|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 1, 2010 12:01:45 GMT
I will be away for some time, but when I get back I want to develop a few threads (perhaps as the seed of articles in the Brandsma). This one will try to analyse the mindset of much of the "liberal Catholic" commentary in the present-day Irish media to give an idea of what sort of church they want.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Dec 3, 2010 22:42:03 GMT
I will be away for some time, but when I get back I want to develop a few threads (perhaps as the seed of articles in the Brandsma). This one will try to analyse the mindset of much of the "liberal Catholic" commentary in the present-day Irish media to give an idea of what sort of church they want. Could it be that, to a large extent, the liberal Catholic is the product of the clash between traditional Catholicism and the what could be termed the whole area of Equality and Human Rights? Although many Human rights are implicit in Catholicism, some of the Equality rights clash. For example should women have the 'right' to be priest? Or should the church use a word like 'disorder' to describe the practice of homosexuality? Should a women have the right to choose to abort her child? How this often plays out in the media, where the Equality issue is championed as sacrosanct, is interesting, Often those who perceive themselves to be discriminated against will often have a moving story, will often be emotional and will elicit the sympathy of the audience and will normally have no-one opposing their view. And in such cases Catholicism appears hard and unreasonable (not allowing a womam to choose, upsetting homosexuals by its terminology, stifling the good work that women could bring to the priesthood...). Any type of apparent 'distress' caused to individuals by organisations/institutions is seen as a bad thing in the liberal mindset. Many Catholics are then influenced by a (often genuine) desire to placate such distress by softening and revising the Catholic traditional beliefs. Perhaps the problem lies with the Equality rights underlying assumption that a person can be anything they want. But the Catholic church believes in this world and another world and has a transcendence and tradition that is not always 100% compatible with a human based system. It might therefore be better to realise that the Church is different and is not simply a vehicle of the state. So the tension exists between the Church and the liberal rights issues. The liberal Catholic wants to bridge that gap to offer a more permissive Church. This is often done with good intentions but the ultimate end of such moves may be the emasculating of the religion and beliefs that they once held sacred.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 6, 2010 14:49:19 GMT
The liberal definition of human rights derives to a considerable extent from a priori rejection of the Christian view. For example, a great deal of the debate about "sexual liberation" is based on the assumption that the Christian view of proper sexual conduct (only within marriage between two people of opposite sexes) is both unworkable and cruel and that it should be replaced by the view that sexual experimentation is good, inevitable, and therefore to be facilitated.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 16, 2011 12:19:31 GMT
Let's try to start this again by dissecting one of the background assumptions for a lot of present-day comment on Irish Catholicism; that it's all about POWER and nothing else - that its doctrinal content is merely a pretext used to give the clergy power over the laity, or Holy Joes power over Sean Citizen. (For example, the deep subtext of the film THE MAGDALEN SISTERS is not just about exposing the terrible mistreatment of the inmates of the Magdalen asylums - and we should not forget that this mistreatment actually happened; it insinuates repeatedly and directly that the teaching of the Church, particularly on sexual matters, is really intended to subjugate people and allow them to be exploited, sexually and otherwise, by making them feel guilty for not living up to a standard which cannot be observed in practice and is not in fact upheld by those who preach it to others.) A good example of this minset is Curtis' recent book on Catholic Action in Ireland, which assumes not only that the social nostrums advocated by early C20 Catholic Action were misguided - an arguable view - and that some of their advocates were self-serving (which again is correct; it is quite possible to provide a fine collection of snobbish and condescending quotes from professedly Catholic spokesmen in the period) but that they never had any purpose other than to give the Church arbitrary power over the citizenry, and should be read ONLY in that light. What underlies this is a deeper assumption (which is given force by the scale of the post-Vatican II changes) that the teaching of the Church simply reflects the will of the legislator and nothing more, and that the Church could change it all tomorrow if she chose - or, to put it more bluntly still, that religion is entirely of human origin (and its legitimate functions are therapeutic - to make us feel better about ourselves) and has nothing divine and hence unchangeable/eternal about it. This assumption BTW is what lies behind John McGahern's ostentatiously kindly remarks about the Church - when he distinguishes between the church of the visionary artist and the church which is all about power and fundamentalism, he means the distinction between a church as a cultural artefact and a church which actually teaches its doctrines as truth and enforces them as such on his membership. From this point of view there is no inconsistency in his requesting a Catholic funeral and burial in consecrated ground, even though he was and made it clear to the end that he remained an atheist - if you see the church just as a cultural artefact whose rules are revisable at will, then it's just a matter of adjusting the fiction, in the same way that an atheist might admire Bach's music without sharing Bach's Lutheranism. What disquiets me about that funeral and others like it is that giving Catholic funerals to self-proclaimed and unrepentant apostates gives the impression (whatever the subjective motives of those responsible) that the Church herself accepts this view of her teachings as mere convenient fictions adjustable at will - Patsy McGarry and other such commentators have certainly been using it to uphold this view.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Mar 22, 2011 20:47:03 GMT
The essential problem is that many non-believers fail to appreciate that Catholicism is not a 'brand' to be managed and changed to the whims of fashion but a belief system that has fundamental eternal truths and laws. In order to 'secularise' Catholicism non believers will try to either abolish it, treat it as a 'brand', a lifestyle choice or in the case of McGahern a cultural movement.
There are quite a few lazy and cliched remarks commonly aimed at Catholicism by liberals/non believers in Ireland and further afield, many of which can at least be challenged.
For example the call to drag Catholicism into the 21st century. We can challenge this by asking what is the 21st century actually offering that would attract any institution to drag itself into its midst and embrace its values? Consumerism, addiction, corruption, mental health problems, economic woes, new wars, wall to wall advertising, dumbing down of the media, sport infected by commerce and money issues, family breakdown etc...of course not everything is bad but it is hard to argue that the 21st century is bringing in a beautiful utopia.
Catholicism is brainwashing? Certainly not in the last 50 years. Compare the number of hours of television given over to advertisments and contrast that with the number of hours given over to Catholic apologetics or preaching and then decide where brainwashing or influencing is actually occuring.
As for the Catholics funerals for a declared atheist - this is a difficult one. On the one hand it may be seen as relegating the Church to nothing more than a cultural movement. However it may also be viewed as a final gesture of a non believer towards an acceptance of God's existence, even a last minute one. Perhaps something has been said in private between man and priest. And God will always look to find a place for the lost sheep, prodigal son - so it would appear mean to refuse a Catholic burial if it has been requested as it allows the chance, however small, of a last gasp return to the faith.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 24, 2011 17:01:42 GMT
The minor point first: Certainly every pastoral consideration should be given and where the smallest room for doubt is present it should be allowed. IT seems to me, however, and I stand open to correction, that where the person concerned has made a public declaration of unbelief shortly before death, including, as in the case of McGahern, a specific statement that their request for a Catholic funeral does not mean that they have ceased to be an unbeliever, a Catholic funeral should only be allowed if the person concerned is prepared to make a public declaration of faith (perhaps in a statement to be released posthumously) in order to avoid scandal. Their declaration of unbelief was clearly made with the intention of influencing others to become unbelievers, and to allow a Catholic funeral after such a declaration without any effort at reparation is IMHO to make oneself complicit in such influence.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2011 13:44:19 GMT
Here's a canon lawyer's discussion of the question of when a Catholic funeral is allowable for a grave and manifest sinner, with reference to Ted Kennedy www.canonlaw.info/2009/08/catholic-funeral-for-ted-kennedy.htmlThe same issue is popping up again in relation to Geraldine Ferraro. IMHO this is a slightly different case; since she was out of the public eye for some time before her death there should be a certain presumption that she repented unless we know otherwise. Someone who remained politically active right up to their death, or who declared themselves an atheist with virtually their last breath is in a different situation. We are of course only talking about the appropriateness of holding a Catholic funeral for these people. Their final state is known only to God, as is the extent to which their outlook may have been deformed by forces for which they were not fully responsible (such as John McGahern's abominable father, who seems to have given him permanent "authority issues".) Pray for them, even for the worst malefactors, even for the murder-suicide who was once a pious little altar boy at a Benedictine abbey in Austria... and pray for me too. www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/03/27/a-catholic-funeral-for-geraldine-ferraro/www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/03/28/ferraros-funeral/
|
|