was celebrated by a garda chaplain. Our parish priest in Ballymun was formerly a prison chaplain. Presumably all our prisons have chaplains.
There is a blasphemy law which isn't specific to Catholicism, but which is often complained about by secularists.
There are many statues to Catholic figures, such as the statute to Fr. Matthew on O'Connell Street in Dublin. Perhaps even these might become the target of secularists, in the same way that Confederate statues have been in America (with the blessing of many left-wing Catholics). There are many, many streets and other institutions (such as football teams) named after Catholic saints or with some Catholic association. Archbishop Ryan Park in Dublin was changed to the People's Park in 2010, so it isn't so far-fetched to think these might be changed.
There are our religious holidays. It seems unlikely anyone would want to abolish the Christmas holidays or St. Patrick's Day, but might there be pressure to get rid of Easter? Good Friday is a de facto public holiday to a great extent, might that change?
There is still a prayer at the beginning of the day's business in Dáil Éireann, and a proposal to abolish this was rejected in 2017. I've heard that many county and city councils also have prayers.
Jurors are still invited to swear on the Bible in the Irish legal system, although they can choose to affirm the oath instead.
I'm sure there's a lot more. I think there are still many vestiges of cultural Catholicism in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 9:34:36 GMT
There's a lot there maolsheachlann. If I could just address my thoughts on the foothold that Catholicism has in the public sphere (as opposed to the public psyche).
I've been re-reading the Benedict Option lately to get some perspective on where we are. (I'll have in back in the Catholic Library next Saturday if anyone else wants to read it!)
We've heard constant, repeated attempts in recent years to erode the public presence of Catholicism as the national religion (as you call it). That will likely continue.
I think we need to continue to voice our right to be visible and heard in the public sphere, if not just for the fact that religious liberty is a civil liberty issue too. Any oppression of civil liberties is not for the common good of society (as has been repeatedly claimed by secular liberalists, and should be reminded to them any time they try to silence or oppress another.)
I do feel there are some things, though, which we will have to be prepared to let go, because if they attempt to co-exist with encroaching liberalism, they could be co-opted to dilute Catholic Truth further in the public sphere - that would be worse, in my view. For example, the pre-amble in the Constitution that I mentioned previously; the new content of the constitution now makes that preamble a national insult against the Holy Trinity. It may lead to some confrontation in the public sphere, but the Truth will be more clearly visible to the public because of it. I'm thinking of the recent controversy of the Bishop refusing an avowed atheist politician as sponsor in a Confirmation - this was very valuable, in my view, to reaffirm Catholic Truth in the public sphere. It also challenged a secular attack that would have diluted the faith further in the public eyes - making confirmation little more that a social "coming of age" ceremony that anyone can partake in. The public is now more aware Confirmation is about adult acceptance of, and into, the Catholic faith. The sinfulness of voting for abortion is now also in the public mind.
In the public sphere, the conversation will probably remain of that nature and level - perceived as a battle of ideologies.
While we need continued, strong, representation of Catholic teaching by clergy (and laity) in the public sphere, I think ultimately it's only by building (visible at a more personal level in public) small lay Catholic communities, strong in faith, charity, and practices, that show the visible effects and joy of embracing and living the Catholic Truth which will attract individual persons. Only that way, I think, could Catholicism hope to remain a national religion.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 3, 2018 10:51:09 GMT
There's a lot there maolsheachlann. If I could just address my thoughts on the foothold that Catholicism has in the public sphere (as opposed to the public psyche). I've been re-reading the Benedict Option lately to get some perspective on where we are. (I'll have in back in the Catholic Library next Saturday if anyone else wants to read it!) We've heard constant, repeated attempts in recent years to erode the public presence of Catholicism as the national religion (as you call it). That will likely continue. I think we need to continue to voice our right to be visible and heard in the public sphere, if not just for the fact that religious liberty is a civil liberty issue too. Any oppression of civil liberties is not for the common good of society (as has been repeatedly claimed by secular liberalists, and should be reminded to them any time they try to silence or oppress another.) I do feel there are some things, though, which we will have to be prepared to let go, because if they attempt to co-exist with encroaching liberalism, they could be co-opted to dilute Catholic Truth further in the public sphere - that would be worse, in my view. For example, the pre-amble in the Constitution that I mentioned previously; the new content of the constitution now makes that preamble a national insult against the Holy Trinity. It may lead to some confrontation in the public sphere, but the Truth will be more clearly visible to the public because of it. I'm thinking of the recent controversy of the Bishop refusing an avowed atheist politician as sponsor in a Confirmation - this was very valuable, in my view, to reaffirm Catholic Truth in the public sphere. It also challenged a secular attack that would have diluted the faith further in the public eyes - making confirmation little more that a social "coming of age" ceremony that anyone can partake in. The public is now more aware Confirmation is about adult acceptance of, and into, the Catholic faith. The sinfulness of voting for abortion is now also in the public mind. In the public sphere, the conversation will probably remain of that nature and level - perceived as a battle of ideologies. While we need continued, strong, representation of Catholic teaching by clergy (and laity) in the public sphere, I think ultimately it's only by building (visible at a more personal level in public) small lay Catholic communities, strong in faith, charity, and practices, that show the visible effects and joy of embracing and living the Catholic Truth which will attract individual persons. Only that way, I think, could Catholicism hope to remain a national religion. Thanks, Eirwatcher. I agree with all that. (I used the term "national religion" tentatively. I'm talking about an overlapping set of phenomena here.)
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jun 5, 2018 11:31:46 GMT
I would be inclined to let the forces of secularity, if they wish, dismantle elements of cultural Catholicism themselves rather than us Catholics do it for them.
Schools and hospitals however are worth examining seriously. I do not know enough about the legal and administrative status of Catholic schools. Obviously they are not working in that they are so influenced, compromised and constrained by secularity that they are not producing faithful Catholics. I have thought that the Church could refuse public funds and go self funded. There would be fewer schools, and there would be severe money pressure on Catholic lay people to help fund them. But if it meant better catechised pupils, then great.
But there is no guarantee that, in privately funded schools, the pupils would be better catechised (or more accurately their learning would be pushed aside later by the all powerful presence of secularity in the media, politics and universities). Moreover, there is no guarantee that a bitter government wouldn't enact laws to curtail or dictate faith learning in schools, or establish entrance criteria, even if those schools were using private finance.
My own inclination would be to keep a good number of schools, a presence in all towns and cities in Ireland and fight to establish a stronger ethos in those schools. Hand over a percentage of current Catholic schools to the state but bargain for more autonomy. Hopefully the smaller set of Catholic schools would prove to be the more successful schools and the most sought after.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 5, 2018 12:05:17 GMT
From what I know of America, private Catholic schools are VERY expensive. And, as you say, being private might not save them anyway. It seems to me that religious education will have to be independent of schools, most likely.
I was hoping that people would have other suggestions, in this thread, of the extent of cultural Catholicism in Ireland-- things I might have overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jun 5, 2018 21:01:07 GMT
From what I know of America, private Catholic schools are VERY expensive. And, as you say, being private might not save them anyway. It seems to me that religious education will have to be independent of schools, most likely. I was hoping that people would have other suggestions, in this thread, of the extent of cultural Catholicism in Ireland-- things I might have overlooked. Pilgrimages, crosses on top of hills/mountains. Novenas and retreats. Church bells. Popular sayings and phrases - God Bless, God help us, Heaven help us and many others. In light of the eclipse of Catholic cultural artefacts, I think it would be a great idea if fasting days and fish on Friday were brought back as a witness to the faith.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 5, 2018 21:32:59 GMT
Fish on Fridays HAS been brought back in England and Wales, but it's very hard to get any information on how much it's been actually taken up.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 6, 2018 20:55:27 GMT
I go in for fish on Fridays myself, though as a personal practice - I wouldn't make an issue of it if I was visiting someone and they served me meat. Part of the problem is that there are two different (though related) meanings for "cultural Catholicism". One is a vestigial sense of being Catholic, attraction to certain Catholic practices and devotions etc. This IMHO can be positive since it leaves a bridgehead for the revival of faith. (This IMHO is why some of our atheist friends are always insisting that only people who believe and practice everything the church teaches should call themselves Catholic.) The second might be called "neutron bomb Catholicism" - where the faith has died completely but some external practices are retained, as social occasions or because they are seen as "strong magic" (the gangster carrying religious medals). The problem is that these can be difficult to tell apart. A lot of the devotional and liturgical changes after Vatican II were aimed at eradicating "cultural Catholicism" in sense 2, with the effect of damaging sense 1 also. (Admittedly, sense 2 is a much worse problem in Italy than here - there is a long history of mafia and similar groups taking over confraternities, using shrines and religious processions as meeting-points, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2018 10:11:27 GMT
I didn't know the best way to title this thread. "Church and society" might be a better title, but more ambiguous. I'm really talking about the foothold that Catholicism retains as the national religion of Ireland, in the public (as opposed to the private) sphere. (Hoping nobody picks at my terminology. I'm not just talking about the State, but about the public sphere in general.) In response, Hibernicus wrote: "Part of the problem is that there are two different (though related) meanings for "cultural Catholicism"... I want to say, for future reference, that whenever I post about anything, I'm happy for it to be understood in the broadest terms.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2018 10:12:23 GMT
I also avoid meat on Fridays-- though, like yourself, I'm not absolute about it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 9, 2018 14:28:27 GMT
One distinction might be between cultural Catholicism, which can be a lifeless fossil or a bridge (I'm thinking, for example of the Don Camillo story where the local communists demand to take part in the church procession - this was quite a plausible scenario, whereas French communists were aggressively secular their Italian counterparts were often willing to take part in Catholic-influenced civic rituals) and tribal Catholicism which can be a social bond but can also turn quite vicious. I think for example that the willingness of certain Catholic commentators -such as some writers in the CRISIS webzine, to ally with radical nationalists on the basis of shared hostility to Islam, is very dangerous indeed. In saying this I don't mean to say that Islam is not deeply flawed, or that there are not genuinely dangerous elements among Western Muslims (the fact that one of the London Bridge suicide attackers spent some time in Dublin is a very dangerous sign), or that it is wrong to restrict/regulate immigration. What I object to is the view that every Muslim should be treated as if they were members of ISIS, or that the building of mosques here is any more inherently wrong than the building of synagogues on the South Circular Road by Jewish immigrants around 1900, or the building of Catholic churches by immigrants in C19 and C20 Britain and America (some of the objections made to the latter were remarkably similar to some of the anti-mosque literature I've seen). I mean that it's dangerous to lump all Muslims together, or to ally unthinkingly with groups many of which are run by racists and neo-pagans using religious imagery as a mask for something very sinister. Oh, just in case anyone thinks I am an undercover Muslim, the Koran is not the word of God, Mohammed was not a prophet,and Jesus is God the Son. I am not saying this to offend anyone but to make it clear that I am writing as a Catholic and to make it harder for people to slander me to avoid addressing my views.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 9, 2018 16:39:37 GMT
One distinction might be between cultural Catholicism, which can be a lifeless fossil or a bridge (I'm thinking, for example of the Don Camillo story where the local communists demand to take part in the church procession - this was quite a plausible scenario, whereas French communists were aggressively secular their Italian counterparts were often willing to take part in Catholic-influenced civic rituals) and tribal Catholicism which can be a social bond but can also turn quite vicious. I think for example that the willingness of certain Catholic commentators -such as some writers in the CRISIS webzine, to ally with radical nationalists on the basis of shared hostility to Islam, is very dangerous indeed. In saying this I don't mean to say that Islam is not deeply flawed, or that there are not genuinely dangerous elements among Western Muslims (the fact that one of the London Bridge suicide attackers spent some time in Dublin is a very dangerous sign), or that it is wrong to restrict/regulate immigration. What I object to is the view that every Muslim should be treated as if they were members of ISIS, or that the building of mosques here is any more inherently wrong than the building of synagogues on the South Circular Road by Jewish immigrants around 1900, or the building of Catholic churches by immigrants in C19 and C20 Britain and America (some of the objections made to the latter were remarkably similar to some of the anti-mosque literature I've seen). I mean that it's dangerous to lump all Muslims together, or to ally unthinkingly with groups many of which are run by racists and neo-pagans using religious imagery as a mask for something very sinister. Oh, just in case anyone thinks I am an undercover Muslim, the Koran is not the word of God, Mohammed was not a prophet,and Jesus is God the Son. I am not saying this to offend anyone but to make it clear that I am writing as a Catholic and to make it harder for people to slander me to avoid addressing my views. Hibernicus, I agree. I'm disturbed at the intensity of anti-Islam I'm seeing on the Irish right. Indeed, I hold myself guilty of having strayed too far in that direction myself not so long ago. It is not the attitude of Vatican II, St. John Paul II, or Pope Benedict XVI. Religious strife is not going to help anyone. At the same time, we must not be naive. The fact that the authorities in Europe are so often pandering to Islam makes it hard not to overreact.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jun 16, 2018 21:58:21 GMT
One of the reasons I think cultural Catholicism is worth holding onto is for its apologetic value. The claim Christians make is that the life and death of Jesus changed world history. That is true no matter what happens henceforth, but if it's purely historical it seems less impressive to a contemporary. This is why I've never been able to share the apparent view of many Catholics that Protestants/Evangelicals/born again Christians/the religious right/liberal Christians are more of an embarrassment to Christianity than anything else. I think anything that keeps Christ culturally relevant is fundamentally a good thing. "But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice." (Phillipians, 1:18.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Jun 30, 2018 19:44:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 2, 2018 20:46:35 GMT
There is an Ian Paisley anecdote about him being challenged by a heckler who denied Jesus existed. "What year is this?" he replied. "1952" (or whatever year it was)" "1952 years from what?"
|
|