|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 13, 2015 8:19:34 GMT
I don't really see the harm in faithful Catholics having wacky theories about secular matters. The only harm is when they present this as being part of the Catholic worldview, or even an article of faith.
I am probably the regular contributor furthest away from this whole sub-culture, in the sense that I don't know any 'rad trads' and I've never attended an EF Mass. How prevalent is it? Does it have an influence beyond its numbers?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 13, 2015 12:24:19 GMT
I don't really see the harm in faithful Catholics having wacky theories about secular matters. The only harm is when they present this as being part of the Catholic worldview, or even an article of faith. Agreed. I don't doubt that conspiracy theories are harmful, but at the end of the day, if someone wants to believe in them, no one is going to stop them.I am probably the regular contributor furthest away from this whole sub-culture, in the sense that I don't know any 'rad trads' and I've never attended an EF Mass. How prevalent is it? Depends on where you look. Most indult (i.e. diocesean, ICRSS, FSSP, etc.) chapels should be OK (I've only had experience of the second. The priests there are very devout for sure, and appear quite happy to take time out to motivate and encourage people in living the Christian life. I know Alaisdir doesn't seem to like them that much; he is entitled to his opinion, and indeed I would agree with many of his opinions on the Institute, but I do think that the Institute have played an important part in keeping traditionalists within the Church in Limerick and Galway, and also preventing the expansion of the SSPX into those cities.) I think I know the subculture that Alaisdir refers to, and those involved gravitate almost exclusively around the SSPX (in Ireland anyway, I'm not sure about other countries). Does it have an influence beyond its numbers? Yes. Said subculture has attempted to spread its influence in Irish Catholicism, particularly amongst traditionalists, for nearly 25 years now. It was much stronger in the 1990s, but appears to have fizzled out more recently. Nowadays, they are piggy-backing on the Freemen (who in spite of that ideology's many flaws, I would not refer to as fascists), and the anti-property tax and water charge campaigns. Nevertheless, what makes this subculture so dangerous is that they present their views as respectable, when in reality they are not. In particular, they capitalise on the similarities between old-style Irish republicanism and their own beliefs (blood sacrifice, a distorted view of partiotism, etc.); incidentally, this is one reason why I am so cautious regarding Irish nationalism and 1916: it can lead one to be influenced by this subculture, and not in a good way. Anyway, according to J. Christopher Pryor, whose study on Bishop Williamson and his supporters I strongly recommend to anybody wanting to research this subculture further, these similarities are used to draw in people to ideologies that they would not agree to under normal circumstances. Then slowly they imbibe these views until before you know it, they become fully-fledged in extremism. This is why education is so important, as that way you can call those dangerous views out for what they are, thus reducing the power that they have over you.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 14, 2015 7:57:15 GMT
Agree almost 100% with Young Ireland. As he said, I have problems with the ICRSS, but not this. If any priest in the broad Indult/Summorum Pontificum movement are promoting this subculture, it is marginal. In fairness to the SSPX, many of their priests are not into this either. But there are a couple of issues on which the traditional movement within the Church need a check on - one is that the clergy (of all the hues and shades in Ireland) are largely disengaged from the worshippers. The thing is that most trads are highly motivated in a way that is rare in standard parishes. Clergy see this as a gift, and to a large degree it is. The problem is that some traditionalists need to be cooled down and there is a weakness in the clergy in this regard.
The problem with the ICRSS is that they don't understand the Irish cultural nuances (and they are not really interested in any culture other than the French). The FSSP are a little bit better, but not that much so. The second thing is that ICRSS and FSSP have their own hobby horses (nothing in comparison to the SSPX and not in the same league as the Williamson/Hertz stuff). This could be exaggerated affection for dead monarchism and aristocracy in the case of the ICRSS or New England puritanism which influences sections of the FSSP in America (plenty of French monarchism there too in France). The affection for Irish republicanism forms a peculiar analogue to the French monarchism (I believe that many Irish republican legitimists had no trouble jumping from disengagement with the State to disengagement with the hierarchy after the Council). The main problem with this, is that though it can be harmless eccentricity, it can also be the intro to the hardcore stuff.
In full blown cases, this leads to overt fascism and a spirituality which is actually neo-pagan. In these instances, nobody cares much by which route that the charges arrive. The international third position were working hard on the fringes of YD through the 1990s and they did make a couple of recruits here. As Young Ireland says it's not so bad now.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 14, 2015 11:25:17 GMT
My own view is that these conspiracy theories are very problematic, and are quite prevalent in the Church here in Ireland, especially but not exclusively amongst the more active members of the older generations. What I find very problematic is that, first of all, when devout Catholics start talking to non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about their pet theories, it makes the entire faith seem to be the province of credulous people, and can in some ways place orthodox Catholic belief in the same category as a variety of 9/11, New World Order, Jewish conspiracies to those who don't know any better. Another example is that which Hibernicus mentions, those who proclaim that the Church has ruled against evolution and even to entertain the idea is heretical. I guess the problem I'm worried about here is devout Catholics giving scandal to non-(practicing)Catholics by making the whole faith seem like something only somebody who believes any old theory would believe in. One person who seems to have a fairly big following here, although only in certain circles, is a Filipino priest named Fr. 'Bing' Arellano who founded a movement called 'The Alliance of the two Hearts.' People I know who have been to some of his retreats (there's at least one every year or two here in Ireland that I've seen advertised) have said that it's mainly about conspiracy theories, the end of the world, apocalypticism etc. One older person I know involved in the Church told me, quite sincerely a few years ago, that Fr. Bing's 'contacts' amongst the New World Order had informed him that on a particular date there would be a terrorist attack in Los Angeles that would be used as an excuse to launch World War III, which was part of their plan. Naturally, the date came and went (it's been six or seven years now, I think) and as I'm sure you're all aware, there has been no third world war. Some critical info on them here from an orthodox Catholics point of view, although as I'm not involved in any way personally I can't say how accurate it is: www.allianceofthetwohearts.info/I bring this up because this movement has a large following in Ireland, at least in so far as any devout Catholic grouping has a large following, although one only hears about it in certain circles. I think that these are the dangers we face in terms of sub-cultures within the Church arising from conspiracy theories, the other being the radicalisation that Young Ireland and the others have mentioned above. I agree completely with Young Ireland that one necessary aspect is education. There is a need to teach those who are already Catholic what the Church DOES teach and what is either false, peripheral or unnecessary. I think the other problem is that either the bishops aren't exercising their authority and pointing out that these teaching are false, or that they are doing so and these warnings are not delivered or filtered through to the faithful (I realise, in charity to them, that perhaps they simply don't know about these things going on in their dioceses in order to say something about them; lines of communication can be fuzzy). It does make me wonder, if a bishop WERE to condemn something along these lines (like, say, Christina Gallagher or any other alleged visionary or conspiratorial/apocalyptic movement), would they have access to the right channels to get the message out there to the faithful? I know they can direct parishes to do so, but not every priest might obey them and read out a message. Thanks for that link btw Young Ireland. Fascinating if scary stuff. What the writer said about people being more inclined to believe something that isn't questioned, and less inclined to disagree with a host of minutiae they cannot disprove with a few hours if not days of research is very true. In a way, it reminds me of certain anti-Catholic lecturers I've had, in a very different context. I remember meeting an SSPX seminarian some years ago who was very much into conspiracies about Paul VI being a puppet for dark forces. He said Archbishop Lefebvre had said that Paul VI used to have a man dressed all in black in private audiences, and would always look to him for permission before making any statements. As if any conspiracy worth its salt would be so blatant! I don't know if this chimes with anyone else's experience, but almost all of the young members of the SSPX I've met (and I have met a fair few) seem to come from Cork, where there seems to be quite an active movement. Any reason why this might be? Do they have a centre there? My, we have wandered a little off topic here
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 14, 2015 13:30:38 GMT
My own view is that these conspiracy theories are very problematic, and are quite prevalent in the Church here in Ireland, especially but not exclusively amongst the more active members of the older generations. What I find very problematic is that, first of all, when devout Catholics start talking to non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about their pet theories, it makes the entire faith seem to be the province of credulous people, and can in some ways place orthodox Catholic belief in the same category as a variety of 9/11, New World Order, Jewish conspiracies to those who don't know any better. True, Ranger. But the opposite is true; orthodox Catholics can often have a salutary scepticism towards the received wisdom which makes them wary of the consensus on anything. In this regard I think of G.K. Chesterton's ridicule of psychoanalysis and Freud. Even many decades later, W.H. Auden was castigating him for how closed-minded and unscientific this made him look. Now, who would ever dream of taking Freud as solemnly as he was taken in the twentieth century? Would the bishops have any authority to correct a layman on most of these matters?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2015 14:21:15 GMT
My own view is that these conspiracy theories are very problematic, and are quite prevalent in the Church here in Ireland, especially but not exclusively amongst the more active members of the older generations. What I find very problematic is that, first of all, when devout Catholics start talking to non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about their pet theories, it makes the entire faith seem to be the province of credulous people, and can in some ways place orthodox Catholic belief in the same category as a variety of 9/11, New World Order, Jewish conspiracies to those who don't know any better. Another example is that which Hibernicus mentions, those who proclaim that the Church has ruled against evolution and even to entertain the idea is heretical. I guess the problem I'm worried about here is devout Catholics giving scandal to non-(practicing)Catholics by making the whole faith seem like something only somebody who believes any old theory would believe in. Very true, Ranger. What I meant was that I strongly disagree with these theories, but I wouldn't oppose them with the vigour I would fascism or dissident republicanism.One person who seems to have a fairly big following here, although only in certain circles, is a Filipino priest named Fr. 'Bing' Arellano who founded a movement called 'The Alliance of the two Hearts.' People I know who have been to some of his retreats (there's at least one every year or two here in Ireland that I've seen advertised) have said that it's mainly about conspiracy theories, the end of the world, apocalypticism etc. One older person I know involved in the Church told me, quite sincerely a few years ago, that Fr. Bing's 'contacts' amongst the New World Order had informed him that on a particular date there would be a terrorist attack in Los Angeles that would be used as an excuse to launch World War III, which was part of their plan. Naturally, the date came and went (it's been six or seven years now, I think) and as I'm sure you're all aware, there has been no third world war. Some critical info on them here from an orthodox Catholics point of view, although as I'm not involved in any way personally I can't say how accurate it is: www.allianceofthetwohearts.info/I bring this up because this movement has a large following in Ireland, at least in so far as any devout Catholic grouping has a large following, although one only hears about it in certain circles. I think that these are the dangers we face in terms of sub-cultures within the Church arising from conspiracy theories, the other being the radicalisation that Young Ireland and the others have mentioned above. Thanks for the link Ranger. I have heard of them intermittently (mainly from their ads in Alive!), but don't know much about them other than that, or indeed that it was so popular in Ireland. I read a contribution on the Mother of God forums from a lady who went to one of these retreats which backs up what you say about them.I agree completely with Young Ireland that one necessary aspect is education. There is a need to teach those who are already Catholic what the Church DOES teach and what is either false, peripheral or unnecessary. Exactly. This is one of the consequences of poor catechesis which is not mentioned as often as the liberal errors, but which can be equally as dangerous if left unchecked.I think the other problem is that either the bishops aren't exercising their authority and pointing out that these teaching are false, or that they are doing so and these warnings are not delivered or filtered through to the faithful (I realise, in charity to them, that perhaps they simply don't know about these things going on in their dioceses in order to say something about them; lines of communication can be fuzzy). It does make me wonder, if a bishop WERE to condemn something along these lines (like, say, Christina Gallagher or any other alleged visionary or conspiratorial/apocalyptic movement), would they have access to the right channels to get the message out there to the faithful? I know they can direct parishes to do so, but not every priest might obey them and read out a message. Good observation. I would think that any resistance would come from the lay administrators as opposed to the priests, since the latter will usually obey their bishop. Also, the former imho are more likely to be involved in these movements in the first place.Thanks for that link btw Young Ireland. Fascinating if scary stuff. What the writer said about people being more inclined to believe something that isn't questioned, and less inclined to disagree with a host of minutiae they cannot disprove with a few hours if not days of research is very true. In a way, it reminds me of certain anti-Catholic lecturers I've had, in a very different context. No problem. As I study in the sciences, agendas are not usually a problem in my course, but I can imagine what you are talking about.I remember meeting an SSPX seminarian some years ago who was very much into conspiracies about Paul VI being a puppet for dark forces. He said Archbishop Lefebvre had said that Paul VI used to have a man dressed all in black in private audiences, and would always look to him for permission before making any statements. As if any conspiracy worth its salt would be so blatant! As if indeed. Surely the man in black would be his personal assistant in clerical garb! That is certainly more likely than what I think the seminarian was suggesting.I don't know if this chimes with anyone else's experience, but almost all of the young members of the SSPX I've met (and I have met a fair few) seem to come from Cork, where there seems to be quite an active movement. Any reason why this might be? Do they have a centre there? Yes, they have a centre in Cork, as well as in Dublin and Athlone (there might be a chapel in the North, perhaps Hibernicus or Alaisdir could clarify this). I'm not sure what the relative sizes of the congregations in each centre are, so I can't say how big they actually are. The Cork SSPX strikes me as relatively moderate, which may account for the size there: I remember "faithofourfathers", who is very active in the Irish "Resistance" strongly criticising the Society's youth group there on the Archbishop Lefebvre forums (which I won't link to so as not to endorse it) for going on retreat (I think) when Bishop Williamson came to Athlone. I'm not sure about Mounttown, but the Athlone chapel has a reputation for attracting those with extreme idelogies mentioned in the posts above. This may fade away now that the Resistance have built a chapel in Co. Longford, but only time will tell if it does.My, we have wandered a little off topic here Indeed, though it's not entirely irrelevant, as the subculture we are discussing has some deeply misogynistic elements.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2015 14:31:42 GMT
Agree almost 100% with Young Ireland. As he said, I have problems with the ICRSS, but not this. If any priest in the broad Indult/Summorum Pontificum movement are promoting this subculture, it is marginal. In fairness to the SSPX, many of their priests are not into this either. But there are a couple of issues on which the traditional movement within the Church need a check on - one is that the clergy (of all the hues and shades in Ireland) are largely disengaged from the worshippers. The thing is that most trads are highly motivated in a way that is rare in standard parishes. Clergy see this as a gift, and to a large degree it is. The problem is that some traditionalists need to be cooled down and there is a weakness in the clergy in this regard. I completely agree with everything you have written here. The problem with the ICRSS is that they don't understand the Irish cultural nuances (and they are not really interested in any culture other than the French). The FSSP are a little bit better, but not that much so. The second thing is that ICRSS and FSSP have their own hobby horses (nothing in comparison to the SSPX and not in the same league as the Williamson/Hertz stuff). This could be exaggerated affection for dead monarchism and aristocracy in the case of the ICRSS or New England puritanism which influences sections of the FSSP in America (plenty of French monarchism there too in France). Point taken. The views you outline are indeed dangerous, though in the case of the latter I know that the FSSP did try to stamp the Puritanism out. The affection for Irish republicanism forms a peculiar analogue to the French monarchism (I believe that many Irish republican legitimists had no trouble jumping from disengagement with the State to disengagement with the hierarchy after the Council). The main problem with this, is that though it can be harmless eccentricity, it can also be the intro to the hardcore stuff. Agreed, though I would argue that in the vast majority of cases, monarchism is at most a harmless eccentricity, since these generally promote these views in a non-violent manner. Physical-force republicanism OTOH is much more dangerous, as it glorifies violence and encourages a utilitarian mindset that is not in keeping with Catholicism IMHO, whereas monarchism can be compatible with it.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Apr 14, 2015 18:13:32 GMT
The influence of fringe groups probably owes a lot to the absence of a healthy and vibrant Catholic subculture in this country. A young person who rediscovers the faith or converts to Catholicism is in a tiny minority among his peers; how is he to interpret the hostile culture around him? There is very little to guide him, so it is not surprising that he is seduced by comprehensive narratives from nefarious sources. It's natural to want to make sense of your surroundings.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 14, 2015 18:19:47 GMT
The influence of fringe groups probably owes a lot to the absence of a healthy and vibrant Catholic subculture in this country. A young person who rediscovers the faith or converts to Catholicism is in a tiny minority among his peers; how is he to interpret the hostile culture around them? There is very little to guide them, so it is not surprising that he is seduced by comprehensive narratives from nefarious sources. It's natural to want to make sense of your surroundings. You are absolutely right, Shane. I can certainly identify with this: as a teenager, I developed some rather obnoxious views which I treated as self-evident, at first from uncritically reading Catholic newspapers and then (as I was fairly new to the Internet) from reading dubious sites, which might explain how my very early posts on these boards came across as rather strident and uncharitable.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 15, 2015 10:11:34 GMT
The influence of fringe groups probably owes a lot to the absence of a healthy and vibrant Catholic subculture in this country. A young person who rediscovers the faith or converts to Catholicism is in a tiny minority among his peers; how is he to interpret the hostile culture around them? There is very little to guide them, so it is not surprising that he is seduced by comprehensive narratives from nefarious sources. It's natural to want to make sense of your surroundings. You are absolutely right, Shane. I can certainly identify with this: as a teenager, I developed some rather obnoxious views which I treated as self-evident, at first from uncritically reading Catholic newspapers and then (as I was fairly new to the Internet) from reading dubious sites, which might explain how my very early posts on these boards came across as rather strident and uncharitable. Very good points here. I guess this is in a way linked to what Hibernicus was suggesting on another thread, building up those networks and subcultures that can hopefully be self-correcting by hewing closely to the Church's actual teaching and being broad and strong enough to curb excesses. I can identify with what you're saying too, I was also similar when younger. Finding good Catholic groups is very helpful. One point that might be interesting to discuss here is radicalism; I've heard it said often that Christians must live radical lives, and it's certainly true in the sense of being different from the culture around us and conforming to Jesus rather than the current zeitgeist. But then there's the other kind of radical, which we've just discussed here. I guess it's a matter of trying to help people find the right kind of rejection of the problems in our society, since so many of these problems stem from recognising that our culture is problematic, without knowing the right solutions, which leads to leaping after the first person that offers an eloquent or confident alternative, whatever its merits. Young Ireland, at least the growth in charity shows you're doing something right anyway out of curiosity, do you often keep an eye on boards like that Mother of God one you linked to (i.e. very charismatic, devotional Catholic boards)? And are you (or anybody else) aware of any other boards outside Ireland similar to this one? (Catholic, but with a more rational approach to the faith?)
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 15, 2015 10:15:11 GMT
As for your question about Freud, Maolsheachlann, the simple answer is that academics in arts departments across the English-speaking world take him very seriously, which I would find side-splittingly hilarious if I hadn't seen how much of an influence that has on their students.
But your point about having a certain degree of skepticism about conventional wisdom is well taken. I guess, like all things, we must strive for a happy medium.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 15, 2015 10:18:28 GMT
Oh, I missed your point about bishops and authority!
I guess they certainly do have the authority in the case of a) priests under them who are promoting such conspiracies/apparitions, as is the case sometimes, and b) lay people in organisations that label themselves as 'Catholic,' which is also often the case. I guess that they could also give direction which wouldn't have the same level of authority if they were to see that particular theories were affecting the faithful. In the case of anti-Semitic theories, they have not just the authority but the obligation to condemn such things if they are gaining traction amongst the faithful in their diocese.
But in general, yes, they can't tell us exactly what to think on every issue. We've had enough of that in this country.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 15, 2015 11:20:31 GMT
This might not be directly related, but look at (at least some of) this video by Michael Voris to see how shoddy and lazy a lot of hardline traditionalists can become in their thinking. The theme of Voris's speech is "How do we Know the Truth?". His answer is pretty much: "We know truth because God does not lie and error comes through sin and pride, which has become endemic since the Reformation." Now, that is perfectly true (at least the first part), but it surely has to be defended and explored rather than just asserted, as Voris does here. Voris is no idiot and sometimes he has interesting things to say, that's why I occasionally look at his videos, but his attraction towards a cartoon version of everything seems all-too-typical of certain currents of Catholicism. He exalts the Middle Ages over modern society because the first gave us the cathedrals and the second gives us drugs and pornography-- a valid point-- but hardly exhaustive. I also think it's why debate and engagement with the wider world is necessary. When you are only addressing those who are very much in sympathy with you, nothing is challenged or queried-- and if it's a very fervent agreement, few people will even challenge a claim in a devil's advocate kind of way. I sometimes read Catholic articles and find myself frustrated at the huge leaps in reasoning and inference that are common enough-- they are common in the secular world, too, of course, but they may be even more common in some Catholic apologetics and writing. I'm tired of reading and hearing sweeping condemnations of modern society, comparisons with the fall of Rome, etc. that don't deal with the fact that in SOME ways society has improved-- attitudes towards mental illness, for example. It's the opposite extreme to the liberal secular attitude that wants scientific data (taken on faith) for every claim. At the risk of flattering ourselves, I think this is one strength of this board. I do feel that opposing arguments are taken seriously and positions are examined, even though there is a considerable deal of agreement. www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+do+we+know+truth+michael+voris+conference
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 15, 2015 13:32:19 GMT
I'd very much agree with you there... just watched his 'wicked bishops' video there, and while I think there are legitimate criticisms of Cardinal Dolan that he makes, the stridency of his tone and the absolute lack of nuance I find completely off-putting. One of criticisms of Dolan included his 'cavorting' with pro-abortion politicians. Now, aside from the fact that 'cavorting' seems to mean smiling and shaking their hands, surely he's not saying that we should completely cut people out of our lives on account of their sins? Didn't Jesus eat with the Pharisees (who ended up, at least in part, responsible for his death) and tax collectors (who in many cases were committing one of what the Church used to refer to as 'sins crying to heaven for vengeance,' namely oppresion of the poor and defrauding labourers of their wages)?
I do think that the Cardinal has been very fuzzy on some issues which leads to a lot of confusion amongst the laity, but I can't imagine ANYONE who does not already agree with Voris changing their minds over this.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Apr 15, 2015 13:58:07 GMT
This is an interesting discussion and I notice an image of Joseph de Veuster above at the moment. Can I ask how many women have featured on the heading of this website and how many in proportion to men? Do you think that this would make much of a difference? Most Catholic women I know have a great devotion to male Saints as well as female. I suppose a few more of the latter at the top couldn't hurt though. The feast of St. Joanna is next month, one of the women who discovered the empty tomb on Easter Sunday, so perhaps an appropriate one for the season that's in it: www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=294
|
|