|
Post by pugio on Mar 27, 2015 14:27:35 GMT
Yes, the pattern seems very similar, doesn't it?
What intrigues me, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that adaptation you mention in a Muslim context - from the faith of an early band of believers (who appear to have thought the end was extremely nigh) to the animating creed of large and complex societies that take a long-term view of their own existence and must make morally ambiguous choices in order to secure it. Suddenly it turns out that we do need to store up treasures on earth after all...
I am quite ambivalent about all this. On the one hand, the Protestant quest to restore some sort of 'purer' and more biblical form of Christianity strikes me as futile, ahistorical, and even slighly neurotic. Many Catholics become deeply uncomfortble when faced with the Protestant accusation (surely just an observation) that many of our holy days and practices are blatantly pagan in origin. But it doesn't bother me in the slightest that the Pope bears the pagan title 'pontifex maximus' or that some of Catholicism's organisation, doctrinal and symbolic content is drawn more from classical antiquity than from the Jews specifically. If anything, I find this oddly reassuring. Catholics only embarass themselves by denying the syncretic aspect of their religion. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that this richness does allow for a much more worldly approach to life and religion than a plain reading of the gospels might suggest.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Apr 6, 2015 12:40:45 GMT
I always hesitate to wander into this thread, not being Irish and quite out of my depth in other ways, too. Nonetheless, the topic is unusually numinous for me and I'm regularly pondering it. As mentioned earlier, I've been reading/thinking about John Waters a lot in this context and am intrigued by a recent piece in the Independent on 1916. Full text here: linkBut I'm pulling out some extracts - with white space added for ease of reading/emphasis. I'd be very interested/grateful to hear the views of those of you have thought much longer and more deeply about these issues than I have:
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 6, 2015 13:38:29 GMT
I agree completely. I read the article previously and was very struck by it.
Whatever you think if the 1916 Rising (and I have mixed feelings) the rebels were quite simply appealing to an ideal of nationhood that hardly anybody in Ireland today takes seriously. Appeals to the ideals of the Rising are invariably point-missing.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 6, 2015 13:41:50 GMT
One thing that strikes me particularly is that the "Ireland debate" itself has kind of disappeared. Up until about the mid-eighties, the nature of patriotism and the idea of Ireland as a spiritual entity, as Waters talks about it, was pretty high on the public agenda, as was the prospect of a united Ireland (this latter being something that I think would be more trouble than it's worth, for the foreseeable future). Now nobody talks about it. We still discuss Irishness but it's in the most trashy, casual way possible.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 6, 2015 15:43:09 GMT
I always hesitate to wander into this thread, not being Irish and quite out of my depth in other ways, too. Nonetheless, the topic is unusually numinous for me and I'm regularly pondering it. As mentioned earlier, I've been reading/thinking about John Waters a lot in this context and am intrigued by a recent piece in the Independent on 1916. Full text here: linkBut I'm pulling out some extracts - with white space added for ease of reading/emphasis. I'd be very interested/grateful to hear the views of those of you have thought much longer and more deeply about these issues than I have: Nice to see you again, Roger. I would disagree with John Waters' views though: 1. Any spiritual content of Pearse's work was pagan as opposed to Catholic, IMHO. Pearse frequently compares himself (and Cuchulainn) to Our Lord. Surely this is totally unacceptable to an orthodox Christian, never mind a Catholic. 2. The Rising had no chance of success and Pearse went out with the explicit intention of committing a "blood sacrifice" (of himself and of others, no matter how willing they were to be part of such a monstrosity.). 3. I don't just think the Rising's commemeration is poorly thought out, I think it shouldn't be commemerated at all. Thanks to the rebels (who were booed and jeered as they surrendered), thousands of innocent people were imprisoned without trial, any chance of us getting independence peacefully was scuppered, as was the prospects of a United Ireland, and there is little difference between the anti-GFA republican campaign today and the Rising, since the former can claim a legitimate precedent for their actions.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 6, 2015 19:03:06 GMT
Young Ireland, I share your concern about the pagan and heretical elements in some of Patrick Pearse's rhetoric (even as I immensely admire Pearse in many other ways). But Pearse was just one voice in a very broad movement. The essence of Waters's argument, that nationhood was conceived as something spiritual, is something that is, I think, still valid.
As for commemorating 1916, I definitely think it should be commemorated in some way, whether we deplore it or celebrate it. It's just too big a part of our history to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Apr 7, 2015 10:38:55 GMT
Thanks Young Ireland, maolsheachlann! I shall title my long response: " And yet, And yet …"Re: ]Nice to see you again, Roger. I would disagree with John Waters' views though: 1. Any spiritual content of Pearse's work was pagan as opposed to Catholic, IMHO. Pearse frequently compares himself (and Cuchulainn) to Our Lord. Surely this is totally unacceptable to an orthodox Christian, never mind a Catholic. 2. The Rising had no chance of success and Pearse went out with the explicit intention of committing a "blood sacrifice" (of himself and of others, no matter how willing they were to be part of such a monstrosity.). 3. I don't just think the Rising's commemeration is poorly thought out, I think it shouldn't be commemerated at all. Thanks to the rebels (who were booed and jeered as they surrendered), thousands of innocent people were imprisoned without trial, any chance of us getting independence peacefully was scuppered, as was the prospects of a United Ireland, and there is little difference between the anti-GFA republican campaign today and the Rising, since the former can claim a legitimate precedent for their actions. May I say I really, really get these issues, Young Ireland? And yet, And yet … I am going to speak. Fools rush in … If I may repeat something I said in an earlier thread: I've read Pearse's Coming Revolution now. Also most of Patrick Pearse and the Lost Republican Ideal by Murphy which someone here recommended to me. Murphy is clearly arguing that the notion that Britain was about to deliver Home Rule was wrong … Again, I'm "out of my depth" as I said above. Any comments on this appreciated. Yet it's a strange thing with Pearse and me. Whilst I can forgive Belloc's excesses - his vast, original and sweeping vision impresses me more every year as it surely did Chesterton - I find Pearse's excesses hard. Shooting the wrong people, the glorification of World War One ("the last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe" - Pearse 1915) the demonisation of the British, seemingly blaming them for the entire industrial civilisation he loathed, the inflated exaltation of the Gael … So I should be agreeing with you, Young Ireland. Wholeheartedly. But I'm not. Instead, I confess I am convinced by something present in both John Waters and maolsheachlann … Maolsheachlann says I immensely admire Pearse in many other ways
Read more: http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/thread/774/national-identity?page=7#ixzz3WcKTNb7Si And I ask myself if I have to take a similar approach to Pearse as I do to Belloc … forgiving his excesses, at least to an extent. I was, as I have said before, really hit by Waters' Was it for this? Incredibly hit … Waters is onto some profoundly important things in that book IMHO. Likewise, I am deeply struck by the extent of Waters' approbation of Pearse above: Fool rushing in. I don't know enough. But Pearse's faults are glaringly obvious in our present culture. I would like to hear more what causes maolsheachlann to "immensely admire" him in certain ways. Or why John Waters' writes what he does. At the end of the day, I don't think 1916 was just some monstrous delusional mania. Despite my years of suspicion regarding it ...
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 11:46:04 GMT
Thanks Young Ireland, maolsheachlann! I shall title my long response: " And yet, And yet …"Re: ]Nice to see you again, Roger. I would disagree with John Waters' views though: 1. Any spiritual content of Pearse's work was pagan as opposed to Catholic, IMHO. Pearse frequently compares himself (and Cuchulainn) to Our Lord. Surely this is totally unacceptable to an orthodox Christian, never mind a Catholic. 2. The Rising had no chance of success and Pearse went out with the explicit intention of committing a "blood sacrifice" (of himself and of others, no matter how willing they were to be part of such a monstrosity.). 3. I don't just think the Rising's commemeration is poorly thought out, I think it shouldn't be commemerated at all. Thanks to the rebels (who were booed and jeered as they surrendered), thousands of innocent people were imprisoned without trial, any chance of us getting independence peacefully was scuppered, as was the prospects of a United Ireland, and there is little difference between the anti-GFA republican campaign today and the Rising, since the former can claim a legitimate precedent for their actions. May I say I really, really get these issues, Young Ireland? And yet, And yet … I am going to speak. Fools rush in … If I may repeat something I said in an earlier thread: I've read Pearse's Coming Revolution now. Also most of Patrick Pearse and the Lost Republican Ideal by Murphy which someone here recommended to me. Murphy is clearly arguing that the notion that Britain was about to deliver Home Rule was wrong … Again, I'm "out of my depth" as I said above. Any comments on this appreciated. Yet it's a strange thing with Pearse and me. Whilst I can forgive Belloc's excesses - his vast, original and sweeping vision impresses me more every year as it surely did Chesterton - I find Pearse's excesses hard. Shooting the wrong people, the glorification of World War One ("the last sixteen months have been the most glorious in the history of Europe" - Pearse 1915) the demonisation of the British, seemingly blaming them for the entire industrial civilisation he loathed, the inflated exaltation of the Gael … So I should be agreeing with you, Young Ireland. Wholeheartedly. But I'm not. Instead, I confess I am convinced by something present in both John Waters and maolsheachlann … Maolsheachlann says I immensely admire Pearse in many other ways
Read more: http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/thread/774/national-identity?page=7#ixzz3WcKTNb7Si And I ask myself if I have to take a similar approach to Pearse as I do to Belloc … forgiving his excesses, at least to an extent. I was, as I have said before, really hit by Waters' Was it for this? Incredibly hit … Waters is onto some profoundly important things in that book IMHO. Likewise, I am deeply struck by the extent of Waters' approbation of Pearse above:Fool rushing in. I don't know enough. But Pearse's faults are glaringly obvious in our present culture. I would like to hear more what causes maolsheachlann to "immensely admire" him in certain ways. Or why John Waters' writes what he does. At the end of the day, I don't think 1916 was just some monstrous delusional mania. Despite my years of suspicion regarding it ... Thanks for your reply, Roger. Regarding Murphy's claim that Home Rule would not be acheived, I would question that. The British Government both before and during WWI relied on the support of the Home Rule Party in order to retain a majority. I doubt that the Liberals would have risked losing power by going back on their word. I do agree that the British reaction to the Rising was excessive (and this is what Irish people reacted to btw rather than the Rising itself), and that a life sentence would been more preferrable, since it would not allow the rebels to paint themselves as martyrs. I will admit that Pearse does offer a narrative to Irish history, the problem is that it is very extreme, and the thing I find most frightening is the Dublin media's fawning attempts to sanitise what he believed. Anyone who believes the establishment position on 1916 is going to be shocked when they find out what Pearse really believed. I accept that the following analogy might be rather harsh, but celebrating the Rising in 2016 is like celebrating the centenary of the Oklahoma City bombing in 2095. After all, I think that the similarities between Pearse and McVeigh could make for a very interesting study. Both believed that they were called to save their respective countries. Both used Christian language to describe a neo-pagan ideology. Both were responsible for killing innocent people who they believed had collaborated with an enemy government. Roger, I am sorry if I sound angry when writing this. I suppose that this is something, as I have previously said, that I feel very strongly about. I think that many people do not really understand the implications of what they will be celebrating next year, and the more people look into what actually happened and the motivations behind the leaders, Ireland will be very thankful for it.
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Apr 7, 2015 12:01:32 GMT
Just hurriedly now - Young Ireland, maybe more later.
I am grateful for your passionate articulation of things I can only respect. Rather than sounding angry, you sound considerate and thoughtful.
I also cannot help but respect John Waters. I find him thoughtful too.
I need to hear both your very different voices to educate me. I wish I could hear you debate. I suspect - unlike many people on both sides of this issue - you would both be people capable of engaging each other constructively and creatively.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 7, 2015 12:43:18 GMT
Actually, I think it may be as well to have some of these discussions at a safe distance! I imagine that Young Ireland and I could find ourselves getting rather hot-headed if left in a room together!
Thanks for bringing our attention to the article Rogerbuck. When John Waters is good, he is really excellent. The following passage particularly struck me:
"When the leaders of 1916 spoke of their love of Ireland, what was summoned up was not an economy or a society or a state, but a sacred place in which people lived, loved and returned to the infinite.
Today, it is impossible for us to conceive of a love of Ireland other than a hollow or hackneyed sentimentalism. When our leaders speak now, it is in the style of the end-of-year review of the chief executive of a factory producing dongles or floppy drives.
If you pluck at random a sentence or two from Pearse or Connolly, and compare this with a passage from almost any modern-day speech in the Oireachtas, you cannot but perceive the debasement not just of the message but of the language itself. What has been lost is not rhetoric or even poetry, but something else: heart."
This really says it. When I hear people talk about Ireland Inc. or, worse still, Ireland plc, I feel horribly despondent. I used to work in a position in which I met business lobbyists and public representatives quite a bit and I heard these expressions all the time. It made me want to vomit.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 7, 2015 13:23:34 GMT
In reply to Young Ireland, I could give the standard arguments re Home Rule, but to be honest I think there is little point in arguing about whether Home Rule would have been delivered. Historians will argue about this intelligently until the cows come home and neither we nor they will be much the wiser. Even allowing for strong feelings, the comparison with Timothy McVeigh is rather tasteless. There may be a certain logic to it, but it would also apply to the Maccabees or the French resistance.
I have always had more truck for Connolly than Pearse, so it is strange to find myself defending the latter, whom I have never been able to warm to. Nonetheless, I do not find it scandalous to observe that Cuchulainn is a Christ-like figure in some ways. The same might be said of Prometheus, Osiris, Odin etc. These could be interpreted as demonic phoneys or, more generously, as providential foreshadowings of the true God-man. And surely there is nothing unChristian about modelling oneself after Christ. The problem only arises when this leads to self-aggrandisement rather than genuine humility.
My understanding is that the 1916 Rising was originally conceived as a genuine putsch attempt, hence the focus on seizing strategic centres of transport and communication. Ultimately, the 1916 Rising was indeed a success insofar as it achieved precisely what its leaders (Pearse at least) intended: a radicalisation of public opinion by means of a brutal reminder of the real nature of the relationship between Ireland and Britain.
As countless writers have pointed out, the sanguinary language of Pearse was hardly an eccentricity of militant Irish nationalism; it probably has counterparts in virtually any European country you care to mention. And any Catholic who thinks the notion of blood sacrifice is a dirty 'pagan' idea needs a grim reality check, I'm afraid. What precisely do you think you are doing of a Sunday morning?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 7, 2015 13:24:20 GMT
Young Ireland, I don't think it's fair to compare McVeigh and Pearse. Both of them were willing to commit violence to attain their ends, that is true. But McVeigh famously said he only wished more people had died in the bombing, while Pearse called an end to the Rising because too many bystanders were getting killed. That is a huge difference right there!
I'll happily write more about what I find to admire in Pearse as soon as I can....
Again, I am far from dismissing Young Ireland's views on this matter, as indeed I sympathise with them in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 14:09:37 GMT
In reply to Young Ireland, I could give the standard arguments re Home Rule, but to be honest I think there is little point in arguing about whether Home Rule would have been delivered. Historians will argue about this intelligently until the cows come home and neither we nor they will be much the wiser. Even allowing for strong feelings, the comparison with Timothy McVeigh is rather tasteless. There may be a certain logic to it, but it would also apply to the Maccabees or the French resistance. Poor taste it may be, but it does have some validity. Nevertheless, I do take Maolscheachlann's point that Pearse did call for the surrender to prevent further injuries. The big problem with this was that (a) he apparently didn't realise the full implications of his actions until it was too late and (b) if he cared about casualties, why did he order the Rising at all? I don't think the Rising could be compared to the Maccabees or the French Resistance. Britain was not persecuting the Irish Church at the time like it was during the Penal Laws, nor were they under a brutal military occupation at the time before the Rising. I stand by my assertion that Pearse was more similar to McVeigh than he was to de Gaulle, even allowing for the differences between them.I have always had more truck for Connolly than Pearse, so it is strange to find myself defending the latter, whom I have never been able to warm to. Nonetheless, I do not find it scandalous to observe that Cuchulainn is a Christ-like figure in some ways. The same might be said of Prometheus, Osiris, Odin etc. These could be interpreted as demonic phoneys or, more generously, as providential foreshadowings of the true God-man. And surely there is nothing unChristian about modelling oneself after Christ. The problem only arises when this leads to self-aggrandisement rather than genuine humility. I do agree with much of what you say, Pugio, but I think you might be too generous. Pearse didn't merely model himself after Christ, he purported to be the "saviour" of the Irish people, in order to restore their militancy. I think that this could be reasonably perceived as self-aggrandisement.My understanding is that the 1916 Rising was originally conceived as a genuine putsch attempt, hence the focus on seizing strategic centres of transport and communication. Ultimately, the 1916 Rising was indeed a success insofar as it achieved precisely what its leaders (Pearse at least) intended: a radicalisation of public opinion by means of a brutal reminder of the real nature of the relationship between Ireland and Britain. The Rebels had no mandate to act the way they did. Even Eoin Mac Neill, the leader of the Irish Volunteers, was furious when he heard that the Rising had begun without his foreknowledge. Furthermore, Anglo-Irish relations were at levels unmatched for hundreds of years in the years before the Rising, which hasn't been matched until recent years.As countless writers have pointed out, the sanguinary language of Pearse was hardly an eccentricity of militant Irish nationalism; it probably has counterparts in virtually any European country you care to mention. And any Catholic who thinks the notion of blood sacrifice is a dirty 'pagan' idea needs a grim reality check, I'm afraid. What precisely do you think you are doing of a Sunday morning? I'm sorry, but you are misquoting me. The paganism is in comparing Our Lord's sacrifice to that of the Rebels, which is exactly what Pearse did. I am sure that you would agree that such a comparison is deeply sacriligeous and insulting to the Christ who died not just for one nation, but for all nations.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 7, 2015 14:23:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 7, 2015 14:28:09 GMT
I could write so much about my view of Pearse, about whom I also have reservations. But here is why I admire him:
1) First of all, his poetry. "The Fool", "The Wayfarer", "Mise Eire", "The Risen People" and other poems are, in my view, some of the greatest Irish poetry ever written. "The Fool" especially has had a big influence on me personally.
A poem like the Wayfarer is astonishingly simple and direct and fresh:
The beauty of the world hath made me sad, This beauty that will pass; Sometimes my heart hath shaken with great joy To see a leaping squirrel in a tree Or a red lady-bird upon a stalk, Or little rabbits in a field at evening, Lit by a slanting sun, Or some green hill where shadows drifted by Some quiet hill where mountainy man hath sown And soon would reap; near to the gate of Heaven; Or children with bare feet upon the sands Of some ebbed sea, or playing on the streets Of little towns in Connacht, Things young and happy. And then my heart hath told me: These will pass, Will pass and change, will die and be no more, Things bright and green, things young and happy; And I have gone upon my way Sorrowful.
2) He was an idealist and a romantic. He conceived of Ireland as essentially a spiritual entity. He even wrote an essay called The Spiritual Nation that made this explicit. I don't see any point in a nationalism that does not get this right from the very start; to see a nation as simply a kind of aggregate of individuals isn't very compelling to me.
3) His idealization of the West of Ireland, and of more insular and rural and simple ways of life, seems entirely admirable and correct to me.
4) His educational theories, though naïve, were commendably humanistic.
5) His bravery and chivalry during the Rising-- a far cry from the Provisional IRA and their offshoots.
6) The depth and subtlety of his thought, as seen in his essays.
Against all this, there is the fact that he tended to confuse the cause of Irish nationality with Christianity, not to make a necessary distinction between the two things.
|
|