|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 10, 2014 9:07:01 GMT
I think that there were periods while the crusader principalities still existed in the Holy Land where there were coalitions of Christians and Moslems confronting other coalitions of Christians and Moslems. If I recall correctly, Ramadan was practised openly in France during the time Hibernicus is referring to, which is when France allied to any enemy of the Hapsburgs. The Swedes were one such ally. This pattern led the Pope to side with William of Orange against Louis XIV and James II at the end of the century.
The character of Aravis is interesting in many respects, and Lewis contrasts her with her school friend Lasaraleen, who though she has a good nature, is perfectly happy in Calormen. Aravis very much fits in with his other heroines: Lucy Pevensie, Jill Pole and Polly Plummer. These are all "tom boys". The only feminine girl is Susan Pevensie, who for want of a better word ends up as an apostate. I know some critics cite this as an attack on sexuality, but I think that the issue goes far beyond that. The characterisation may have been different if Lewis had met Joy Adamson first. Of course that wouldn't have worked as one of the things that brought them together was the fact her children liked the Narnia books. But anyway, as this brief discussion points out, there is a lot in the Narnia books beyond a simple Christian allegory, which it so obviously is.
The issue of the dwarves and neutrality is interesting; except that the Irish didn't attack both sides. Some of the IRA used the opportunity to bomb Britain (British communists engaged in sabotage until Barbarossa). Though characterised as pro-German (and I know there was quite a bit of German sympathy here), Ireland was a pro-allied neutrality. I know this is not how Britain, or Protestant Ulster, or the United States looked at it. But certainly the dwarves are positivists, skeptics. Atheist Ireland?
The Green Witch in The Silver Chair brings up another issue - does this not transpose Socrates parable of The Cave in Plato's Republic? Still a philosophical issue nearly two and a half thousand years later.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 10, 2014 20:33:18 GMT
It was Joy Davidman - Joy Adamson was the one with the lion in Kenya. Lewis probably did have the Parable of the Cave in mind. Remember what the Professor says at the end of the last battle when he goes through the stable and comes out in Paradise - "Plato. It's all in Plato. Bless me, what DO they teach them in those schools?" The attitude of the dwarves "we only care for ourselves and what happens to anyone else is no concern of ours" is very much Sinn Fein and De Valeran self-sufficiency as Unionists (and most British) would have seen it. The dwarves wind up fighting both sides because the right side lost (partly because of their actions); Lewis I suspect would say that this is the position the Irish state would have found itself in if the Axis had won (and there was actually quite a bit of staggeringly naive official rhetoric at the time along the lines of "we can defeat any invader because we beat the Black and Tans twenty years ago").
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Dec 11, 2014 9:23:05 GMT
Interesting that Lewis would show much interest in Ireland. I know they say he didn't convert to Catholicism for "Ulsterior" motives (he said in correspondence once that he still had much of the prejudice taught to him by his "Ulster nurse"). Another thing about Lewis was that he didn't travel much and could see the Church of England (or Ireland; he was very much of the Church of Ireland "low church in liturgy; high church in theology" mode) as at least part of the universal church. If Narnia represents mediaeval Latin Christendom and Calormen represents Islam; there is no counterpart of Byzantium. But back to Ireland; there is something in these descriptions which reminds me of the fourth of Gulliver's Travels, in the country of the huoynhnhms, which has been suggested as a description of Ireland's relation with England. This in turn reminds me of an episode in Giraldus Cambrensis' Journey in Wales where a priest guiding a Norman troop gives an example of what the people live like, among which he eats grass, as a result of which the Normans are so shocked that they turn back. I thought this represented a lot of what Giraldus was at in his writings about Ireland and his native Wales and that like Swift, he was an ambitious churchman at first trying to ingratiate himself with a governing class he only partly belonged to and then grew disillusioned with. Lewis was to some point similar - as an Ulsterman, he didn't fit totally into to English society and as he moved towards religion as the culture moved away, this reinforced his outside position.
Yes I recall Professor Kirke in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe saying it was all in Plato. Lewis loved Boethius, which is regarded as a good summary of neo-platonic philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 11, 2014 21:59:43 GMT
To be fair to Lewis, I think Tolkien's claim that he didn't convert to Catholicism for "Ulsterior" motives is a bit overdone. Some of Lewis's personal practices (auricular confession to a spiritual director, belief in purgatory albeit with the view that Roman images thereof make it too much like Hell) would be much too High for the Church of IReland of his day (outside marginal congregations like St Bartholomew's in Dublin) and the more I learn about Anglicanism the more distinctly Anglican his position seems to be (including the view that the Church of Rome may have its principles right but is too literal and materialistic about them, and a certain related discomfort with the Incarnation - his sensibility has a monophysite tinge). And Lewis's remarks about Orangeism and about Ulster UNionism as myopic and provincial can be quite contemptuous. (He repeatedly points out as an indictment of Ulster religio-politics in his own day that both sides would rather a co-religionist became an atheist than go over to the rival brand of Christianity - which was quite true of IReland as a whole in that era, I've seen that remark made by contemporary Irish commentators.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 23, 2014 11:17:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 8, 2015 21:34:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on May 9, 2015 13:21:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 9, 2015 14:57:11 GMT
The aspect we need to focus on is building an infrastructure through mutual communication and sharing our experiences. That is the precondition of getting anything done. It can't be a means of withdrawing from the world because the world won't leave us alone. We need to be in the world but not of it, and to be discreet while being determined to face the consequences. Margaret Clitherow's role in a mutually sustaining group of York wives strengthening each other and providing shelter for hunted priests, and combining this with their everyday work, might be seen as an example of the Benedict Option - though of course what happened to Margaret Clitherow shows that this is not going to preserve you against determined enmity. There is a price, and we have to be prepared to pay it. (That is one reason BTW why I don't like side-issues like monarchism or the "Galileo was wrong"; I would die in the last ditch for what really matters, but I'm not going to die, or ask others to die, for an affectation or something that is a fallacy in both theology and natural science. Newman's epitaph "Out of shadows and illusions into truth" and his condemnation of theological play-acting when souls are at stake, your own included, strikes me with ever more force as I get older.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 9, 2015 23:07:05 GMT
I am increasingly struck by the idea that-- for all I admire Pope Francis, and indeed Pope Benedict (because this is a favoured term of Pope Benedict's too)-- the whole notion of 'dialogue' with contemporary society is disastrous. There is no dialogue! When Catholics try to 'dialogue' with the 21st century Western society, we simply end up tacitly accepting that society's terms of reference. You can see this with the gay marriage debate-- we accept the tenets of liberalism as the entry fee into the discussion. But that means we've lost already.
Yes, I suppose I am asking what Athens has to do with Jerusalem.
We are too mellow and ironic and genial. Sometimes I look at the wild-eyed and hollow-cheeked Evangelical preachers in Dublin city centre and think-- that, we need more of that! That kind of take-it-or-leave-it, impassiond spirit. After all, we are not really talking about the bonum publicum, or getting the most out of life. We are talking about the everlasting soul and salvation. We are not offering a broader horizon, but urging people to enter into the narrow gate.
I hold myself as guilty of this mellowness as anyone else. One of my longstanding resolutions is to joke less about religion. It's such a temptation, because it's embarrassing to be thought of as a Holy Joe, and we want to be good sports. So whenever anyone raises the subject of my faith my reflex is to make a joke. But as the saying goes: "If you don't take yourself seriously, nobody else will." And the same goes for one's beliefs, I think.
I might be wrong about dialogue. This is just how my own mind is turning. I find myself thinking that there are some situations where dialogue is futile and we find ourselves in one of them now.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 10, 2015 11:31:00 GMT
I agree with you about side-issues like monarchism, Hibernicus. I am a monarchist, in the sense that I believe constitutional monarchy is better system than republicanism. But it's a trivial issue compared to the salvation of souls. In the same way, I am a nationalist, but that too is trivial compared to the salvation of souls. And it's a terrible mistake to present one's incidental opinions as being part of the Christian gospel.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on May 10, 2015 15:42:55 GMT
I think the problem, as I've mentioned on the same-sex marriage thread, is not that dialogue is wrong but that people are no longer open to dialogue. I think that one of the root problems we have is the education system, and how for all the talk of critical thinking, we've actually just taught cynicism and called it critical thinking. Cynicism is particularly destructive because it makes people instinctively put up extra barriers against alternative ideas. (I'm guilty of this myself, and am trying to be less cynical)
The problem with the evangelical on the street corner is that it can often be so unattractive, at least I find this. The faith must be attractive, which is not the same as pandering to modern culture. It could be attractive in the sense of being rebellious against our current culture, for instance. This is where 'all things to all men' comes in. But that does presuppose that people are open to dialogue, which so so often they're not.
I completely agree with you about cracking jokes about our faith. I've done it sometimes myself, for the same reasons you mention there, but it's really more appropriate with other Catholics.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on May 10, 2015 15:47:40 GMT
But yes, as regards being less mellow and more passionate, I agree with you there too. We just have to channel that passion the right way.
We have to speak the language of the culture we are in, as St. Patrick did with the Shamrock or the apocryphal lighting of the fire when it was forbidden; as Ss. Cyril and Methodius did when they invented a whole new alphabet just to preach to the new Christians in Eastern Europe. This is the justification Ryan Scheel uses for his excellent Catholic Memes website and Facebook Page. It's not in-depth, but then our culture isn't in-depth, and it uses the modern symbolism of the meme in order to try and catch people out and make them rethink Catholicism.
One thing that always unsettles liberal atheists is when orthodox believers can use modern means of communication to great effect; one Salon writer, talking with disbelief about the young, articulate, culturally savvy Christian women involved in the US pro-life movement described as 'as shocking as Rick Santorum using Instagram.'
I know that a lot of modern culture and online culture can be utterly vacuous, but then that's where a lot of people are at.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 10, 2015 16:01:04 GMT
I'm not sure about the Catholic memes. There is a cutesiness to them that I find off-putting-- I wonder if they are good for anything except building up solidarity amongst existing Catholics. In the same way, I wince at a lot of the cutesy and cheesy presentations on EWTN. I do think religion has to attract people with its dignity-- and it can be a raw, crude, ungainly kind of dignity. Which is much better than a slick playfulness.
Sometimes I think a refusal to play the game can be far more telling than a determination to beat the opponents at his own game.
Of course, it depends on what works. Maybe the Catholic meme stuff works, but I'm sceptical.
I'm not at all denying that we have to meet people where they are at-- I just worry about going too far in that direction, and losing any sense of the sacred.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 14, 2015 19:55:30 GMT
Catherine Kavanagh of Mary Immaculate College has an interesting analysis of the decline of Irish Catholicism in FIRST THINGS. (It is presented as being about the marriage abolition referendum, but it has a much wider remit). www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/how-gay-marriage-came-to-ireland A couple of qualifications come to mind, most of which I think stem from the fact that Catherine is about the same age I am and hence has no memories of the 60s and only vague ones of the 70s. I think her central point about mid-C20 Catholicism, that it was not so much Jansenist as legalist, with the accompanying attractions and drawbacks, is spot on - but I think she underrates the extent to which the trends she describes have been around since the 60s and 70s, so that Atlantic Philanthropies' megabucks were speeding up changes that were already there. For example, liberal groups have been infiltrating state social administration since the early 70s (Nuala Fennell is said to have been a key mover in this); the response to Humanae Vitae appears to have been initial submission followed by intensifying rejection over the following decade (the blip in the birthrate just after JPII's visit can be seen as a "last hurrah"), some attention should be paid to the steady decline in religious vocations from the mid-60s (which has taken a long time to register because there was such a surplus to begin), there has been a strong view in Irish state circles since the 1960s that the power of the Church over education ought to be diminished, not only on secularist grounds but because it was seen as hindering the move to a more utilitarian system aimed at economic development, etc. But Catherine's analysis of recent events is very acute - read it and judge for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 15, 2015 8:22:19 GMT
Catherine Kavanagh of Mary Immaculate College has an interesting analysis of the decline of Irish Catholicism in FIRST THINGS. (It is presented as being about the marriage abolition referendum, but it has a much wider remit). www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/how-gay-marriage-came-to-ireland A couple of qualifications come to mind, most of which I think stem from the fact that Catherine is about the same age I am and hence has no memories of the 60s and only vague ones of the 70s. I think her central point about mid-C20 Catholicism, that it was not so much Jansenist as legalist, with the accompanying attractions and drawbacks, is spot on - but I think she underrates the extent to which the trends she describes have been around since the 60s and 70s, so that Atlantic Philanthropies' megabucks were speeding up changes that were already there. For example, liberal groups have been infiltrating state social administration since the early 70s (Nuala Fennell is said to have been a key mover in this); the response to Humanae Vitae appears to have been initial submission followed by intensifying rejection over the following decade (the blip in the birthrate just after JPII's visit can be seen as a "last hurrah"), some attention should be paid to the steady decline in religious vocations from the mid-60s (which has taken a long time to register because there was such a surplus to begin), there has been a strong view in Irish state circles since the 1960s that the power of the Church over education ought to be diminished, not only on secularist grounds but because it was seen as hindering the move to a more utilitarian system aimed at economic development, etc. But Catherine's analysis of recent events is very acute - read it and judge for yourself. Great article, agree with Hibernicus' observations. I think the issue of the reception of Humanae Vitae is much more complex than usually believed and that this would require a deeper analysis. However, a lot of the reaction against the scandals came from people of an older vintage than Hibernicus or me (not much) who were used to being berated in the confessional through an overly legalistic view of theology. The "Jansenist" taint is usually overstated. Irish theology had a strong bent towards Augustinianism, which has parallels with Jansenism. This comes out in some of the plainer aspects of liturgy in Ireland, which is more in line with the pre-conciliar liturgical movement than the Franco-Italian baroque liturgy that the Institute of Christ the King prefer. But even in the middle ages, Irish ecclesiastics seem to have had a passion for canon law. Nevertheless, one aspect to the scandals was the non-application of canon law and when I read Mgr O'Callaghan's "Putting Hand to Plough", I was disgusted that a canon lawyer could be so wishy-washy as to fall back on what he called the church's "very fine pastoral tradition". Mgr O'Callaghan should have applied canonical sanctions to the offenders and extended the pastoral care to the victims. Easy to say in retrospect when he spoke for an entire mindset.
|
|