|
Post by assisi on Mar 27, 2019 10:01:40 GMT
It could just as easily be argued that pre-Vatican II Catholicism was too intellectual in the sense of presenting itself as a series of beautifully articulated self-sustaining rules. There is, I agree a real issue about how intellectualising the Church can turn it into a middle-class social club, though the old-style popular devotional Catholicism can be criticised as ANTI-intellectual. I wonder how far "intellectual" is meant to refer to the end-product of one's thought and not the result? (i.e. implying that a "conservative" or "orthodox" Catholic intellectual is a contradiction in terms.) I honestly think that for a generation of people who were born, say before the 1980s, the idea of Irish Catholic anti-intellectualism was tied in with the much publicised disapproval of the Irish Catholic Church to certain literary works such as some of McGaherns' works and Edna O'Brien, all in the midst of the post 60s 'anything goes' era. Rather than the Church being, 'per se' intellectual, I would say that it is much more healthy when it is each member of the Church who chooses to use their gifts appropriately within the orthodoxy of the Church. Some Catholics will be drawn mostly to prayer, other's apologetics, others in literary, philosophic and artistic pursuits, others in charity and so on. It is when faith becomes secondary to the art form, for example, that the problems begin and you end up cherry picking your beliefs and performing to man rather than God. Then you end up like Bono or Hosier.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 27, 2019 10:17:06 GMT
It could just as easily be argued that pre-Vatican II Catholicism was too intellectual in the sense of presenting itself as a series of beautifully articulated self-sustaining rules. There is, I agree a real issue about how intellectualising the Church can turn it into a middle-class social club, though the old-style popular devotional Catholicism can be criticised as ANTI-intellectual. I wonder how far "intellectual" is meant to refer to the end-product of one's thought and not the result? (i.e. implying that a "conservative" or "orthodox" Catholic intellectual is a contradiction in terms.) I honestly think that for a generation of people who were born, say before the 1980s, the idea of Irish Catholic anti-intellectualism was tied in with the much publicised disapproval of the Irish Catholic Church to certain literary works such as some of McGaherns' works and Edna O'Brien, all in the midst of the post 60s 'anything goes' era. Rather than the Church being, 'per se' intellectual, I would say that it is much more healthy when it is each member of the Church who chooses to use their gifts appropriately within the orthodoxy of the Church. Some Catholics will be drawn mostly to prayer, other's apologetics, others in literary, philosophic and artistic pursuits, others in charity and so on. It is when faith becomes secondary to the art form, for example, that the problems begin and you end up cherry picking your beliefs and performing to man rather than God. Then you end up like Bono or Hosier. Am I the only person to suspect that many of these supposedly immortal works of art and literature are rather overpraised, anyway? I've just been reading about the Playboy of the Western World riots. Even before I was a practicing Catholic I tended to side with the "mob" on this one. I think Yeats was the greatest poet to ever write in English, but whenever he lampooned "Paudeen" and "Bridie" I would side with Paudeen and Bridie, instinctively.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 1, 2019 21:23:33 GMT
The PLAYBOY rioters I think were mistaken and Synge very effectively skewered a certain Irish ambivalence about "the differ between a gallus story and a dirty deed" but you really can't understand their reaction without being aware of the political context (including a lot of unionist propaganda about all nationalists being drunks and sadists). Similarly, Yeats had a point about a certain type of mechanistic piety which he attributes to Paudeen and Bridie, but he did have an instinctive contempt for Irish Catholics and he dabbled in some very dirty water with his occult involvement. In Hozier's case, I don't think faith is secondary to the art form at all - it's just that his faith is in the Orgasm Almighty. I know of a couple of older authors who themselves had books banned (the Athlone novelist John Broderick is an example) who denounced Edna O'Brien as a self-publicising vulgarian, though I suspect this was partly sour grapes. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Ms O'Brien's oeuvre to judge. John McGahern was certainly a great writer but he had a very dark side. The bit in his memoir where he says he gave up the idea of being a priest because he preferred to create his own little universe where he could be a god is more significant than many people realise.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 2, 2019 8:39:34 GMT
The PLAYBOY rioters I think were mistaken and Synge very effectively skewered a certain Irish ambivalence about "the differ between a gallus story and a dirty deed" but you really can't understand their reaction without being aware of the political context (including a lot of unionist propaganda about all nationalists being drunks and sadists). Similarly, Yeats had a point about a certain type of mechanistic piety which he attributes to Paudeen and Bridie, but he did have an instinctive contempt for Irish Catholics and he dabbled in some very dirty water with his occult involvement. In Hozier's case, I don't think faith is secondary to the art form at all - it's just that his faith is in the Orgasm Almighty. I know of a couple of older authors who themselves had books banned (the Athlone novelist John Broderick is an example) who denounced Edna O'Brien as a self-publicising vulgarian, though I suspect this was partly sour grapes. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Ms O'Brien's oeuvre to judge. John McGahern was certainly a great writer but he had a very dark side. The bit in his memoir where he says he gave up the idea of being a priest because he preferred to create his own little universe where he could be a god is more significant than many people realise. Just to be clear, I'm not in favour of interrupting a theatre performance. That's not right. But I think the instinct was healthy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 6, 2019 17:43:04 GMT
Oddly enough, the interruption (at least for the first performance, as distinct from the concerted campaign that followed) was understandable. The protestors thought in terms of a tradition of popular theatre where it was acceptable to groan, boo, cheer etc during performances for a variety of reasons, and they thought that if the Abbey called itself "the National Theatre" it was their theatre and they were entitled to express their likes and dislikes. The Abbey management were trying to instil a different style of art theatre listening, where artists were paramount and the audience was supposed to take a more reverential attitude.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2020 23:08:11 GMT
Just a reminder that the IRISH CATHOLIC and CATHOLIC VOICE, as well as other Catholic papers and magazines, must be suffering from the loss of in-church sales (as well as the closure of many newsagents). If there is a shop within easy reach of you that stocks them, try to get a copy (always subject of course to the requirement not to go out unnecessarily in this epidemic).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 13, 2021 20:46:08 GMT
Oddly enough, the CATHOLIC VOICE is still on sale during the lockdown in at least some shops, whereas I haven't seen an IRISH CATHOLIC in shops for months. Why is that? Are the CATHOLIC VOICE distributors more highly motivated than their rivals/counterparts? I'mjust making an observation - I don't really know the significance of this.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Mar 18, 2021 9:38:40 GMT
My suspicion is that the Irish Catholic put more energy into developing the newspaper's digital platform, knowing that they would have to do this sooner or later. But I heard a rumour that this time last year, Michael Kelly believed he couldn't go more than two weeks if the churches were closed. If so, he's done better than that.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 22, 2021 23:12:40 GMT
That would explain why a lot more of the IRISH CATHOLIC site has gone subscriber-only.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 22, 2021 23:21:12 GMT
By the way, the latest CATHOLIC VOICE has a piece by Anthony Murphy reporting that he and his wife Kim are currently operating from the UK because she had to go there for a serious operation, and is now convalescing. Prayers would be appreciated.
BTW Christopher Monckton's column in the current CATHOLIC VOICE claims that the phrase "Archdiocese of Dubin" is inappropriate, because every bishop whether an archbishop or not presides over an archdiocese. I never heard that one before, whereas I've frequently heard the phrase "Archdiocese of X". The distinction might have merit when the bishop of the diocese is given the personal title of Archbishop (as Bishop Fogarty of Killaloe was in the 1940s, without Killaloe becoming an archdiocese) but surely a diocese which is always ruled by an archbishop is in a special category? Perhaps Lord Monckton is confusing it with the cardinatial status of a diocese, which is always a matter of custom and never of right (i.e. Pope Francis could if he liked make the Archbishop of Tuam a cardinal tomorrow and pass over Dublin and Armagh).
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 23, 2021 9:58:31 GMT
I would have thought the dioceses of Jerusalem, Venice and Lisbon are always referred to Patriarchates, as are those of Constantinople, Anthioch, Alexandria and Moscow for that matter. Likewise, if I consider all the various Archdiocess I have visited - all four in Ireland, two in Scotland, Westminster, Paris, Cologne, Munich-Freising, Salzburg, Vienna, Washington DC, Baltimore to give a selection - none are referred to as dioceses. I even once recall a visiting priest identity himself as a priest of the Archdiocese of New York once. The only Archdiocese I know that is typically referred to as a diocese is Rome, where the Bishop of Rome is neither called Archbishop or Patriarch.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 23, 2021 22:41:00 GMT
"Patriarch of the West" used to be among the Papal titles until Benedict XVI dropped it, but I don't think it was in everyday usage (except perhaps among some Orthodox who would take it as supporting their view that the Pope should be nomore than first Patriarch among equals). In England & Wales Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff and Southwark (in order of elevation from an ordinary diocese) are also archbishoprics though Westminster is senior as the oldest. Now that I think of it, the fact that specific Papal decrees were issued elevating these pre-existing dioceses to archdiocesan status implies Lord Monckton is mistaken in stating that there is no difference between an archdiocese and an ordinary diocese.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 25, 2021 19:53:51 GMT
The latest CATHOLIC VOICE is a mixed bag as usual; noteworthy are a meditation by Richard Greene and an article by John Lacken documenting the attack on Catholic teaching in schools by Roisin Shortall and Paul Murphy. (Shortall claims the equivalence of same-sex and non-marital sexual relationships with heterosexual marriage is not a matter of opinion but of fact, and is therefore not open to dispute. Expect to see a lot more of this particular rhetorical trope.) One blunder - a pro-life article is illustrated by a generic photo showing a red-faced priest (with biretta) holding a sign saying ABORTION HURTS WOMEN, stading next to a young woman holding a sign MY BODY MY CHOICE. I strongly suspect that this image was originally produced by pro-aborts to illustrate their stereotype of the pro-life issue as a conflict between "pro-choice" women and male authority figures seeking to control them. Its reproduction here is obviously a good-faith mistake, in which whoever saw the image was so aware that the slogan carried by the priest is obviously true that they didn't notice the subliminal propaganda.
|
|