|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 21, 2012 18:39:13 GMT
Stagg was never Militant Tendency so far as I am aware, but after his election in 1987 he was seen as the leader of the "left" faction in the Labour Party who thought the way forward was to take a sharp left turn and repudiate any future coalition. He was helped in this by inheriting the fine collection of paper branches which his predecessor as Kildare TD Joe Birmingham maintained to shore up his position. He caused a good deal of trouble for a time to Dick Spring (who had to hold party conferences in Tralee so that the even finer collection of paper branches built up by the Spring dynasty in North Kerry over the decades could outvote their Kildare counterparts). By 1992 Stagg was on the ropes and his last hurrah was resigning from Labour, apparently with the intention of joining the newly-formed Democratic Left (which hoped to attract some Labour Left elements so as to appear as more than a Workers Party succession group). However, of his non-paper activists, only one - a mysterious American called Taft, seen as Stagg's political guru - was willing to imitate his resignation, so Stagg realised he couldn't hold the seat as DL and crawled back into Labour with his tail between his legs (Taft being left severely outside). There is a lot about the Stagg challenge and its subsidence which I don't understand; perhaps closer students of the Labour Party could fill some of the gaps. The Stagg-Militant link may have been that he opposed the expulsion of Militant from the LAbour PArty (since its expulsion would weaken the left wing of the party overall) but that doesn't make him a member of that Trot sect himself. Tony Benn opposed the expulsion of Militant from the British Labour PArty in the 80s, and although he was very leftie he wasn't a Militant himself.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 19, 2012 15:16:03 GMT
From election 2011: www.irelandelection.com/campaign-focuses-on-sovereignty/Christian Solidarity said all other political parties with the possible exception of Sinn Féin have “sold out” to the “EU secular agenda”. The party favours transfers to Sinn Féin because of its opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and its agreement with other political parties in the North not to implement British abortion laws. Meath West candidate Manus MacMeanmain said voters would decide where to transfer their votes but it would be “logical” to transfer to those who supported their “Euro-realistic” stance. From RTE: www.rte.ie/news/2012/0418/dail-to-debate-x-case-ruling.htmlSinn Féin leader Gerry Adams said he was personally not in favour of abortion, but said he was against judging or criminalising women who opted for terminations. He said he had to set aside his personal convictions and face up to his legislative duties. From: Politics.ie www.politics.ie/forum/sinn-fein/186719-mary-lou-mcd-favour-providing-abortion-women.htmlToday, 02:13 PM #1 Cooperate for freedom Politics.ie Regular Join Date Nov 2010 Location Near a field Posts 1,841 Mary Lou McD is in favour of providing abortion to women. Having just heard a clip on Mary lou's speech i was disappointed to hear that she made clear her view that in the case of rape and incest that women should be given the option to ask a "doctor" to put an end to the life of the completely innocent unborn child. She was not specific about how this would work in practice. If a woman who had been raped and initially decided to not have an abortion then changed her mind at let's say 30 week would Mary Lou feel that woman should be facilitated? Of course this is a highly emotive issue but i feel Mary Lou committed too much and would be interested to see the impact this has within Sinn Fein. Whilst confident that Mary Lou ultimately sees abortion as a tragic event (not so sure Claire Daly thinks so by comparison) she essentially has just stood up in the Dail and condoned ending unborn life. The debate isn't on the web yet so i can't link to her exact comments and will update at a later stage. END OF EXTRACT www.rte.ie/news/2012/0419/private-members-bill-on-abortion-law-defeated.htmlThe Private Members' Bill on abortion has been defeated in the Dáil by 109 votes to 20. Article Video (1) Audio (1) Comments (19) Bill to legislate for the 1992 ruling of the Supreme Court in X-case was defeated Play News At One: Róisin Ní Eadhra reports that a Socialist Party abortion bill was defeated in the Dáil Play One News: X-case bill defeated in Dáil Related Stories Dáil debates abortion X-case bill The Technical Group had put forward the Bill to legislate for the 1992 ruling of the Supreme Court in the X-case and make abortion legal for pregnant women whose lives are at risk. Patrick Nulty - who has already lost the party whip - was the only Labour TD to support it. Fianna Fáil voted against and Sinn Féin in favour. During the debate, Sinn Féin's Mary Lou McDonald said her party supported the Bill but was not in favour of what is termed "abortion on demand".END Further comment is superfluous, except that anyone who has paid attention to SF's record could have anticipated this.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 30, 2012 0:04:40 GMT
The CSP website has up a couple of newsletter items added in late MArch. I must say they show the usual naivete and lack not only of professionalism but of coherent thought. comharcriostai.org/ The first reports a demonstration against Nancy Pelosi's (pro-abortion "Catholic" ex-Speaker of US House of Representatives) recent visit to Trinity. The report complains that after participating in the demonstration Richard Greene and some supporters tried to enter Trinity to attend Pelosi's meeting but were blocked by college security on the instructions of the Gardai and American security. The author of the report is bewildered by this, but it is exactly what they should have expected. American politicians are very sensitive both to their public images and to their physical security, and will go to great lengths to exclude anyone whose behaviour suggests the remotest possibility that they might be a threat. Mr Greene should have realised, as anyone familiar with American official attitudes could have told him, that his participation in a hostile demonstration, however peaceful, would cause the authorities to exclude him - if he wanted to ask questions at the meeting he should not have had the demonstration, if he thought the demonstration was more important he should have realised it would prevent his attendance at the meeting. The second piece gives the CSP reasons for voting No on the coming Euro-referendum, and frankly it is as clear as mud. These reasons are (1) Firstly, it states that EU membership per se is incompatible with NAtural LAw/the Law of God (presumably on the grounds that the EU is imposing secularisation on us - in fact Irish society seems to be secularising itself quite rapidly with only minimal EU input, and if we as a nation were really determined to resist secularisation I don't think the EU would sacrifice economic integration for its sake (2) The CSP says it wants an alternative to what it describes as the current "debt-based" (i.e. capitalist) economic system. It admits it doesn't know what form an alternative system might take, or how to create one, but it promises to look into the matter. In other words, the voter is asked to break with the current economic system in the name of a substitute to be provided by people with no track record and whose statement is not even written in coherent English. - EXTRACT The euro considered in itself as a fiscal policy is also flawed. It shares the exact same debt enslavement as any other currency of our times as in the UK, US, China etc. It shows the exact same symptoms and wants to enshrine them in our national constitution. Governments, banks, businesses, familys and individuals are perpetually in debt. This is a symptom not the cause. The cause is the monetary policy pursued. The problem is the system. The euro uses the exact same system that causes debt enslavement. It too will have its booms and busts. It is an extremely unjust system to the present generation. Especially putting super stress on families and marriages. Its extreme unjustness is seen in its passing to the next generation a debt of money they did not even spend. Christian Solidarity rejects a debt enslavement system until at least another system can be researched and developed and tested which would not put people in debt. So Christian Solidarity do not feel it fair to the Irish People or indeed any people to start copper fastening in a constitution this treaty. It is not the time historically as we would prefer to try to find better system. Suppose we were to find a better system - then what would we find if we voted yes- but that it would be a costly long haul to remove this treaty from our constitution. Keep in mind a yes vote will put this treaty in our constitution. We do not think we are absolutely certain that this will work for Ireland or for any other country. It may work nicely for Germany at the present but will it always work for them. We do not know if it really will work for Ireland and if it did today will it continue to work in some years time. We do not feel that human financial history has reached a certainty about fiscal policies that we are at a point that we can put specific details about an economic system into any constitution... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 30, 2012 8:45:31 GMT
I am very reluctant to criticise people who set time aside and make efforts to achieve something positive as over the years I have been involved either centrally or peripherally with the LMSI, Ecclesia Dei Ireland, Parents and Teachers for Real Education, Friends of Carlow Cathedral, this Forum and the Brandsma Review, among other things. Some were failures.
These are a considerable investment in time and energy and they don't run on fresh air. I don't have the time or energy for the CSP. But I have to say that it is one organisation which reeks of amateurism across the board. I could say the same of Muintir na h-Éireann, the National Party, the Christian Centrist Party, the Christian Principles Party and the particularly pointless Christian Democrats. When Dr Gerard Casey was leader of the CSP, it did achieve something - but right now, it looks like protest for protest's sake. It seriously needs people with some knowledge of politics and economics and some strategy. If it doesn't get this, it will just be a waste.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on May 14, 2012 0:07:28 GMT
While I do support the idea of a Christian party, I don't think the CSP is the way to go. We need to start a new party from scratch, free from the disunity that has plagued Irish Catholic politics in the last 20 years. I also think that the overt emphasis on nationalism (even from moderates like Dana or Ronan Mullen) is putting off minority Catholics, some of whose piety often puts the Irish to shame, from getting involved in politics. I don't think a Christian party has any chance of getting enough votes to be effective, though I agree with you that nationalism is irrelevant as a policy and should be left aside. I think the best chance Catholics (and other Christians) have of achieving influence is by joining an existing party and shaping its policies. Fianna Fail seems the best bet at the moment; Fine Gael less so. None of the others could be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 14, 2012 9:51:21 GMT
I think what I am going to do here is respond to Youngireland's blog post tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.com/2012/05/trouble-with-catholic-right.html, which is a constructive response to our problems, but at best would be the first rather than the final word 1. The Catholic Right simply follow general practice in politics, civil and ecclesiastical, in speaking for Ireland. The ACPI assume the same thing. Most of the political parties proceed from the same standpoint - so do the secular left. What the Catholic Right need is a balance between self-confidence which is necessary and the delusion of believing your own propaganda - which happens all to often in practice (and the Catholic Right is not the only group with problems here - unfortunately, it does have that problem to a great degree). 2. Sounds like Brendan Behan's 'the first thing on the agenda of any Irish group is the split'. Many of these are personal in basis - this whole thing has dogged attempts to seek extraordinary form Latin Masses for example. But I think Gerard Casey had the best idea when he was leader of the CSP - that certain things were non-negotiable (abortion) but other things were open to compromise. The problem with the CSP and many other groups is that they accept the party line as a complete package - and this includes other issues such as sovereignty and Europe etc. The division among publications Young Ireland lists are not very neat at all. I'll discuss the ones YI mentions. First of all, Reality and the St Martin Magazine are creatures of the Redemptorist and Dominican provinces respectively and are not commercial entities. They are supported in the main by little old ladies putting money in those order's poor boxes to support their missions (other orders do the same thing). Fr Gerard Moloney isn't dependent on what he puts in Reality for his bread and butter, so he can sound off and take his sales as evidence of support, when the province subsidises the magazine to the point of sending free copies to the school. Most people support these, or the Jesuit's Sacred Heart Messenger, because they and their families have done so for years. The same is true of the Irish Catholic - it has supporters who supported it for years. But I wouldn't agree that these people are lukewarm Catholics. Some IC contributors are very good and their letter page is a good reflection of who read the paper and they are not by any means all lukewarm. I am not a fan of Gary O'Sullivan, but one of his challenges is appealing to people who might take either the National Catholic Reporter or the Wanderer in the US - The NCR's John Allen never marvelled at the range of Catholic opinions in Ireland but rather at the way the IC could bring them together in one room. Alive! caters to many of the groups YI mentions, but it is essentially driven by one man - Fr Brian McKevitt OP. Fr McKevitt is excellent on many things, but could exercise more judgement on some of the stuff YD come out with or some of the syndicated stuff from the US. Catholic Voice seems to me to be a light weight version of what The Democrat, later The Irish Democrat, later The Irish Family used to be - heavy on devotion and light on serious analysis. CV also reproduces on mass stuff from the Internet and has no staff member who could be described as a journalist - a lot of the pieces are sounding off and editorial ability is poor. The Brandsma Review was certainly drifting in a traditional direction before Nick Lowry stepped down with a lot of New Oxford Review and internet reprints, but this has stopped now and one sees more of David Manly, Joe McCarroll and Fr Brendan Purcell again who are not trads. The BR doesn't represent any group (even if the editor is at present also president of the LMSI) but it remains to be seen how long it lasts. And then the departed The Hibernian and The Irish Family Press, the latter a descendent of The Democrat/Irish Democrat/Irish Family with heavier YD imput and Gerry McGeough at the head. I think these began with funding behind them, but could not generate a market for their particular 'Faith and Fatherland' take on reality. 3. The US Church has a lot going for it, but also has a lot of pitfalls. I think it is amazing how Catholics on the left happily take NCR style things and criticise more conservative endeavours of being too American. I think we can learn a lot from the Church in both the US and on continental Europe, but I have another suggestion. Can anyone sit down and list things the Irish Church has going for it? We still have a high attendance at Mass and the Sacraments and we still are abortion free - is this due to anything going right? I am not saying that to be over optimistic - I'm not optimistic; I am just suggesting we look at the yard stick we use to evaluate other national churches. 4. I'm distant from any sort of Gerry McGeough/Justin Barrett nationalism, but it should be remembered that patriotism is a virtue rather than a sin and that much effort is put into the development of 'Faith and Culture' institutes which Blessed John Paul II promoted. If you talk about the New Irish, you'll find that Poles, Lithuanians and Slovaks are intensely patriotic. There is no reason why the Irish shouldn't be either. Nor is there any reason why we should not concerned with matters that affect Catholics in the six counties. If I take this argument outside the Irish context, does anyone think that the model of extremely restrained patriotism that has been practiced in Germany since 1945 is something any nation should aspire to? I think it is bad there and that it in fact allows fringe neo-nazism fester and that in the Irish context, it leads to the sort of mentality evident in Barrett's The National Way Forward! and McGeough's The Hibernian. 5. I think a lot of people in this country are in denial in this matter to some degree, and not always due to 'Faith and Fatherland'. One is that Bl JP II and Benedict XVI are ardent Europhiles and a lot of Europhiles are devout Catholics - Jacques Delors, Romano Prodi, Helmut Kohl were in the spirit of Adenauer, Monnet and Schumann. But even today, the likes of Mario Monti and Mariano Rajoy are too. Indeed, at one European Council meeting in Dublin Castle, the Depts of Foreign Affairs and Taoiseach were surprised at the amount of delegates expressing disappointment that Mass times were not included in the information packs provided, and many of these were not southern Europeans but French, German and Dutch delegates. A lot of Catholics, both inside and outside the EU (Croats for example on the outside) are very disappointed with the attitude of Irish Catholics to the same. Be that as it may, there are many other problems with European integration too which we are all aware of. Anyway, if we disengage from Europe, our alternative would be fitting in to an Anglo-American block. Has anyone ever considered that it is a lot more likely that Catholics would occupy the position of French President and German Chancellor rather than US President and British Prime Minister? 5. I think any group will overstate it's role in any victory, but we need to shift wheat from chaff and there's a lot of unrealism in the CSP/Catholic Voice analyses of certain event. We also need to set achievable objectives and work towards them than to fight windmills like Don Quixote.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 14, 2012 9:52:16 GMT
I agree with Michael G that FF are the best bet at present.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on May 14, 2012 12:11:57 GMT
I'm not sure either David Quinn or Michael Kelly of the Irish Catholic would like to be described as lukewarm in their Catholicism.
The GAA ban on players playing 'foreign games' disappeared in the 1970s and the ban on their grounds being used for such games disappeared a few years ago. Anyway, do you have any idea of the extent to which security forces in Northern Ireland harrassed and harangued the GAA as an organisation and individual members thereof in the course of the Troubles? But aside from politics, much of rural Ireland would be totally dead without the GAA.
It's possible too, to be xenophobiac without being republican; in fact republicanism is not synonomous with nationalism. Republicanism is a belief that the people are sovereign rather than an hereditary monarch. To conflate republicanism with a jingoistic nationalism, as with a purely secularist approach to national affairs, is mistaken. The fact some xenophobes and some militant secularists identify themselves as republicans is not an argument against republicanism per se. Anymore than your use of the name Young Ireland identifies you with Eoin O'Duffy's movement of the same name in the 1930s.
I'd no idea that our colleague here Alaisdir Ó Sé had an exaulted position as an editor of anything.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 14, 2012 12:21:46 GMT
Again, I was talking about the Irish Catholic in general. I didn't intend to imply that David Quinn or Michael Kelly were lukewarm. However, a lot of the other columnists are.
When I refer to republicanism, I refer to the Irish variety of physical-force republicanism. I don't have any problem with the GAA. What I do have a problem with is people like Sinn Fein exploiting the game for political capital. And please don't think I am a unionist: Loyalist paramilitaries have as much responsibility for the bloodshed as the IRA.
By the way, my name is deliberately intended to be ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on May 14, 2012 12:56:25 GMT
I wouldn't say lukewarm is the word I'd use to describe Irish Catholic columnists. Most of them are committed to something, but the question is to what? With Gary O'Sullivan, it is incredibly hazy. With Mary Kenny, it can be daft. There is a big question over orthodoxy (which don't apply to Kelly or Quinn), but not commitment.
But back to the question, I am slow to criticise the CSP because they are doing something I am not doing. The trouble is they don't realise what is involved in politics. It is a big committment in time, energy and money. You need to make friends and influence people. You need to be persuasive, even while talking like everyone agrees with you. You can't assume that you do speak for everyone. You need to start local and do things which have nothing to do with high minded objectives - first port of call might be the residents' association or school fundraising or, in most of Ireland, the local GAA club at committee level. You might deal with street lighting or children's playgrounds, but that's the start. You look for town council seats before county council seats and the Dáil comes later. None of the people involved in CSP or other such politics could even see that. But it is a long haul deal. If the CSP can't work that way, look for an outfit that can - and Michael G has a point in FF being the best bet.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 15, 2012 10:21:18 GMT
AMy views on Europe would be closer to Declan Ganley than to Richard Greene. This is very a propos of this discussion. The fact is that Richard Greene is leader of the CSP and Declan Ganley is not. Mr Greene has an interesting history. He was on the National Executive of Fianna Fáil in the 1980s and was kicked out of the party over his opposition to extradition (or that's his version; I suspect Fianna Fáil have another reason - the party only had one leader through that whole decade who had little animus toward militant republicans, though he did expect them to keep quiet). Then he joined the Greens (appropriately), got elected to Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council in 1991 and got kicked out of the Greens due to his opposition to abortion - his main achievement was to destroy the re-election chances of the first Green TD, Roger Garland, who was one prominent Green opposed to abortion, divorce and many other things. He failed to be re-elected to DLRD Co Co in 1999 and had become involved in Muintir na hÉireann. In spite of being leader of the party, he was kicked out of that too. There is no good track record here. In terms of politics, he seems to advocate the autarkic economy which de Valera seemed to favour. This is one of the few way one can understand someone who could jump from Fianna Fáil to the Greens. He was still pushing the likes of Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful' after leaving the Greens. Though he is surrounded by trad Catholics, he is not one himself. He has some understanding of politics, but that does not prevent him going badly wrong. However, I am reminded of the Irish saying I ríocht na ndall, is rí fear na leathshúile - the one-eyed man is king of the blind. Greene is the only one in the CSP who appears to have any understanding of politics, hence he's leader. The trouble about the CSP is that they don't have any political awareness. In this respect, Askel is right. Doing politics is about knocking on doors and doing thankless tasks for years to create a reputation. The rewards come much later. If you want to see how political success, look at the two SFs - Official Sinn Féin (later the Workers' Party, subsequently Democratic Left now highly influential in Labour) and more lately Sinn Féin. These parties gained success not by simply appearing and announcing their policies. They kept these very quite and got elected for hard work and maintaining discipline. If I borrow Hibernicus' comment about herding cats at a cross-roads (at midnight?), this describes the Christian parties. The CSP in particular broke Dr Gerard Casey's heart, and he was the only guy who could have got them anywhere so far. Greene may not think the thing is one big ego trip and may not intend this, but that's how it looks.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 15, 2012 11:15:44 GMT
With regard to the Northern Ireland conflict, it must be remembered that the security forces in the North, in Britain and even in the 26 counties had a far from unblemished record.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 15, 2012 21:12:48 GMT
Patriotism and nationalism are not necessarily the same thing; the question is whether the "civic nationalism" (i.e. contractarian allegiance to the nation as an abstract constitutional idea) beloved of the chattering classes can have the same sort of socially-integrative effect as "ethnic nationalism" (i.e. nation as political expression of an ethnic group) unless it was accompanied by the sort of forcefully-presented patriotism that the US and France traditionally went in for and which is disliked by modern liberals. (The sort of thing I have in mind would be the US making schoolchildren salute the flag, the French teaching all children whatever their origin to speak of "our ancestors the Gauls" etc.) Bear in mind that one point often made about the welfare state is that its widespread acceptance depends on a general belief that the recipients are "people like us" who play by the same rules etc
Another big problem is the question of whether Ulster Protestants/Unionists are to be seen as part of the Irish nation. If they are, then our understanding of what constitutes the Irish nation has to be revised considerably to take account of them; if they are not, then partition in some form is unavoidable. (Expulsion or subjugation, the alternatives, are IMHO morally unacceptable.)
There is a real problem with Irish ultra-nationalism which is that Ireland is just too small to be economically self-sufficient except at a very low living standard, which the population simply will not accept. I wish the "Catholic politics" types would devote more attention to discussing how Irish society/economy actually works rather than cooking up pipe-dreams; if you want to propose changes to Irish society you need to work them out in advance rather than making vague promises.
My own (second-hand) reports of Gerry Casey as CSP leader were less favourable than Alasdir's. Basically the complaints I heard was that while he was articulate and gave a good deal of attention to policy formation, he also ran the party as an autocrat and had something of a cult of personality. When Norah Bennis muscled in on areas where there were existing CSP branches he made deals with her behind the back of his own activists - and Bennis didn't keep the deals; he promised to consult party members, then made policy announcements without consulting them and demanded that they be accepted for the sake of the party;finally, when the membership voted against him on a major issue (the 2002 referendum) he immediately walked away and left the party in the lurch. His 1995 Dublin West by-election campaign was certainly an exercise in self-delusion; he spent a large sum of money on a campaign in a seat which was clearly not promising CSP territory, polled a low vote, then didn't contest the seat at the next election.
Richard Greene's recent statements seem to suggest he has actually picked up some sort of monetary crank theory. To be fair to Greene, I think his break with FF really WAS over extradition; FF had campaigned against extradition when they were in opposition and that was when Greene joined them - when they got into government they carried on extraditing and Greene got kicked out for refusing to stop protesting against it.
The big problem with joining existing political parties is that they allow much less debate/deviance from the party line than the British or American parties historically did. (The British parties are becoming more monolithic - the US ones are shaped by a different political system, including federalism and the use of open primaries.) Because neither FF nor FG are defined in ideological terms, they are MORE insistent on obeying the current party line - not less.
My own view is that we need to pursue a strategy aimed at addressing public opinion/ the wider culture as a prelude to effective political action - potential political activists need to educate themselves first before coming forward. The big problem is that in political terms the 20 years since the X Case have essentially been wasted and Ivana Bacik and Co are not going to sit around indefinitely doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 16, 2012 15:21:55 GMT
In relation to the "speak for Ireland" mentality - the assumption that "we are the people" which besets a lot of pro-lifer/Christian politics people and to which Young Ireland refers - there is a problem with it which hasn't been dealt with in this discussion so far, which is that it can actually promote mediocrity. The first task of a leader IMHO is to constantly improve their skills and acquire new ones, and their first priority has to be to recruit new activists and train them in turn so that an activist base is built up and so that if anything happens to the leader there will be someone to take their place. The "we are the people" mindset, on the other hand, encourages the leader to assume that they know everything already and need not learn any more. Worse still, it makes them intolerant of internal debate (because they assume they know everything, anyone who disagrees with them about anything must by definition be dishonest) and reluctant to recruit new members (in case they want to change anything, which by definition must be a change for the worse; there is also an assumption that if the right thing to do is self-evident, anyone who disagrees must be an evil conspirator). One of the contributors to this thread went to a CSP conference last year, and although she gave them her contact details she was never contacted again, apparently because she expressed some criticism of elements of their policy. Justin Barrett's THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD, with its advocacy of one-man dictatorship and its complaint that since political parties are required by law to have democratic internal structures, any serious Catholic/Christian party would rapidly be infiltrated and taken over, is an extreme example of this "better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven" mindset, in which activists assume that they and they alone can run their organisation as God wants it, and it would be better to destroy it than to let it pass into other hands. [Don't get me wrong - infiltration by spoofers and wreckers is a real risk for any organisation of this type - but there has to be a deliberate effort to grow and attract new members, otherwise it just becomes an introversionist mutual admiration society focussed around a single egomaniac leader.] The mediocrity of the CATHOLIC VOICE and before it the IRISH FAMILY spring IMHO from the same source - the assumption that the people are just waiting for the message to be put out there, so that it is enough to publish it without paying too much attention to presentation or thinking things through.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on May 23, 2012 11:21:43 GMT
If I have a criticism of YD, it is the same - direction provided by the same people over two decades which undermines the title 'Youth'. I remember attending an early YD rally where leading members gave Niamh NicMhathúna (now Uí Bhriain) an adulation I wondered if she deserved.
The CV 'newspaper' doesn't deal in ideas - only the quietist notion of go and say your prayers, and if that's not enough, go and say some more prayers. One problem that newspapers/magazines have, from An Phoblacht to the Irish Times including all the religious journals we mention here, is a tendency to reinforce readers' prejudices. CV doesn't seem to even attempt to step outside that box.
|
|