|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 14, 2010 0:07:06 GMT
I think I have said before in this forum that John Cooney is too partisan, too militantly attached to the "Spirit of Vatican II" faction, to be credible as an objective commentator. The Indo might call him a "correspondent" but he is no more a correspondent than Kevin Myers or Ian O'Doherty. He is a columnist like they are, riding his own hobby-horses.
|
|
|
Post by loughcrew on Jan 14, 2010 8:39:45 GMT
He is of that generation determined to drive us Catholics into oblivion in the name of reform.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jan 14, 2010 15:27:04 GMT
I think that the career John Cooney has made in religious affairs commentary is a worse reflection on the likes of the late Fr Austin Flannery OP who fostered people like himself and T. P. O'Mahoney when they were cub reporters.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2010 16:53:45 GMT
I don't think complete objectivity is possible or desirable, but Cooney is simply a bigot and a bully - it's one thing to take sides, it's quite another to denigrate and misrepresent your opponents. Myers is IMHO far superior; he knows he is a provocateur and he can quite often say sensible things. Similarly Fintan O'Toole, however many his hobbyhorses and however much I disagree with him on some things, can be a good rigorous reporter and is capable of systematic analysis. Cooney just chooses his side and works by rant and innuendo on the assumption that all virtue resides with him and his friends and his opponents can never have anything at all. Oddly enough, he reminds me of a certain type of old-style Redemptorist preaching against the ungodly.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2010 14:13:37 GMT
Last week I saw an article by Carol Coulter in the IRISH TIMES (don't have the exct date to hand - will post it when I find it) in which she argued against the concept of wide-ranging "civil union" status for cohabitants as opposed to specific gay marriage legislation. Her agument rested on a hypothetical situation - that two students live together during their three-year college course. One becomes increasingly committed to the relationship and expects it to lead to marriage, while the other gets increasingly discontented and breaks it off on graduation. The other student then tries to exercise legal rights as a cohabitant under the civil union legislation concerning property, etc, and they become caught up in a legal tangle. What struck me after reading this is that Coulter assumes that the law ought to assume that such relationships should not be treated as serious matters, and that no obstacle should be put in the way of one participant ending it by unilateral decision, and that the partner who is committed to the relationship and had built their hopes on it should be told essentially "Tough luck - get over it". The idea that cohabiting maritally with someone is a serious matter and that people who enter into it should be aware that it can have serious consequences (not least for the other person) is implicitly treated as too ridiculous for words, and the ideal held up is that the law should be predicted on the view that such unions are of no more significance than th ecouplings of cats or dogs. welconme to the Brave New World we voted for in 1995.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 4, 2010 15:24:38 GMT
I read the article. And I recalled a situation I encountered in University where a male undergraduate benefitted from a succession of female partners to graduate with First Class honours while the other was left badly hurt. In the case scenario present by Carol Coulter, one student well provided for by family lives with another who is not so well endowed but bears the bulk of domestic responsibilities while her (though sex is irrelevant) studies suffer and then the more successful partner moves on. Carol Coulter seems to think there should be no responsibility involved. Whatever case she was trying to make about the shortcomings of the bill in this regard had the opposite effect on me - I am glad this aspect of life is taken seriously and that couples should realise they can't avoid marital responsibilities by just skipping a ceremony.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2010 12:14:49 GMT
Perhaps consideration should be given to reviving the mediaeval common-law definition of marriage, which survived in Scots law until the 1940s; cohabitation would automatically be considered marriage unless the parties specifically agreed they did not want to marry. At least this would make them take it seriously. (One of Disraeli's politician friends had a Scottish mistress, and every time they visited her relatives in Scotland he used to make her swear before witnesses beforehand that she was not his wife and that when they returned from Scotland she would still be what she was when she went there.) BTW such marriages were considered valid under canon law before the Council of Trent, and this has been picked up by Garret Fitzgerald and certain theologians to argue that the church should accept cohabitation as not being sinful. What they gloss over is that such marriages were considered as binding as any other marriage - that is to say, indissoluble; although of course it was easier for one party to weasel out of them than out of a more formal arrangement, which is why they were abolished.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 9, 2011 15:31:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 4, 2011 22:20:25 GMT
Fr Vincent Twomey had quite a nice piece in the SUNDAY TIMES (Irish edition) today on the new Mass translation. Today's SUNDAY INDEPENDENT had a rather sad interview with the current head of the Kilnacrott Norbertines about their current situation (down to five elderly Norbertines and one visiting African priest - they can no longer afford to maintain Kilnacrott and it is up for sale, but prospective purchasers want Fr Brendan Smyth's grave removed). He says they are unlikely to attract novices and even if any did show interest he suspects it would be wrong to encourage them - he thinks religious orders may disappear from Ireland as they did after the Reformation. He also expresses his bewilderment over Fr Smyth, and cannot make up his mind whether the man was all evil or might have some good in him (because in retrospect what seemed like good actions might have been devised as cover for his crimes). A sad read - especially if (as I have) you have seen 1950s news reports of the elevation of Kilnacrott to Abbey status, complete with speeches hailing this as proof of the revival of Catholic Ireland and the undoing of the harm done at the Reformation. The whole day was managed very efficiently by the Master of Ceremonies - none other than Fr Brendan Smyth...
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2011 23:27:21 GMT
The new Catholic Herald has an optimistic piece by Fr Kevin Doran about the potential of the Eucharistic Congress to revive the Irish Church Mary Kenny's IRISH CATHOLIC column includes a gloomy but probably accurate prediction that the recession and budget cuts will lead to increasing numbers of abortions.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 10, 2011 20:42:16 GMT
I happened to see today's IRISH INDEPENDENT and I must say it was not very impressive: John Cooney had a rant about the confusion allegedly caused by the new Mass translation, complained that the Irish Bishops had not sent out the least signal of disagreement (as he suggested Archbishop Conti of Glasgow had done), ridiculed the term "consubtantial" on the grounds that nobody could understand the concept of "substance" unless they had a training in mediaeval philosophy, and in general proclaimed it was all a conspiracy to present the Church as consisting only of bishops and priests with the laity as powerless subordinates - this of course is how he sees everything. He did not of course even admit the possibility that there might be two sides to the questions and that anybody other than a few clerics might disagree with him - such thoughts are for a real journalist and not for an unscrupulous partisan propagandist as he has long since shown himself to be. The paper took advantage of the fact that an Irish model and actress had been sacked from the TV series GAME OF THRONES because she was unwilling to do nude scenes to produce a long and copiously-illustrated article on actresses who have done nude scenes, the implicit message being that she should stop being a spoilsport and get 'em off.
What a change from when the Indo was known as the priests' housekeepers' paper!
|
|
|
Post by annie on Dec 13, 2011 11:08:13 GMT
I happened to see today's IRISH INDEPENDENT and I must say it was not very impressive: John Cooney had a rant about the confusion allegedly caused by the new Mass translation, complained that the Irish Bishops had not sent out the least signal of disagreement (as he suggested Archbishop Conti of Glasgow had done), ridiculed the term "consubtantial" on the grounds that nobody could understand the concept of "substance" unless they had a training in mediaeval philosophy, and in general proclaimed it was all a conspiracy to present the Church as consisting only of bishops and priests with the laity as powerless subordinates - this of course is how he sees everything. He did not of course even admit the possibility that there might be two sides to the questions and that anybody other than a few clerics might disagree with him - such thoughts are for a real journalist and not for an unscrupulous partisan propagandist as he has long since shown himself to be. The paper took advantage of the fact that an Irish model and actress had been sacked from the TV series GAME OF THRONES because she was unwilling to do nude scenes to produce a long and copiously-illustrated article on actresses who have done nude scenes, the implicit message being that she should stop being a spoilsport and get 'em off. What a change from when the Indo was known as the priests' housekeepers' paper! I understand that John Cooney is a son of a devout scottish catholic family. Is he suffering a prolonged adolescence of some sort?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 13, 2011 21:39:17 GMT
He does come across as an angry adolescent all right - or perhaps rather a propagandist, in that he never admits that there is anything to be said for a view he disagrees with or that anyone who disagrees with him might be honest (even if mistaken). He is very much the tribal Catholic though - he identifies as Catholic in terms of their being the downtrodden in Scotland (historically) and gets very annoyed with anyone who says he isn't a Catholic just because he doesn't believe in central Catholic doctrines. From his point of view, not to be a Catholic would be going over to the Rangers fans.
|
|
|
Post by losleandros on Dec 19, 2011 14:25:11 GMT
I think I'd marginally prefer Rangers to John Cooney - they're not as anti-Papist !.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 19, 2011 23:43:11 GMT
They say some people become the thing they hate most, and Cooney is an example.
|
|