|
Post by stephentlig on Nov 18, 2010 0:19:02 GMT
Not 100 % sure, but I think the Boston Institute is very progressive indeed. It got this reputation anyway. Why am I not surprised then that Dr.Tony Hanna who works for archdiocese of Armagh, previously stated to me in a private meeting that women can be priests and that the scriptures are mythological and that Homosexuality and contraception is ok. For Tony indeed came right out of Boston college and is a progressivist. I wrote about him on my blog and he is certainly not to be trusted in the area of education and the Catholic community await his censorship and punishment by the local Bishop. But of course whatever it is thats going on up there in Armagh we'll never know, but I wont be long in exposing it the best I can. The Irish community deserve better than that. If you ask me such spiritual abuse shouldnt be tolerated. Traders the lot of them just out to make money with these courses that they provide. www.loyaltothemagisterium.wordpress.com
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Nov 19, 2010 9:08:26 GMT
Had Tony Hanna a connection with the now closed Mount Oliver Institute?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 7, 2010 11:12:48 GMT
Last Saturday's IRISH TIMES had an example of Fintan O'Toole at his worst. He is very good when he is doing follow-the money investigative reporting, and very bad when he takes wing into wilder flights of cultural theorising. His central theme is that his own pet ideas represent simple sweet reason, while everyone who disagrees with him is confused by accepting myths and metaphors at face value (e.g. he thinks large sections of the Irish population are perennially deceived by the fantasy that it is possible or desirable to become American.) Oddly enough, this idea that everyone who disagreed with him was misled by metaphor was also a favourite analytical device of the nineteenth-century Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Richard Whately, now best remembered for having children in Irish national schools taught to sing: I thank the goodness and the grace That on my youth has smiled And made me in these Christian days A happy English child. Fintan O'Toole's bright idea was that the European bail-out of Ireland was based on the metaphor of purgatory - purification through suffering. Blithely assuming that nobody does or ever did believe in purgatory and that suffering can never have any legitimate purpose at all, he declares that Europe should abandon its outmoded insistence that we pay our debts. It has not, apparently, occurred to Fintan O'Toole that exactly this argument could have been employed by Sean Fitzpatrick & Co to justify contracting reckless debts in the first place, on the grounds that people who warned that this could have disastrous consequences were old fuddy-duddies hooked on self-denial, who probably believed in Purgatory. Perhaps I shouldn't quote St Robert Bellarmine here, but I will. When St. Robert was engaged in a theological dispute with the Protestant king James I & VI (of England and Scotland) the king made some rather tasteles jokes about the nature of Purgatory. Bellarmine retorted "Why do those who deny the existence of Purgatory concern themselves with its details? They should pay more attention to Hell, for that is all they have left."
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 7, 2010 11:55:31 GMT
Here is an interesting piece criticising the American moral philosopher Martha Nussbaum for her claim that disapproval of homosexuality is merely an example of irrational disgust with no intellectual basis, and her related assumption that sexual conduct is wholly self-regulating (i.e. should not be subject to social regulation or sanction). H/T ARTS & LETTERS DAILY. Note that my linking to this piece from the politically conservative AMERICAN SPECTATOR does not mean I approve of everything published in that journal: spectator.org/archives/2010/12/02/the-politics-of-humanity/printEXTRACT NUSSBAUM IS MORE CONSISTENT when writing about the "politics of humanity." Nonetheless, her arguments are predictably liberal. She maintains that the American political tradition is libertarian in matters of "personal morality," especially regarding sexual conduct. She applies John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" to various questions of law and public policy, as if that principle has now become part of the Constitution. Like most proponents of gay rights, Nussbaum broadly sees sexual relations between consenting adults as "self-regarding" conduct. Until fairly recently, however, no responsible judge in the United States could accept that view. The turning point was the Supreme Court's invention of a "right to privacy" in cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). Here the Court struck down regulations on the use and distribution of contraceptives -- regulations that were initially enacted in the late 19th century. The Court held that they violated an "unenumerated" right to constitutional privacy, and in striking down the laws, it effectively legitimized the sexual revolution (as did Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973). [GRISWOLD DECLARED BANS ON THE USE AND SALE OF CONTRACEPTIVES UNCONSTITUTIONAL; EISENSTADT DECLARED THAT LAWS SAYING THEY COULD ONLY BE SOLD TO MARRIED COUPLES WERE ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL] Why did most states regulate contraceptives? The judicial record reveals three main purposes: to discourage premarital sex, to promote fidelity to one's spouse, and to encourage the begetting of children within marriage. Implicit in these purposes was the view that sexual relations between a man and a woman are (or ought to be) "sacred" -- perhaps a strange notion to contemporary liberals, but a view that accords with the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. Even if someone dislikes this language, the earlier view assumed (pace Nussbaum) that societies have an interest in trying to restrict sex to married couples. [THIS IS THE VIEW WHICH IS DISMISSED OUT OF HAND WHEN COMMENTATORS SNEER AT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 1979 FAMILY PLANNING ACT AS 'AN IRISH SOLUTION TO AN IRISH PROBLEM' AND DECLARE THAT IT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH REPUBLICAN VALUES TO OPPOSE THEIR UNRESTRICTED SALE TO UNMARRIED AS WELL AS MARRIED, AS UNDER THE 1985 ACT]Before the sexual revolution and the invention of the "right to privacy," most educated persons understood that the sexual act is typically fraught with social consequences -- relating, for example, to public health, the long-term strength of marriage, and the welfare of children. Unsurprisingly, legislators in nearly every state enacted laws intended to make the public mindful of the gravity of so many of our choices relating to our sexuality. But our world is very different today. After all of the ostensibly "self-regarding" sex of recent decades, nearly 40 percent of the nation's children are born out of wedlock. Marriage remains in a highly precarious state, having suffered additional damage by the policy of "no-fault" divorce. Nussbaum has few things to say about these matters; she considers the invention of constitutional "privacy" a signal advance, and defends it without seriously considering the counterarguments. If widespread social problems are traceable to "privacy" and the social revolution it abetted, the welfare state can simply be expanded to solve those problems. Or so Nussbaum thinks [AS DO MANY COMMENTATORS ON "EQUALITY - THIS IS THE BASIS OF THE VIEW, FOR EXAMPLE , THAT THE STATE OUGHT NOT TO ENCOURAGE MARRIAGE OVER COHABITATION]. In another chapter, she asks her readers to think of sexual orientation in the same way that most of us think of religion. That is, we may disagree with a neighbor's religious convictions, but we ought to respect his or her right to worship freely (or not to worship at all). This analogy has some value, but not as much as Nussbaum believes, because there is a fundamental distinction between religious belief and conduct, and the freedom of the latter must be less than that of the former. (So to cite an important Supreme Court ruling, there is no "free exercise" right to ingest peyote [HALLUCINOGENIC DRUG USED BY AMERICAN INDIANS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES] as part of a religious ritual.) Nussbaum, however, briskly moves from "sexual orientation" to "sexual conduct" and wants us to accept them as essentially the same. But we ought to reject the Supreme Court's idea -- put forward in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) [WHICH STRUCK DOWN STATE LAWS AGAINST SODOMY] -- that the Constitution contains an unenumerated right for all adults to engage in consenting, noncommercial sexual relations. That is the ideology of the sexual revolution, and it has no place in constitutional law. THROUGHOUT THE BOOK, Nussbaum seems to want to affirm the moral legitimacy of the entire gay rights movement. But she does not acknowledge the hostility of some gay activists toward vital social norms such as sexual exclusivity in marriage. The book includes references to works in academic "queer theory," but a discussion of these truly radical ideas is missing. Nussbaum's silence here is hardly surprising, because despite her choice of words, the "politics of humanity" is really a misnomer. It does not embrace all of humanity, but only certain groups favored by academic liberals. She is more interested in championing the rights of those who would defy or "transgress" time-honored moral precepts than in assessing how such conduct might affect the lives of others. There is irony here, because the "politics of humanity" stresses the importance of using our imagination. But as this book consistently shows, the real failure of imagination is on Nussbaum's part. END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Dec 8, 2010 13:04:07 GMT
Church teaching is harder to accept in the current consumer society. But that doesn't mean that the teaching is wrong.
Next time someone asks why the Church isn't dragging itself into the 21st century or isn't in tune with the modern world, then I suggest it is only right to ask someone to define the advantages of the 'modern' world. Are we safer in the street, have we found an economic system/political system that is benefitting us all, are our people happier, has mental illness decreased, have we fewer alcoholics or drug addicts, are our younger people better mannered and content, is suicide a thing of the past, are family links stronger or more dysfunctional..........I would suggest that most of these types of social measures or factors will show deterioration rather than improvement.
Societies norms are very prevalant and those norms dictate that no-one should even indirectly disagree or judge anyone in the moral sphere. For example I 'm sure we have all been in situations where someone we know has said that their unmarried daughter/son has had a child and they, along with their partner are looking for a flat/house. Out of good manners I will say that I hope the mother and child are well but will surpress any moral comment I have for fear of upsetting them or for fear that they will brand me judgemental.
So I think it is important that the Church does reaffirn its beliefs in the public sphere even if this means Mr Angry will leave the church cursing. The way to do it is important. We should emphasis that every child born is sacred and unique, whether in a married or unmarried environment - but at the same time emphasise that the Catholic church believes in having children within marriage.
On the last post by Hibernicus, one of the key sentences in the quoted article is:
'most educated persons understood that the sexual act is typically fraught with social consequences -- relating, for example, to public health, the long-term strength of marriage, and the welfare of children'.
From a social background alone the rendering of sexual activity as a commodity without any restrictions ignores the potential life changing consequences that can ensue.
From our Catholic viewpoint we should argue from the positive, not be cajoled immediately into the negative by those who would condemn us. For example, we should emphasise the centrality of the family unit to the Church and show that we stand by this as our aspiration and goal and how the Bible underlines this. That is positive, not borne out of a hatred for gay people as some would have us believe. Any thing we see that belittles the sanctity of marriage and family will naturally not find approval with us.
The idea of marriage and family are well supported outside of the Catholic church. The majority of surveys will support the traditional family as the best environment for the development of children (there will always be exceptions but generally this is the case) - just goes to show that the moral guidance of the Bible is more often than not, eventually proven correct.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 9, 2010 11:19:05 GMT
The IRISH TIMES is now campaigning for the law to be formally changed to allow doctors to prescribe contraception to children under 16 without informing parents (who are normally required to give consent for their children to be given prescription medicine or surgical procedures), as already happens in practice to a considerable extent. Today's (9 December) editorial proclaims:"The law must keep pace with the times and reflect the reality that the average age of initial sexual intercourse has fallen sharply in recent times." Another step towards abolishing the age of consent; another slide down the slope to Gomorrah. Meanwhile, enlightened opinion continues to jeer at Sean Treacy TD's statement (in relation to the 1985 Family planninglegislation) that unrestricted access to contraception would open the moral floodgates... www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1209/1224285097416.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 8, 2013 20:19:32 GMT
Here's an interesting example of where things can go. The Danish State Church (nominally Lutheran; in practice any denomination can apply to be regarded as part of the state church and have its ministers paid by the state) does not require its ministers to believe in God. Recently a congregation published an advertisement seeking a pastor and stating as a job requirement that applicants should believe in God. This is now being denounced by various groups (including some clerics) as discrimination: www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/danish-church-seeks-dinosaur/#post-commentsThe author of the post comments that this is exactly what Kierkegaard feared when he said that the State Church appeared to be based on the complacent presumption that being born a Dane automatically made you Christian
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Feb 8, 2013 20:34:11 GMT
Weren't they joking about this sort of thing on Yes Minister decades ago? It doesn't seem that new. It's where Erastianism inevitably goes.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 14, 2013 19:00:51 GMT
According to a brief review I saw today (in the DAILY TELEGRAPH, I think) Dan Brown's latest literary atrocity, appropriately called INFERNO, features a brilliant biologist who genetically-engineers a plague virus with the aim of reducing the world's population to more sustainable levels. Although the hero is trying to stop the virus from being released, the reviewer thought the book implies that there is a good deal to be said for the biologist's view that drastic measures are necessary to reduce the human population, and Brown takes the opportunity to get in various jabs at the Catholic Church as an obstacle to this bright prospect. Sounds like a real early twentieth-century WASP eugenist worried by the multiplying hordes of Papist peasants. This morning I also noticed piles of this book in a Dublin bookshop, and I daresay they will be sold to the dupes who took THE DA VINCI COD and its like seriously. As Fletcher of Saltoun said, if you can write a nation's ballads, in the long run it won't matter who writes its laws...
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 15, 2013 9:19:57 GMT
I am inclined to think that the Da Vinci Code, like the God Delusion and God is Not Great and all those other God-bashing and Church-bashing tomes, were a gift to Christian apologists.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on May 15, 2013 13:18:20 GMT
I understand maolsheachlann's point about apologetics.
However, those will reach very, very few of the tragically duped. Something very heartbreaking and horrible is happening here and I think hibernicus invoking these words of Fletcher of Saltoun is most apt - terribly apt ...
|
|
|
Post by chercheur on May 22, 2013 22:26:06 GMT
Here's an interesting example of where things can go. The Danish State Church (nominally Lutheran; in practice any denomination can apply to be regarded as part of the state church and have its ministers paid by the state) does not require its ministers to believe in God. Recently a congregation published an advertisement seeking a pastor and stating as a job requirement that applicants should believe in God. This is now being denounced by various groups (including some clerics) as discrimination: www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/danish-church-seeks-dinosaur/#post-commentsThe author of the post comments that this is exactly what Kierkegaard feared when he said that the State Church appeared to be based on the complacent presumption that being born a Dane automatically made you Christian This is simply an extreme and eyecatching example of the kind of bizarreries a Church can find itself open to if Established in what is in truth an agnostic liberal humanist polity. The Spirit moves in mysterious ways and Mercifully the Irish state is distancing itself from the Church ( this will in time be seen as a boon for the Faith ) and the present and future of the Church in Ireland is and will be that of a relatively small counter cultural witness to truth largely untrammelled by the quasi establishment of former times. Society at large ( it will still still for the most part be nominally catholic but will in truth be a liberal humanist agnostic polity ) will be in conflict with this. This, in a sense, is as it should be.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 16, 2013 20:27:29 GMT
An interesting article on the intellectual roots of "gay marriage" arguing that the concept of separation of church and state and of the religious and civil aspects of marriage has led directly to the view that marriage is whatever the state says it is. The author argues that this shows that while some aspects of separation of church and state have worked out well, the marriage issue shows how Leo XIII's warnings about such separation have more substance than is now commonly recognised: www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-intellectual-origins-of-same-sex-marriage
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 17, 2013 20:59:46 GMT
An interesting piece and discussion on a dotty syncretistic church in the US Pacific Northwest, which claims to respect and practice ALL religious traditions (with a few excisions of the more problematic forms of Huitzlipochi-worship, one hopes). Dreher points out that this is simply unworkable given that they contradict one another (though his form of advocacy of the tried and tested variety is a bit worrying given that he has moved from one to the other, albeit for understandable reasons) www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/religious-truth-and-the-test-of-time/comment-page-1/#comments I really love the last three paragraphs of this comment. The italicised lines are quotes from Dreher's original post, the plain text is the new comment: EXTRACT David J. White says: July 17, 2013 at 8:45 am but the claims that the two propositionally incompatible traditions make have the right to be taken seriously because so many people have been doing them for so long.But the intellectual underpinning of modernity is precisely the rejection of this premise. This is not true diversity, but unity and harmony won by denying real diversity.Again, that’s in conformity with the Zeitgeist. “Diversity” nowadays doesn’t mean that, for example, you can have a high school for boys and a high school for girls; it means that both have to be integrated so that both high schools are “diverse”. “Diversity” doesn’t mean diversity of institutions and perspectives. Increasingly, enforced “diversity” makes everything look like everything else. So, the goal of this church is to lead people to “compassionate action.”Funny, traditional religions seem to have been successful at doing that for a long time. How many hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and schools in this country were built by people who belonged to — and were motivated by — established religious traditions? That’s why the first quote on the “Atheist Monument” recently in the news — “An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church” — is so hilarious. How many hospitals in this country were, in fact, originally built by churches? How many hospitals has the American Humanist Association built? END
|
|
|
Post by farlow on Jul 21, 2013 23:01:41 GMT
Some people want life to be easy without self-suffering and it is no surprise to me when people reject the Churches teachings when we live in a world that promotes a lifestyle that conflicts with the Catholic lifestyle.
|
|