|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 3, 2012 21:06:46 GMT
The IRISH CATHOLIC of 2 February is pretty good. Notable features include: Several pieces noting that the government, particularly Aodhan O Riordain, is trying to use the school cuts to put pressure on the Church by highlighting the expense of having school chaplains and suggesting that more guidance councillors could be retained if the chaplains were done away with. Mr O Riordain has also claimed that the IRISH CATHOLIC misrepresented him, although they reproduce his e-mail confirming that they quoted him accurately, and he has been sneering on Twitter that it is remarkable to see the IRISH CATHOLIC criticise him for holding an absolutist position! Rory Fitzgerald has a pretty outspoken piece about the "incitement to hatred" complaint against Bishop Boyce, noting among other things that the person who made the complaint has in the past called for the abolition of blasphemy laws on the grounds that saying offensive things about other people's religious beliefs is a necessary part of the right to free speech! Michael D Higgins jokes that the Holy Spirit may have influenced his inaugural speech because MArk PAtrick HEderman "who is in charge of the Holy Spirit" read the first draft. Fianna Fail are trying to capitalise on FG Tds' attempt to face both ways over the Vatican Embassy. Breda O'Brien has a good column on the implications of the increased use of artificial insemination by anonymous donor for children conceived in this manner. David Quinn discusses how far we are or are not collectively to blame for the crash, a la Enda Kenny. Good pieces on the positive role fo Catholic schools by Michael Kelly, and on a Christian charity in Malawi. Argument over thee Vatican embassy campaign - rival articles by Margaret hickey, who takes the view that it is a distraction from the need for a lay-led revival of the Church, and who takes the extraordinary view that the bishops are representatives of the vatican rather than leaders of the Irish Church, and Margaret Fitzgibbon of Ireland Stand Up, who reviews the hsitory of the Vatican embassy. A letter from Rome discusses Vatican II and the continuity/rupture interpretations; I must say if the author is surprised to find the SSPX takes the "rupture" view otherwise associated with extreme liberals, he hasn't been paying much attention to the SSPX for the last few decades. There are several strong letters, including one from Maolseachlainn O Ceallaigh criticising Gary O'Sullivan's column last week. He rightly points out that said piece talked of "clericalism" without ever explaining what it meant, and complained of excessive desire to preserve the "institution" when in fact the problem is that many clerics are bending over backwards to explain away and have as little to do with the "institution" as possible, and avoiding the point that the "institution" was ultimately instituted by Christ. He points out that top-down reform HAS happened in the past, noting the Council of Trent, and that real reform comes not from the top down or the bottom up, but through the Holy Spirit working on each one of us. A very dodgy article by Noreen Mackey argues that everyone should be given access to the Eucharist unconditionally regardless of their state of sin or lack of preparation, and that this is what Jesus would have done. This would come as news to the Pharisees, the money-changers, etc, etc A Jesuit calls for greater interest in worker co-ops A modern lay missionary working in Ireladn describes his work. Michael Kelly and Mary Kenny discuss the question of Irish neutrality in WWII.
|
|
|
Post by margarethickey on Feb 21, 2012 13:53:53 GMT
Re Hibernicus' comment on my recent article in Irish Catholic where I raised questions about the value of an Irish embassy in the Vatican I would point out that the bishops though they represent the Irish Church are actually all appointed by the Holy See. As such, they are a reliable interface for the Vatican in church/state relations.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 21, 2012 17:40:29 GMT
Thanks for your response, Margaret. Here are a couple of points I think you have overlooked (for the purposes of this discussion I am only referring to the role of the Vatican embassy in terms of relations between the Holy See and the Irish State): (1) The bishops' primary function is to govern their dioceses, not to represent Vatican policy on matters of the day to the Irish government. By their nature they can hardly keep up with the Vatican's response to events everywhere in the world - that is what professional diplomats are for. (2) The bishops, as Irish citizens living in Ireland, are susceptible to various forms of pressure to conform to the views of the state and those views predominating in Irish civil society, which hinder them in representing the views of the Vatican, while on the other hand they may feel that the Vatican does not fully understand Irish conditions and the Vatican may feel they do not see the "bigger picture" (the dispute between the bishops, the government and the Vatican over the mission of Monsignor Luzio during the Civil War is a good example of this sort of distrust and misunderstanding). This may inhibit them in representing the state's views to the Vatican, and the Vatican's views to the state, in ways which do not apply to a resident professional diplomat.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 23, 2012 23:58:28 GMT
The current IRISH CATHOLIC has a very good reply by David Quinn to the recent IRISH TIMES editorial claiming that "aggressive secularism" which seeks to restrict religious freedom is a myth conjured up by religious figures uneasy with the decline in religious influence. He points out numerous incidents of believers' actually or potentially having their consciences forced by state authority in Ireland and elsewhere. He notes some of these stories were publicised by the IRISH CATHOLIC and virtually ignored by the IRISH TIMES, and suggests the IRISH TIMES' argument would only hold true if "religious freedom" were severely restricted to freedom of worship and that alone Worth getting the paper to read, and a reminder that the IRISH CATHOLIC can still fulfil an useful role despite its limitations: www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/aggressive-secularism-no-myth-david-quinn
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 24, 2012 9:36:01 GMT
The current IRISH CATHOLIC has a very good reply by David Quinn to the recent IRISH TIMES editorial claiming that "aggressive secularism" which seeks to restrict religious freedom is a myth conjured up by religious figures uneasy with the decline in religious influence. He points out numerous incidents of believers' actually or potentially having their consciences forced by state authority in Ireland and elsewhere. He notes some of these stories were publicised by the IRISH CATHOLIC and virtually ignored by the IRISH TIMES, and suggests the IRISH TIMES' argument would only hold true if "religious freedom" were severely restricted to freedom of worship and that alone Worth getting the paper to read, and a reminder that the IRISH CATHOLIC can still fulfil an useful role despite its limitations: www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/aggressive-secularism-no-myth-david-quinnQuinn's consistent commentary on this (and similar issues) is getting to somebody: www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0224/1224312304156.html
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Mar 7, 2012 11:00:14 GMT
Looking at the blog post, youngireland doesn't regard the Irish Catholic as Catholic (this is not unique on this forum). What papers/publications in Ireland does he regard as Catholic? Obviously Alive! but is there anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Mar 7, 2012 13:26:05 GMT
Rather than saying that the Irish Catholic is Catholic in name only, it might be better to emphasise the positives:
Michael Kelly kept a close eye on Aodhán Ó Ríordáin and more than anyone else tripped him up - MK has a lot more political awareness in regard to both sides of the border than most people in religious journalism;
David Quinn is consistently good on a range of issues;
Bro Andrew O'Connell is pretty good - and pretty positive without being over-optimistic;
John Waters can have his finger on the pulse on some issues; and
I've seen a few pieces by Rory FitzGerald - his take on the John Horgan action against Bishop Boyce, his interview of Fintan O'Toole and his analysis of the UNICEF study on teenage attitudes re: sex, alcohol and drugs - which have been very useful.
I know there is a lot of mush in the paper, but it is a catch all publication which caters to many taste ranges.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 12, 2012 19:58:53 GMT
I agree with Askel; I think "Catholic in name only" is much too harsh on the IRISH CATHOLIC. At the same time, I think the "distinguishing between priests and laity is clericalism/ you can follow Jesus without the institutional church" stuff which Garry O'Sullivan puts about in its pages is very harmful - all the more so because it is so vague and confused.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 12, 2012 23:22:20 GMT
Sorry for your loss. You have my prayers - so has he. Bereavement is always hard and words are inadequate. I haven't been trying to portray you as an extremist. In relation to TFP I pointed out that Unity Publishing should be used with some caution, and I think that Alasdir, who seems to have more knowledge than either of us, subsequently pointed out some areas where their account of TFP was at fault. That doesn't mean there aren't serious problems with TFP, and I have no brief for them (Look at the discussion with Alasdir and you will notice that I raised the question of whether they might be Evolan fascist neo-pagans) but accuracy is important in these things. The Internet is a great mess containing all sorts of elements, and we need to help one another to sift it out. That is what I have been trying to do with my comments on your posts - and on other people's - and I welcome corrections such as we have both received from Alasdir. (BTW if you think I am Alasdir, I'm not. I only post here as hibernicus; I understand more than one person posts as Alasdir.)
I think there are serious problems with YD - my difference with you was about tactics. That difference doesn't make you an extremist. Gerry McGeough, for example is an extremist, you are not.
Look carefully at my post about your view on the IRISH CATHOLIC - I said I agreed with Askel's point that it was too harsh to say the paper as a whole was Catholic in name only, BUT I then pointed to an aspect which could legitimately be cited to support your view of it, which is Garry O'Sullivan's dodgy views which IMHO are worse than anodyne. Again, we have a difference of emphasis. (In case you have any suspicions I'm not Askel either. As I said, I only post as hibernicus.) I am sorry if anything I said gave you the impression that I think you are an extremist. I never said or intended to convey such a thing and I would not dream of classing you with lunatics such as Jibril or fascists such as Sceilg or Credo. (Sceilg I banned for anti-semitism; Credo has never posted on this board and never will if I can help it.) We may differ in emphasis but that's legitimate debate.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 12, 2012 23:26:41 GMT
Hibernicus, thank you for your clarification and your support, and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions like that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 12, 2012 23:29:37 GMT
It's OK - I've done it a few times myself to other people. Once again, sorry for your troubles.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 13, 2012 15:26:03 GMT
First of all, my sympathy with Young Ireland.
Secondly, I broadly agree with Young Ireland about both YD and TFP. With YD, due to tactics and personalities (it has had a lot of members in 20 years, but the leadership is virtually the same. And having leading lights like Justin Barrett and Gerry McGeough don't help). I have, as I have said, personal experience of TFP - I mentioned Washington DC and Rome, but I have also observed them in Britain and I have come across them in Frankfurt too (this is easy when you are a committee rather than an individual ;D). I know some good men in TFP, but on the whole, I agree with the sentiments expressed in Unity, but there are some factual inaccuracies.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 13, 2012 17:05:54 GMT
Was McGeough ever in YD? I think Justin Barrett hasn't been with them for years. My feelings about them are mixed - they have done a lot of hard work on the ground and kept things going; the other groups don't seem to have much in the way of mass membership or outreach that I can see. The big problem with them is that they operate on the assumption that there is no room for debate about tactics - if you don't agree with them about everything you are assumed to be an enemy.
|
|
|
Post by margarethickey on Mar 13, 2012 17:15:39 GMT
Thanks for your response, Margaret. Here are a couple of points I think you have overlooked (for the purposes of this discussion I am only referring to the role of the Vatican embassy in terms of relations between the Holy See and the Irish State): (1) The bishops' primary function is to govern their dioceses, not to represent Vatican policy on matters of the day to the Irish government. By their nature they can hardly keep up with the Vatican's response to events everywhere in the world - that is what professional diplomats are for. (2) The bishops, as Irish citizens living in Ireland, are susceptible to various forms of pressure to conform to the views of the state and those views predominating in Irish civil society, which hinder them in representing the views of the Vatican, while on the other hand they may feel that the Vatican does not fully understand Irish conditions and the Vatican may feel they do not see the "bigger picture" (the dispute between the bishops, the government and the Vatican over the mission of Monsignor Luzio during the Civil War is a good example of this sort of distrust and misunderstanding). This may inhibit them in representing the state's views to the Vatican, and the Vatican's views to the state, in ways which do not apply to a resident professional diplomat.
|
|
|
Post by margarethickey on Mar 13, 2012 17:31:37 GMT
I take your points. They are wholly pertinent to the situation in countries like China today where local bishops could indeed be compromised or intimidated. That is not how it is here, though I do accept that the situation could change.Nevertheless, the Gospel was not spread through embassies. I note the silence, dismal silence, of the Irish hierarchy at this time when a serious push is afoot to legalise same sex marriage and Clare Daly has re-opened the campaign to introduce abortion. If they are making their moves at a diplomatic level, I wonder how far it will get them? How glaringly different is the courage of Cardinal Keith O Brien who wrote a forthright piece on " the madness" of same sex marriage in last Sunday's Telegraph ? Here we have( apparently) 73% of the population in favour of same sex marriage ! Yet, the government is on the run on the embassy question ! Something is not stacking up. Irish Catholics are adrift with no clear moral guidance from Church leadership on these huge questions that will one way or the other re-shape our society for many years to come. They take their cue from the secular media who define such issues in terms of 'rights' and 'equality'. The fact that the hierarchy feel under a cloud in terms of their own lapses in the area of child protection is neither hear nor there. When did God or Jesus every write -or speak- but with crooked pens !? Which of the prophets was not flawed ?
|
|