|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 18, 2014 20:08:42 GMT
Maolseachlainn: I wouldn't say that students automatically disregard everything their teacher tells them; it depends on the teacher. The young look for mentors who can guide them, for father and mother-figures. (I have decidedly mixed feelings about the British Marxist film-maker Ken Loach, but I am quite haunted by one of his films called SWEET SIXTEEN describing a teenager in a depressed post-industrial area of Scotland being drawn into a drug gang led by older men, who played on his desire to prove himself, attain manhood, gain respect, be part of a brotherhood, in order to entrap him. I read an interview with Loach when it came out in which he said that his point was that when the traditional industries were alive this need was met through work apprenticeships, through the cameraderie of the workplace, but that economic decline and a more atomised society left a gap that gangs filled. Similarly, one of the horrific things about the clerical abuse scandals was that they involved exploitation and betrayal of that need for a father-figure and role-model, of the reason why a priest is called Father in the first place. Vocations are "caught" through priestly mentors and role-models, and the abuse and the cover-ups have deeply damaged the possibility of such a relationship because it will be seen through the prism of that betrayal)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 19, 2014 8:24:29 GMT
I was fascinated by the insight into your own intelletual journey, Hibernincus, thanks for that.
I see that an inspirational teacher can lead a child to faith. I was thinking more of the school as an institution rather than an individual teacher or priest or nun or brother. I don't know when this begun-- I suspect after World War II at the latest in the UK, maybe much later in Ireland-- but secondary (and maybe even primary) school children don't seem at all inclined to accept the moral, ethical, cultural and religious norms preached them by their schools. In the case of Christian schools, their ethos is being transmitted (or attempting to be transmitted) against all the background noise of TV and popular music and so foth, all of which is not only cntradicting but ridiculing religious belief, for the most part. I get the impression, through first hand and second-hand experience, that nobody even EXPECTS religious schools to pass on their ethos-- insofar as they even have one. It reminds of something John Waters said in his talk "Has Ireland Abolished god?", which can be seen on Youtube. He said religious discourse was seen as something that was neither true nor false but occuped a kind of in-between state.
I believe that Catholic schools are on something of a 'mission impossible' when it comes to passing on the Faith. Of course, that doesn't mean they can't impart solid doctrine, which often lodges in the mind and is of benefit later in life. And which at least lets students know that there IS an intellectual content to Catholicism worth taking seriously.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 19, 2014 17:25:54 GMT
For me it is the secularisation of society, in Ireland and globally, that is the main reason for decline. Secularisation and its myriad allies (liberalism, political correctness, celebrity culture, postmodernism, scientism, aggressive atheism, relativism, hedonism, ulilitarianism....the list is endless). They have created new mini Gods of football teams, computer games, shopping, celebrities, extreme sports....things that should be enjoyable pastimes, but which become the central part of many people's lives, and which in many cases go on to become addictions.
Its influence is all pervasive - such wall to wall influence has never been experienced before. The main thrust of this is materialistic and sensual and is therefore pretty much anti any kind of spirituality.
The good news is that the policies of secularisation are failing. The bad news is that its supporters are intent on going ahead with their projects to the detriment of us all.
Family and friends that I know, that I would categorise as generally good people who have had a Catholic upbringing, just seem to drift away from the church for no particular reason. In some of their language I can detect the words and phrases of a secular media. I don't think that Vatican II was a factor. A reaction to what was viewed as the established church is a factor - but again, post 1960s respect for all authority has dissipated.....
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 21, 2014 8:44:17 GMT
I'd say I drifted from the point rather than missed it: my point was that there was a concern with lapsation overseas, particularly in Britain and I saw this reflected briefly in the catechism I was using in the late 70s, which was old at that stage. In the 70s, the attitude was that all was rosy in the garden, culminating in the Papal visit in 1979. I know Father Brian D'Arcy CP called this the party before the wake (and he might not have been far wrong) and the Professor of English in Maynooth, Father Peter Connolly was predicting a collapse in Irish Catholicism at the time. No one was listening, but some priests are recycling this now. Even before this, Mgr Cremin likened Ireland to the Netherlands, at the time of the publication of the Dutch Catechism in 1967. In the 1970s, Mgr Cremin gave an indept interview to the Irish Independent with Shane carries on his blog: lxoa.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/leading-maynooth-theologian-decries-disintegration-of-the-irish-church/ and follow the links. It is clear from what Hibernicus writes that the Irish bishops responded to Dr Halliday Sutherland and to the then Father John Heenan (later Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster via a term as Archbishop of Liverpool) with denial, but it would be very interesting to know what was being said in house. I am thinking of Cardinal Heenan's critique of the new liturgy at the Second Vatican Council when he contrasted Mass attendance by working class men in England (true of much of the rest of the English-speaking world) and their absence on the continent. Obviously, the contemporary attendance in Ireland was higher - the future Cardinal obviously noticed something. To jump to the present, Archbishop Martin went into a meeting with Pope Benedict armed with statistics and strategies a couple of years ago and was very surprised when the then pope asked him about active Catholic writers and artists. This is significant as there was no shortage of anti-clerical writers in the period under discussion, but we would strain ourselves to name a consciously Catholic writer in the same period. I am not saying this to critiqe what Shane has been doing to recover a sense of good in the post-independence, pre-conciliar Ireland. There are not a lot of intellectuals around who are either committed Catholics or nationalists, let alone both, so there are very few possible defenders. It is a genuine criticism of the period that no more than any of the other national churches (anywhere) that it didn't create the sort of Catholic who could weather the storm (and for a list of all problems, look no further than Assisi's last post - I don't believe all things acted to the same degree, but all were a factor and some of them were themselves causes of other factors: media hostility didn't come from nowhere and it feeds many other things). We don't need to discuss the Second Vatican Council here. Suffice to say it was a result of the Second World War and I'd like to see someone do an analysis of the Catholic world since the Council similar to the type of analysis that Theodore Dalrymple does of Britain and other places of the post war period. A lot of the stuff Dalrymple notices about post-war Britain can be seen in the post-conciliar Catholic church. In regard to the fall off in Mass attendance, take a look at Jim Lothian's statistics in the Brandsma Review: brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/issue-121-july-august-2012/ The trends are similar elsewhere and Prof Lothian also studied statistics for Protestant and Orthodox denominations. Mainstream Protestantism is in free fall; evangelical Protestantism is in expansion and though hard to classify, so is Orthodoxy. Of course this is just a summary, but suffice to say the effect of the Council was precisely the opposite to that which was intended and the Council itself bred a different type of clerical arrogance. And those of us who have been in the wars against this type of liberal clericalism ought to be careful as our own side are as likely to learn nothing. This is the reason why we really need to honestly assess the reasons for the decline.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 21, 2014 9:12:47 GMT
Hibernicus' citation of Dr Andrew O'Connell is something which ought to be compulsory reading for bishops, religious superiors and anyone involved in catechesis and education. It is tragic and it was the sort of thing which Mgr Cremin and the Pro Fide group predicted years ago. There are plenty of people of good will out there that are clueless. And it is very clear that the reason that we are having this discussion is because a lot of us have done extra homework in relation to the faith. Hibernicus knows me and knows I prefer not to give too much personal detail in public, though I can talk a lot in private, but the whole embrace of the faith was a very difficult process in my life too and it is something which continues to give me much trouble again and again, though not in ways you might expect. I certainly found my religious instruction woefully inadequate and a period in a religious order far from satisfactory. There were many good things along the way too - maybe that's why I never definitively walked away from the faith. But in the final analysis, I had to do my own work.
I don't want to sound too Pelagian there. I know I had people, living and dead, praying for me. I never broke from attending Mass (though much of the time it was unsatisfactory; too this day, I find myself leaving celebrations of both extraordinary and ordinary forms asking if the celebrant did justice to the mysteries he was celebrating); Scripture was always part of my life as was the rosary, and somewhere along the line I stumbled on the profound connexion between the two and their relationship with the liturgy.
Were there things I read? Yes - the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI; Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity stand out. Discovering the Ballintrillick Review was great. I met Mgr Cremin. Though I am not a believer in Garabandal right now (not meaning to argue with eircomnet; we have to agree to differ), I am grateful to my one time headmaster Brother Cripps CFC for his Garabandal devotion as this brought me into a situation that I did a lot of reading in areas I would not have read before. I think there was a will on my part to believe, but it was very difficult at times.
To return to the purpose of this thread, the intellectual response to the crisis, but it needs to be complimented by a devotional response. These are the twin foundations of an evangelical response, which must involve good works as well as faith. If the decline is to be reversed, it will take the response of each of us rather than a lot of talk. But I don't want to knock talk either, we have to begin somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jul 21, 2014 11:55:25 GMT
I think, once upon a time, there was a dream alive that the gap between tradition and modernity could be bridged by Vatican II and this was alive and well in Ireland of the 1970s. The euphoria masked the sort of experience a lot of traditional minded people experienced: priests and religious fell behind obedience; laity were made believe they were the only ones with a problem. At the time, many artists and performers were publicly Catholic (some of the popular songs on radio were expressly religious) and many journalists were too. It could be the high tide of Irish Catholicism was the divorce referendum in 1986 (not that there were not an immense amount of problems then). But beginning with the resignation of Éamonn Casey in 1992, it all fell like a house of cards. Now I know I'm painting broad brush strokes, but for example, compare Dermot Morgan's benign "Fr Brian Trendy" of the post-papal visit period (or Canon Romulus O'Dowd on Hall's Pictorial Weekly) with Fr Ted. Morgan also playfully impersonated Pope John Paul II in the mid-'80s "Thank you very much, Mr Eastwood". There were forces at work, make no mistake about it, to sideline the traditional and to advance the modern (I recall Katherine Zappone's contributions to the Living Word on morning radio, which was where I first became acquainted with the woman...and I thought her off the wall). But stuff was going on and we didn't notice it, like frogs being boiled.
I don't mean to disregard the international situation and political and culural factors. Nor will I blame the EU: the bulk of cultural influence here is Anglo-American anyway and a withdrawal from the EU would make that worse. But the point I'm making is that there was a complacent Catholicism in the 70s and 80s which didn't realise the depth of the problems out there. The fall off in vocations is only really kicking in now. Mass attendance has been falling constantly, but we only noticed in the early 1990s. At present, at rite of passage occasions (weddings, funerals, First Communions) it becomes clear how distant many have become from religious practice. If catechesis/religious education is abyssmal now, Hibernicus is showing it wasn't all it was cracked up to be in the past. Another thing, religious formation at 3rd level has been confined to clergy, religious (sometimes in a very limited way), primary and RE teachers. This is not good. With many, having no background worth talking about prior to third level has set their head spinning. I've seen many clerical students and lay students of theology go off the rails at this stage. It is a mistake to think that sacramental grace will make up for poor preparation.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 21, 2014 13:48:06 GMT
Is it fair to say that there was something of a 'double dip'....the rot setting in during the sixties and seventies (there may have been problems before that, but it became more dramatic at this time), followed (and incorporating) a couple of decades of the Church getting by on inertia, and the whole edifice beginning to fall in the nineties?
I have searched Irish Catholic journals from the sixties, in UCD library where I work, in search of articles showing an awareness of the impending crisis. I haven't really found any. I wouldn't say I encountered any evidence of complacency, either-- there is plenty of collective self-criticism-- but there certainly doesn't seem any suspicion that Irish Catholicism is going to take the battering that it took.
Rather poignantly (from our vantage point), one journal article from the post-Vatican II period mentioned a problem facing Irish congregations that wasn't facing congregations in other countries-- Irish congregations were so large that the greater interaction during the Mass led to very long Masses and bottle-necks in the church space. (I'm actually not sure what this refers to, apart from extra Scripture readings and waiting for everyone to make responses, but I'm sure that was the gist. I can't remember what article it was now. Why would the physical constraints of church size become more of a problem after Vatican II? Were people moving about any more? Is it something to do with a communion line as opposed to a communion rail? I realize it's difficulty to guess when I don't have a quotation from the source article.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 22, 2014 11:42:43 GMT
The late Seán MacRéamonn said the new liturgy was a success story in Ireland in the early 1970s and to a certain extent he was right. The new liturgy was introduced into Ireland without controversy which ensued in many other countries, but soon enough, Dr MacRéamonn was looking for precisely the sort of change which caused grief elsewhere. I recall hearing a clerical student in Maynooth marvel that it took longer to say a shorter Mass after the advent of the new liturgy. The EF Mass could be rushed – the famous Fr “Flash” Kavanagh in Dublin could reputedly offer the EF in 15 minutes. But the OF Mass had a few feature which may have led to lengthening. One thing is the communion fast. This changed under Pius XII first from fasting from midnight to three hours and subsequently to one hour. Under the original rule, communion was usually only distributed at the first Mass and if you wanted to receive, you went to that Mass. The relaxation of the rule meant more frequent communion and remember, only a priest could distribute this until the late 1970s, but there were usually curates on hand to assist. Did I mention that endangered species, the Catholic curate? It was not unusual to have several in parishes. This meant effectively that there was a tight schedule on Sunday Mass regarding timing, so there was no room for long Masses. Negatively, it meant that curates only became parish priests at ages when men in other professions would retire, while their counterparts elsewhere could expect to get parishes in their early thirties. In this way, Ireland had a reverse vocations problem – there were too many priests. I have a friend who has the theory that hymn singing in Irish churches never developed because of this over supply and its corresponding limits on Mass times. This goes on top of religious persecution, language change and the incorrect perception that vernacular hymns were not permitted at the EF Masses. And when vernacular hymn singing began, many loved hymns were thrown out in favour of American material from the 1970s which has dated hopelessly. The war against traditional devotions and accompanying hymns, with the business of architectural changes, brought examples of clerical arrogance at its worse (similarly in regard to the implementation of the new catechetic ideas, and as we now painfully know, the treatment of complainants in cases of child abuse which was especially bad in this decade). The thing about these conflicts was that from the contemporary priests’ point of view, the protesters continued attending Mass, they had been “won round” to the new thinking, but there were wounds left which festered – the lapsation manifested itself a generation later. This needs to be examined. Catechesis and religious education matters, but the revolution in priestly and religious formation from the mid-1960s on needs to be examined. Pre-conciliar formation had problems and Hibernicus’ review of Fr Flannery’s book in the Brandsma Review: brandsmareview.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/issue-130-january-february-2014/ But to give an example of the problem in the 1970s, many students were given to believe compulsory celibacy would soon come to an end. In France and the US, they were openly told this, causing canonical cases for annulment of holy orders (similar of annulment of marriage; laicisation is analogous to divorce): if a candidate accepted ordination on the assumption he would be permitted to marry, the ordination was invalid. I doubt any of this was overt in Ireland, but I would say hints were dropped and much of the discontent one finds in the ACPI might be down to false expectation, along with the near hatred of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Though I don’t know why religious could complain, as the matter would not arise in their case anyway. But directives from Rome were routine ignored – eg the Credo of the People of God, Humanae Vitae – express writings of the Pope, let alone other stuff, while some of the architectural changes and later liturgical changes (communion in the hand, extraordinary ministers) were justified on obedience to Rome, though this would equate with emanation of a penumbra style jurisprudence. And I am not sure the Roman institutions fared much better. Many diocesan priests were through the Pontifical Irish College and almost all Irish Franciscans and Augustinians were through their province’s colleges in Rome. Standards dropped all this time and the intellectual preparation of the those presenting themselves in seminary also collapsed. So, over time, we had a more alienated laity and a less capable clergy. There is also the Irish habit of seeing things which take place in Ireland in a vacuum, but you could miss the point overseas. I don’t blame the Second Vatican Council: I think there were problems in all periods we’re talking about. But the response to the pre-conciliar problems seem to have created something much worse, here and abroad.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 22, 2014 12:04:53 GMT
Searching the database Irish Newspaper Archives for the search terms "Irish" "Catholicism" "future", from 1950 to 1979, I found this report of a speech from the Irish Independent, March 4 1969. It would be interesting to trace when the rumblings of trouble began.
AN ACCELERATED pace of change within the Catholic Church was predicted by Very Rev. Austin Flannery, O.P., Prior, St. Saviour's Dominican Church, Dublin, last night at a public meeting in the Four of the Priesthood [sic?] in Dublin.
Father Flannery, who was indisposed, had his address read by the T.C.D. graduate, Mr. Ronnie Lindsay. Rev. Petet Lernass, C.C, Bray also was absent through illness.
Father Flannery said he had the impression that an increasing number of younger Irishmen and women' either had ceased to believe or had ceased to practise their religion or else had become critical and even cynical to a degree that their fathers would never even have understood.
This, to some extent, was offset by the fact that a larger number of people than hitherto were closely related to the clergy because of their involvement in the lay apostolate.
DECLINING FAITH? The population of the Republic could be described as 95 per cent Catholic. But he asked, would the census returns in 20 years time give a return of 75 per cent Catholic? What would the figure be in 50 years time? "All we can do is sniff the air around us," he added. To adjust to a dwindling number of believers demanded a change of approach and attitude. If a priest's attitude did not change he would be as irrelevant, from the viewpoint of worship, as a great medieval cathedral in a paganised city. Father Flannery believed that the priest and his role in Dublin were changing because the people were changing. The changes had come with such rapidity that many did not even know that they had taken place. The change was only beginning and the pace would accelerate.
The fact that the census figures are better than he expected is not much comfort. Later on, we hear from a spalpeen called Johu Feeney who had something to do with a student newspaper called Grille:
The chairman of Grille, the university student, Mr. Johu Feeney, in a lengthy speech. attacked the planned giving campaign for Clonliffe College, and said that, without a radical priesthood, the Church in Ireland had a very difficult future.
He believed that in the clerical student lay the key to the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The modern seminarian had an enormously important role at a time when he was least free to exercise that role.
ON HOUSING . He suggested that the Church in Dublin should spend its money on housing or on the mentally handicapped or on one of the many other causes which were ignored by the State.
Mr. Patrick Carroll, a science student and assistant editor of " Grille," explained that they had placed a picket outside Clonliffe College as part of their fight against capitalism in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 22, 2014 12:07:49 GMT
Just read the Bishop Newman (then Professor Newman) paper posted by Shane above. There was a certain amount of complacency, but it was still revealing. Seems most of the European Church didn't know what was around the corner. The "three nation" plan was interesting - that the three countries seen as suppliers of priests were Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands. I'm not sure, but I believe Belgium is the worse off vocations blackspot at the moment, so there is a feel of the ironic here (Holland isn't much better).
The repeat of the independence of the Irish clergy is there and there is a confidence in the scholarship which we couldn't imagine now.
All in all, the paper shows us how far we've fallen and also supplies answers to questions we have here as to what context the Second Vatican Council came from.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 22, 2014 12:14:43 GMT
Fr Austin Flannery would have been the vanguard liberal of his day and his legacy, aside from the translation of the Vatican II documents, was the gutting of St Saviour's Church on Dominic St during his term as prior there.
Hard not to see him stacking odds up in favour of his particular vision there. Fr Flannery also nurtured a bunch of religious affairs correspondents of whom Seán MacRéamonn was the leader, of who John Cooney is still active. Others included Louis McRedmond, John Horgan and T.P. O'Mahony. All on the radical fringe with some vitriol (and not always from Cooney or O'Mahony). Still, these journalists knew something, which I don't see in the likes of Patsy McGarry.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jul 22, 2014 12:28:11 GMT
Father Peter Lemass was also one of the liberal leaders in the Dublin Archdiocese. It is said following John Charles McQuaid's retirement that the auxilliary bishop Joseph Carroll was the conservative candidate; Peter Lemass was the liberal candidate and Professor Dermot Ryan (Semitic languages, UCD; Old Testament, Holy Cross, Clonliffe) was the compromise candidate.
Fr Lemass was also a mentor to Fr Joe Dunn of Radharc and he also was the trailblazer behind female altar servers in his parish in Ballyfermot, over two decades before they were permitted.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 22, 2014 13:00:19 GMT
Later on, we hear from a spalpeen called Johu Feeney who had something to do with a student newspaper called Grille: The chairman of Grille, the university student, Mr. Johu Feeney, in a lengthy speech. attacked the planned giving campaign for Clonliffe College, and said that, without a radical priesthood, the Church in Ireland had a very difficult future.
He believed that in the clerical student lay the key to the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland. The modern seminarian had an enormously important role at a time when he was least free to exercise that role.
ON HOUSING . He suggested that the Church in Dublin should spend its money on housing or on the mentally handicapped or on one of the many other causes which were ignored by the State.
Mr. Patrick Carroll, a science student and assistant editor of " Grille," explained that they had placed a picket outside Clonliffe College as part of their fight against capitalism in Ireland.A question for Hibernicus principally: would this be the same John Feeney who was an Evening Herald journalist, killed tragically on a flight to France in the mid-1980s, who was always a self-indentified radical Catholic and who supported the 1983 pro life referendum (even then one of the few journalists to do so openly)? Funny, if it is the same John Feeney, I remember his colleague who died in the same accident was Kevin Marron, who never tired poking fun at Joe Duffy who had just stepped down as President of USI (who also traded under the "radical Catholic" brand). Marron reckoned Joe would join the establishment in time, but didn't live to see it. A bit off the point, but a propos of the culture which used to exist, before the decline under discussion.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 22, 2014 22:12:29 GMT
Yes, it is the same John Feeney; he wrote a short biography of John Charles MCQuaid which I believe was relatively respectful, and which John Cooney never ceases to sneer at. Grille would probably be an example of the attempts to reconcile Marxism and Catholicism that popped up in various places around the time. (Terry Eagleton the literary critic was involved in a similar group in Britain.) Someone once described to me Feeney and his friends holding a demonstration in Westland Row Church in favour of greater Church involvement with the working-class, and being unceremoniously slung out by the dockers who then dominated the parish and wouldn't stand for what they saw as an insult to their priests. Feeney's own background was middle-class and probably upper-middle; a brother of his who died recently was a judge.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 22, 2014 22:20:18 GMT
The idea that Ireland was ideally placed to reconcile tradition and modernity actually goes back to the time of Daniel O'Connell, when liberal Catholics on the continent saw Ireland as exemplifying a strong orthodox popular Catholicism independent of state control and of a "throne and altar" alliance. Belgium was seen in similar terms at the same time, because the successful 1830 Belgian revolution against Dutch rule was founded on an alliance of Catholics and liberals and resulted in a constitutional monarchy. (Remember that a few years later Gregory XVI actually opposed a Polish revolt against Tsarist Russia on the grounds that submission to the lawful authorities was a divine command; it was fortunate for Belgian Catholicism that the short-lived Pius VIII, who reigned at the time of the Belgian revolt, took a different view.) The Dublin Catholic UNiversity was explicitly modelled on Louvain as the great exemplar of an independent Catholic university (the American colleges took some decades more to develop to anything like the same status.) The Dutch situation would also be comparable to IReland given that Dutch Catholics were a minority (about a third) in a country whose self-image revolved to a great extent around the successful PRotestant revolt against Spanish rule in the C17. I believe that even for much of the C20 it was extremely unusual for Dutch prime ministers to come from Catholic backgrounds
|
|