|
Post by hazelireland on Apr 29, 2009 8:12:05 GMT
I am with Hemingway in part on this one. Hostility towards the church is not to be equated to hostility towards Catholicism in general.
Much of Irish society is still catholic, religious, spiritual and more. The people in the church claim to represent these aspects of our society. What they end up doing therefore angers real people of faith as they are not representing them in any way that they recognise.
In no way do I see such anger towards the church as being so easily dismissed as hibernicus calling it some “juvenile rite of passage”. Non-believers and people of faith alike have perfectly justifiable reasons to revolt again what the church does allegedly in the name of those who are of its faith.
In fact if I was a god loving catholic with a deep love of my faith I would be rather insulted at my genuine concerns about the church being dismissed as mere juvenile posturing.
I cringe when my non-religious peers refer to clerical child sex abuse in discussions about whether there is a god or not (for example). My own concerns and reasons for being on forums such as this are to find any evidence for thinking there might be such an entity. Replies such as “of course there is not, look at what religious allows priests to do to little kids” are of NO use to me at all. People on the non-believing side are just as guilty of equating the church with Catholicism in general too. Utilitarian and consequentialist view points are often of no use to us.
The truth value of the claims the faith makes need to be addressed in isolation. The usefulness of the core claims in isolation from how true they are also need to be addressed without bias. Both of these are completely separate to what the church may or may not have done in their name.
I would be WITH hibernicus on calling foul on demanding that any broadcast include self-critique too. That was madness lies and a chasm of tautology yawns at the feet of anyone who would attempt to implement it. We all need the right to espouse what we think is correct and why we think so. Our antagonists also need the right to espouse why we think it wrong and on what grounds the positive reasons for the motion are in error.
To answer noels opening post, I think it is very prevalent and justifiably so. Non-believers are outraged at what the church has been allowed get away with. Believers are out raged at what the church has performed “in their name’.
The church has lost its way as a source of wisdom, educated critique on morality and the state of the society around it and more. It needs to withdraw, address the cancers within itself, apologise for them and implement methodologies to prevent them happening again. It could then return to our society as a power house of usefulness with something to actually offer and a genuine and satisfactory representation of those for whom it claims to speak for.
The question of concern would mainly then be, DO they speak for people? Many people of faith do not attend church. Their faith is personal and not attached to an organisation. Many people are spiritual and not really of a particular religion but religion is the only game in town with a discourse that fits with their experience. Many people are just deistic, believing in some form of creator but not necessarily the one of Christianity. Finally the non-believers in many countries, not just Ireland, are the fastest growing minority.
Who DOES the church speak for any more in this case? How can we find out, especially given a census form that does not give options for many of these positions? We are lacking a lot of information, data and genuine research into matters such as these.
What we do see as counter evidence is public backlash against news items such as the Pope’s comments on condom use in Africa. People are enraged by this. They know the facts, they know the risks, they know the importance of condoms and they know of the scientific opinion in good standing. They know the Pope is wrong on this and they are rightfully peeved that someone claiming to speak in their name is espousing nonsense none of them would themselves utter. Not proof by any means but this is certainly a good indication that the church just does not speak to, or for, many of it's followers any more.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 14, 2009 12:32:15 GMT
I hope to get round to answering hazel's last post here sometime, but in the meantime let me give another example of what I am talking about. Last Sunday the SUNDAY TRIBUNE had an article on the pope's visit to the Holy Land which was mostly devoted to the controversy over the proposed beatification of Pius XII and the rights and wrongs of Pius XII's behaviour during the Holocaust. There is another thread dealing with the substantive issue so I will not address this here. What I do want to point out is that the paper illustrated it with a photograph which it said showed Pius XII with Hitler. Anyone who has any familiarity with the subject knows that Pius XII never met Hitler, and it should be apparent that the bishop in the picture is not Pius (for one thing, he is not wearing glasses). A brief check on the Internet shows that the photograph shows Hitler with Archbishop Cesar Orsenigo, the Nuncio [i.e. ambassador] to Germany, in 1935. The website where I found it states that it took the photo from HITLER'S POPE by John Cornwell - hardly an obscure or inaccessible source, or one biased towards Pius. No Catholic could or should claim infallibility for the Vatican's approach to the Third Reich, and there is a great deal that is open to criticism in its handling of the matter - but in justice to its readers the SUNDAY TRIBUNE should base its stories on what actually happened, and not engage in this sort of sloppiness.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 7, 2009 17:30:58 GMT
Not specifically in Ireland, but we will doubtless hear more of this one. The Spanish director Alejandro Almenabar (who directed the pro-euthanasia movie THE SEA INSIDE) has brought out a movie in which the neo-platonist philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria (who was murdered by a Christian mob) is presented as an example of how the rise of Christianity led to the extinction of classical science and the coming of the Dark Ages. For a discussion of what is wrong with this version of events, see the link below. The author is an atheist, incase anyone is going to accuse him of Christian bias. armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Aug 9, 2009 16:39:09 GMT
Interesting to see some contributors here intent on proving the point of the thread title. Editor's note. This post and several subsequent ones refer to posts by ezigboututu (contributor now banned) which have since been deleted as abusive and insulting
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 10, 2009 10:12:45 GMT
Ezigbotutu as usual tries to have it both ways. He says it is ridiculous to criticise a film for being inaccurate because films can't be expected to be accurate, then declares it is accurate anyway. Hypatia would blush at such crimes against logic. Good point, Benedict, but our friends will wriggle out of it using the device Hazel tries above, namely that hostility to Catholicism as such is not "anti-Catholicism" but only hostility to individual Catholics. By this standard of "reasoning" if such it may be called, it is quite OK to say that organised Judaism is a giant racket run by the Elders of Zion so long as you also claim that ordinary Jews are the unwitting stooges of the said Elders. I may add that the real distinction is between reasoned criticism of Catholicism based on acceptance of the interlocutor's good faith, and unreasoning abuse based on an unearned adolescent pretension to intellectual superiority. So far we have seen very little of the former and a great deal of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Aug 11, 2009 7:44:47 GMT
I was wondering when you would get around to twisting more of what I said again, it has been awhile. I said that “Hostility towards the church is not to be equated to hostility towards Catholicism in general.“ That is to say hostility towards the organisation based on catholic teachings (the church) is not the same as hostility towards the teachings (Catholicism itself) This is NOT the same as saying that hostility to Catholicism (the teachings) is the same as being hostile to individuals. One day, you will actually reply to what I have said and not what you have invented. One say my constant requesting on nearly every thread we have posted on, will sink in and you will do this small thing for me. Let me put it simpler for you in three separate sections which no doubt you will twist with your usual dishonesty and glee….. 1) The organisation, “the church”, is an entity towards which many Irish feel anger. There has been crimes and injustices that need to be brought to light, then to trial, and then to prosecution where necessary. 2) The teachings of Catholicism are something else. My only problem with them is they are based on a presumption that there is a god, a fact that has never been established and no one in my 30 years on this planet has put forward a single scrap of evidence for despite me asking again and again and again and again and again….. 3) The individuals, the Irish people that call themselves catholic I have no inherent problem with except that I frown upon them willingly being a member of a club that perpetrate the crimes mentioned in 1). Thankfully a lot of people are realising this and with websites like www.countmeout.ie and www.catholic.ie people of faith AND of no faith are coming together and removing themselves from the church and seeking their own faith alone on their own path. The church no longer speaks TO them or FOR Them on any matters and they are rightfully removing themselves from the club registry. I hope this clears things up for you Hibernicus, but given your past injustices against my words (which have been so powerful against you that you need to turn them from what they are into what they are not in order to weaken them to the point where you can cope with them on your level) I really am not raising my expectations. And if these words above are the "response" you promised in post #16 then you have let yourself down just as badly.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 18, 2009 11:34:34 GMT
Ezigbotutu's knowledge of Hollywood is as limited as his knowledge of other matters. It has always had a tendency to make "issue" movies (usually oversimplified and playing for safety) - it has never been purely an entertainment medium. Furthermore, this film appears to be what is sometimes called an "indiewood" production - low-budget, playing to smaller audiences with intellectual pretensions on the arthouse circuit, rather than a mass-production blockbuster like GLADIATOR. There is also a difference between a film which purports to describe real-world events, such as this one, and one which is a self-conscious fantasy such as Mr. Tarantino's new torture-fest which does not expect that its audience will really think Hitler was assassinated by Jewish partisans in 1944 (though this may overestimate its audience's intellects). If it has higher pretensions it should be held to higher standards. Furthermore, the director Alejandro Amenabar has "form"; he made the aggressively pro-euthanasia movie THE SEA INSIDE which justified suicide on the basis of an ethos of aggressive self-ownership. The attraction of this ethos for Mr. Amenabar is probably not unconnected to his self-proclaimed homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 18, 2009 11:39:48 GMT
As Ezigbotutu thinks the existence of Christianity has been an unrelieved disaster for mankind, I recommend perusal of this "alternative history" essay IF JESUS HAD NEVER BEEN BORN. The author is a Catholic, but the argument is accessible to any reader who sees Christianity as a purely historical phenomenon. By the way, Hypatia was an adherent of the neoPlatonism which is discussed at some length in the essay. Just because losers are often victims of injustice it should not be presumed that they would have behaved better had they been on top. I suspect an eighteenth-century Jacobite Ireland would have been corrupt in all sorts of interesting ways. www.johnreilly.info/ijhnbb.htm
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 3, 2009 14:31:07 GMT
Michael is preaching unadulterated Jansenism [in an entry which has now been deleted, since this contributor was banned for being a timewasting troll - editor]. Our Lord said that the Good Shepherd should seek out the one sheep that was lost, not drive away the 99. Michael should examine his conscience to ask whether he is developing spiritual pride. It is necessary to expel manifest heretics from the church where necessary to preserve the faith (contra Noelfitz) but it is obscene to rejoice in the sight of large-scale falling away. Our Lord called for labourers to reap the harvest, not to burn it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 7, 2009 16:09:01 GMT
Here is an interesting letter from today's IRISH TIMES in which we see just how much the inmates of Atheist Ireland believe in religious freedom. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0907/1224253996728.htmlSale of Mass cards In this section » Holding on to jobsLisbon Treaty referendumTime for a Dublin book festivalControversy over NamaGender balance in medicineSame-sex civil unions Madam, – From September 1st, the Charities Act 2009 has been offering State protection to the Roman Catholic Church, and only this one church, to sell Mass cards (Home News, September 1st). The legality of this Act is being challenged in the High Court, but for a reason that turns ethics upside down.It is not being challenged to prevent people from selling claims of intercession with the creator of the universe to bereaved and vulnerable people. Instead, it is being challenged to allow a wider number of people to sell such unverifiable claims. Such thinking exists in the realm of magic and superstition. It is like last year’s special offer by the Pope that, if you visited Lourdes during 2008, you would get a free “plenary indulgence” which would get you early release from a place called Purgatory after you die, and get you sooner to another place called Heaven. In any other field of regulation, it would be seen as fraudulent to persuade sick or bereaved people to part with money in return for prayers or plenary indulgences. And the underlying purpose of a Charities Act is surely to protect vulnerable people, not to exploit them. Atheist Ireland is a new advocacy group for an ethical and secular Ireland, free from superstition and supernaturalism, where the State does not support or give special treatment to any religion. – Yours, etc, MICHAEL NUGENT, Chairperson, Atheist Ireland, Dargle Road, If this means anything, it means that Atheist Ireland (since Mr. Nugent uses his chairmanship and gives it a plug, he may be presumed to be speaking on behalf of the group unless/until they repudiate him) believes that Mass stipends ought to be declared illegal as a form of fraud and priests who say Masses for the dead should be prosecuted unless they can "prove" to Mr. Nugent's satisfaction (doesn't this sound a lot like HazelIreland?) that such prayers are effectual. There is in fact a precedent for Mr. Nugent's demand. Under the Penal Laws, and well into the nineteenth century, bequests in Wills to have Masses said for the testator's soul were routinely invalidated on the grounds that this constituted "superstitious uses". This view rested on the assumption that as Anglicanism was the religion of the state the law should assume the correctness of its (predominant) view on this point. It was eventually set aside on the grounds that the state should not dictate people's religious beliefs and practices in this manner. Mr. Nugent is not demanding "religious equality" - he is demanding that atheism should be treated as the state's default position and all religious beliefs should be treated as false unless they can "prove" to the satisfaction of atheists that they are true. This amounts to making atheism the established religion. BTW I agree that the law in question is badly drafted, since it might affect bona fide members of other religions - Orthodox, for example, if they have Mass stipends, and some very high Anglicans, if any of this variety are found here. It also seems to me that if someone wishes to offer a Mass stipend to the SSPX, Pat Buckley or any other such ecclesiastical vagrants in full knowledge of their canonical status, so long as the Mass - however irregular, schismatic and otherwise dubious - is actually celebrated, I do not see what business the state has to interfere. Safeguards should only apply when there is serious doubt that the service requested is actually being performed.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 8, 2009 13:13:16 GMT
Atheist Ireland is but the latest in the succession of stages which Michael Nugent has given himself. Does anyone have a link to John Water's article on the Atheist Ireland AGM? I would like to read it.
Not blaming Michael Nugent, but does anyone else realise the High Court do not have jurisdiction to adjucate on the legality (I assume he means constitutionality) of an act of the Oireachtas.
But for all the emotive claims about superstition and supernaturalism here, Michael Nugent is advocating establishing the atheist position by law. I don't see much logic in this letter.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 8, 2009 13:25:38 GMT
Here's the link. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0717/1224250844850.htmlNugent's statement does have a certain internal logic if you accept logical positivism as self-evident; the problem being that it is not self-evident without a prior commitment to logical positivism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivismMr. Nugent is in fact doing worse then merely declaring atheism should be the established religion of the state; he is asserting that only he and those who agree with him are intelligent and that everyone who disagrees with him is a fool or a knave. This beautiful piece of circular reasoning reminds me of those opponents of Catholic Emancipation who argued that Catholicism was so self-evidently false that anyone who believed in it was insane and therefore by definition unfit to exercise the rights of citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 8, 2009 13:52:07 GMT
Thanks, Hibernicus. I think Waters hits the nail on the head on the article's last line.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 10, 2010 13:33:14 GMT
A few issues back the BRANDSMA REVIEW republished an article from NEW OXFORD REVIEW claiming that secularists were increasingly adopting an attitude towards Catholicism resembling that of the Nazis towards the Jews. I thought this was over the top and said so; but at the same time I am increasingly inclined to think that some of the attitudes towards Catholicism found in the IRISH TIMES and the SUNDAY TRIBUNE resemble views which were used to justify the Penal Laws. I promised Nick Lowry an article on this sometime, and I think I may try a few random jottings on this as a starting-point.
Because there is a tendency for traditionalist/conservative Irish Catholics to assume that we speak for "the people" (seen as undifferentiated) they tend to overlook the extent to which in certain quarters of Irish society a visceral hostility towards Catholicism has developed. This I think is related to the fact that in the 80s we were still being run by people (in the judiciary, politics etc) whose worldview had been formed in the 1950s and 1960s, who had some sense of what it is to be an adult believer and of the Church's intellectual underpinning and who while they might have come to disagree with the Church on some point still by and large identified with it and felt a certain basic respect for it (often linked to the assumption that whatever faults it had would be "put right", as they saw it, in time). This mindset might be called liberal Catholic.
What we have seen emerging into the public eye since 1990 or thereabouts is what I call the HOT PRESS worldview expressed by journalists (and to a lesser extent politicians) from a younger generation who take it that Catholicism is self-evidently false and harmful, that it deserves only contempt and that it should be completely excluded from the public sphere. An early example of this was a humorous column in the Sunday Tribune which ran for a year or so after the X Case, supposedly written by one Aodhagan Feely, an elderly Catholic activist. To begin with, this parodied (sometimes very cleverly) the "why o why" rhetoric of the IRISH FAMILY, but it soon took on a much darker tone. Feely's near-senility and physical decrepitude were dwelt on with fascinated loathing (there were recurring references to his use of Immodium, presumably to counter senile incontinence of the bowels). His nostalgic references to the sound Catholic education he received made it clear that he had been molested by the Christian Brothers who taught him, but he was too stupid to realise this. This did not evoke any sympathy for him; indeed, it was hinted that he might be an abuser himself and responsible for the fact that his thirteen children had all experienced broken marriages. (His rhapsodic praise of the Youth Defence leaders and other pro-life activists of both sexes was presented as having distinctively sexual overtones.) Although he rhapsodised about the happiness of his marriage, it was clear that his wife actually loathed him and the numerous near-fatal accidents he experienced were in fact attempts by her to kill him, which he was too stupid to recognise as such. (The unintentional misogyny of this - surely she would have succeeded after fifty years of trying - does not appear to have struck the authors.) This was the stereotype of the faithful Irish Catholic - old, ignorant, perverted, a senile source of misery to others whose demise can't come soon enough. (I am not sure if the authors of FATHER TED , now involved in ATHEIST IRELAND , had a hand in this farrago - but I seem to remember an intervivew with them about the time of that series' greatest popularity in which they remarked that it would not have been acceptable on US channels because while those broadcasters would stand over a portrayal of an alcoholic priest if it was seen as tragic, they would regard playing it for laughs - as with Father Jack - as intolerably offensive. I suspect the US channels have changed on this in subsequent years.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 10, 2010 13:46:39 GMT
This recent post from Joanna Bogle's blog is relevant to the subject under discussion here: joannabogle.blogspot.com/Lord Carey... ...former Archbishop of Canterbury, is much quoted in the press today on the subject of Christians being bullied by politicians, and Christianity being marginalised in our country. He's quite right, of course. It would be useful if his comments could stir people to a greater sense of the possibilities of challenging the ghastly culture that is fostering this bashing of Christianity. But the worst thing about it is the sense of defeat and inevitability that seems to surround the subject...some Catholics speak of imminent persecution with a sense of misplaced relish and glee. "Remember" a Czech friend told me years ago "persecution works in crushing the Church.Of course it is true that there are brave people - often unexpected ones - who hold out and are an inspiration. But for huge numbers of people, the Church disappears, and they are left ignorant, uninstructed, and confused. What you get is a general feeling of hopelessness and cynicism,lots of dishonesty, people finding ways to cope and get along in life, a loss of daily contact with the things of God. People start to believe the anti-religious propaganda that they are given, and the Christians they meet may just appear bigoted, out-of-date, narrow-minded and not able to give answers. Don't make the mistake of thinking that it's all romantic." He was certainly correct with regard to his own country, where despite the heroic witness and sterling qualities of Vaclav Havel,and his recognition of the great spiritual truths on which civilisation must be founded, the arrival of freedom has seen a continued decline in religious belief and a widespread sense of detrachment from historical Christianity. Young people brought up on trite slogans do not neccesarily opt for womething larger and more glorious when given the opportunity, nor is it easy to introduce it when material goals seem more important... Pray for Britain.
|
|