Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Happened to Holy Ireland?
The New York Times and other organs of the mainstream media have offered only the most superficial and boringly predictable coverage of the referendum in which the Irish approved a constitutional amendment permitting gay marriage—according to the Times, the vote resulted from the march of enlightenment, the continuing dawning of modern consciousness, blah, blah, blah. So I’ve been looking around for commentary that truly attempted to explain how it happened.
How, that is, the nation that just a decade-and-a-half ago remained, with little Malta, one of the most Catholic nations in Europe; how the nation in which essentially the entire population turned out to greet the pontiff when John Paul II visited, how the nation that used to pride itself, that used to define itself, as faithful to the teachings of the Church even as Europe grew increasingly secular–how this nation could have changed so much, so quickly, as to reject the Church’s position on marriage by a margin of more than 3 to 2.
What have I found? “The Joyful Death of Catholic Ireland.” Although a long piece, it neatly sums up its entire argument in the concluding paragraph:
The reason the Irish—as Irish—are celebrating is that they have with this referendum delivered a decisive and final blow to their venerable image as a Catholic nation. They have taken their vengeance on the Church. They must relish the unshackling; they must love the taste of blood. But, finally, they take joy in becoming what, it seems, they were always meant to become. An unexceptional country floating somewhere in the waters off a continent that has long since entered into cultural decline, demographic winter, and the petty and perpetual discontents that come free of charge to every people that lives for nothing much in particular.
The Irish didn’t vote for gay marriage, in other words, as much as they voted against the Church–which the scandals of the last decade have caused them not merely to question but to hate.
To those among the Ricochetti who know Ireland–and I’m conscious that we have members in Eire itself–does that sound right? Does it ring true? Does it truly explain things?
Published in Culture, General, Marriage
Is there any pattern to which priests Ireland exports to foreign dioceses and which remain in Ireland? Is there some cultural norm among the clergy which deprives the Church’s Irish body of life?
Does anyone find it ironic that the homosexual scandals within the Catholic Church in Ireland have at least partly caused the Irish people to turn against the Church and vote to allow homosexual marriage?
You are so correct. This is also why SSM has succeeded in many Christian countries. The protestant church also fails to identify the sin, broadly named fornication, because so much of the church is afraid to confront the general culture of sexual sin, and can only identify the vague “gay-ness” for it’s opprobrium.
Membership and tithes are the actual root of the churches sin of failing Christ.
I don’t know if we are supposed to mention that since the homosexual acts of the Church were viewed as evil because they involved minors. Kind of the same reasoning behind there not being much made of the Jerry Sandusky thing and his like of young boys. The homosexuals don’t take to kindly to that, don’t you know.
You have no need to say sorry Peter. I am in last week of summer teaching myself. I sent you via Uncommon Knowledge Facebook why it has happened in my usually casual blunt manner – the reasons for disaster of the Church’s position in modern Ireland. Here’s a brief summary which as a history teacher I can back up with gusto.
– Sex abuse scandal.
– Cover up of sex abuse scandal.
– Terrible catholic education – fine schools, lousy on turnout of genuine Catholics. I myself did not learn about mortal sins till I was 24 – I’m 26 now.
– Catholicism becoming a civil religion rather than a living religion. Everyone takes for granted the Catholic faith and it becomes stale and dies. People now associate it with weddings, baptisms, funerals and Christmas – no more.
– Abuse of political and cultural power for decades.
– There are only 14 vocations to priesthood this year.
– Demonisation by liberal media and secular elite.
– Betrayal that many Irish feel to such an institution.
Inability of Irish to forgive a wrong doing.
Ireland is going for a dark place.
And is this borne out of a fear of not wanting to judge because it might drive future members away? It seems to me that many high-profile clergy–of any denomination–are more interested in being seen as the lovey-dovey priest than the person attempting to win souls for Christ. This makes them malleable to the secular whims of the day.
Sour grapes!
Do not let your anger at the foolishness of this present generation blind you to God’s love for them, and His admonition that we go forth and spread the gospel, regardless of whether there appears to be fruit.
Same story in Massachusetts, which is largely Irish now (and a relationship you have mentioned on an earlier post). And I think there is some back-and-forth influence going on. Unfortunately.
What you suggest would be the worst thing to happen to Christianity in ALL of its denominations in its history in the US. I would submit for your consideration that one of the reasons why Pope Francis is the Pontiff is because a fair number of cardinals became fairly alarmed at Benedict XVI’s call to (effectively) retreat.
And yet the pursuit of legalization of SSM is very much in the Christian tradition.
In America, I have never in my lifetime heard homosexuality mentioned from the pulpit. And I never heard a word about it in child theology classes, though perhaps that has changed between then and now.
In my experience, the Church’s arguments have been available only in unassociated scholarly articles in journals most Catholics don’t read. In other words, the problem is not that the Church’s teachings are weak but that they are invisible.
I said in the West, not just the United States. American kids aren’t as bad off as European kids, but they’re clearly headed in that direction. And even in America, most of that Pew survey could be summed up as “Well, it could be worse”. And the “culture wars” stuff matters because if you abandon Biblical doctrines, then you abandon Christianity. What you have is a hollow, feel-good shell that is nonetheless, empty.
For a counterexample, however, a subset of the West, namely the US, suffices.
I’m glad you’re so sure of my damnation, then! Since it’s hopeless anyhow, should I just give up my plans to raise Christian children? After all, they’ll be kids even younger than me, and so even more damned, no?
No one was being forced, other than those in a small minority. Ireland was – and I emphasize “was” – proudly Catholic by consensus. It always chose to be Catholic.
What Britain couldn’t do by force of arms to Ireland – that is, accept British culture – they did by importing the crass secular civilization. You’re right, this was a vote against the Catholic Church more than for gay marriage. Ireland finally embraced the contemporary rot of secular culture.
Rings true with me. The one Irish Catholic I had as a friend at an internet site was raised Catholic but now was some sort of “spiritualist.” Seemed rather silly to me, but what can i say.
Well, the way things are going.
And it’s not like this stuff wasn’t already in the script…
Why, hello, “Progressive Church”! We’ve been expecting you.
You’re right, this was a vote against the Catholic Church more than for gay marriage.
I think there was some anti-Catholic Church vote, and some of the vote for SSM is a good whipping stick to show displeasure with the church for all the reasons Paddy listed above. But don’t discount the growing SSM popularity in its on right. People are increasingly rejecting that homosexuals are any worse than everyone else, they don’t approve of gays being singled out for disparate treatment.
Does anybody disagree that Mr. Priebus and others in the GOP election strategy team are praying nightly that SSM isn’t an issue in the 2016 elections?
And the top-down aspect explains why the Irish erroneously thought the referendum had anything to do with religion or the church at all. As if skepticism about re-defining marriage is something that only exists or makes sense in a religious context.
“I (Jesus) have given them (the disciples) your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” John 17:14
http://www.gotquestions.org/in-but-not-of-world.html
Meaning that they secretly want the Supreme Court to mandate it nationwide? In a way you can’t blame them, since no one has been able to clearly and convincingly enunciate the simple fact that being in favor of traditional marriage is not a statement about homosexuality or homosexuals…any more than it’s a statement about polygamists, polyamorists, or people who want to marry themselves.
OK! Nice to know I have your blessing to abdicate individual responsibility entirely. After all, if there’s no hope, there’s no point in even trying!
Even if I do swim the Bosporus, I hope not to disappoint you in this respect :-)
Right, which is why, unless Tommy de Seno’s argument is meant as a kind of broad-ranging historical point, I can’t see the argument that “this is our fault, because the Church was too nasty and judgmental towards homosexuals”. In your average Catholic parish you aren’t going to hear anything whatsoever on this topic. Almost everything people (including Catholics) know about the Church’s sexual morality, they learn from the mainstream press.
My husband was saying the other night (and I agree) that it would be interesting to know: how many Catholics in Ireland (or here, or in other once-Catholic countries) know that it’s a mortal sin to skip Sunday Mass (without compelling reason)? That it’s a mortal sin not to go to confession at least once a year? That Catholics who formally reject unambiguous Magisterial teachings on abortion, marriage or other contentious issues should not receive Communion? Widespread ignorance on all of these points, I’m sure. Our problem isn’t that we’ve been too aggressive or mean. The problem is that we haven’t had the courage to press people to make the hard choices when the Church is out of step with the world (or even to make clear to them what those choices are).
Here’s the thing:
If the reverent and well-educated in the church don’t make pro-tradition arguments, that silence gets filled one way or another – often by the Archie Bunkers among the faithful. The inarticulate. The ones who may mean well, but certainly don’t know how to sound as if they do.
So instead of compassionate, reasoned arguments about the unique call to celibacy SSA people may have – as well as the frank acknowledgments that celibacy is quite hard to pull off in practice for an entire lifetime – vague rumors of “the wrong plumbing!” or how “same-sex sins are just so much more evil than heterosexual sins” come to dominate laypeople’s impression of how traditional Catholicism regards homosexuals.
I believe Tommy overstated his point somewhat. But he had one.
Precisely. So what is the big deal with people acting through a man-made construct–democracy–voting for Satan? We who believe in Christ and the theological teachings of the Church throughout history knew this was coming. Why care about people who want to embrace evil and wickedness?
Because God does not desire the death of sinners, but that they should repent and live?
Christians are pretty clearly called to love our neighbors, not write the whole lot of ’em off.
I am not advocating that we as Christians attempt to raise our children understanding the Word of God and the teachings of the historical Church, but I am asking why, when so adamantly rejected by “the Masses” should we waste so much energy on trying to convince them? Here’s a case in point: I don’t know Cato Rand other than through Ricochet. He knows where the Church stands on homosexuality and on homosexual marriage particularly and has very vocally rejected it. So why, from a theological standpoint, should I care? I believe that such a lifestyle leads to eternal damnation, he doesn’t. Why should I then go out and try to convince him otherwise? He knows where we stand and if he wants to join our fold, he is welcome to. I no longer care.
Sure, but at some point we as Christians have to come to grips with the reality that the vast majority of humanity will reject Christ, reject us, and choose Satan. We must be willing to conserve the effort for individuals who we have a better chance at saving, like our children or spouses or other family members. To attempt to change someone like Cato Rand’s mind on Ricochet seems to be wasted effort.
There have been various interpretations given to “many are called, few are chosen” over the long years. Will it suffice to point out that not every denomination is as certain as others that the vast majority of humans are damned?
In fact, some rather traditional denominations (Catholicism and Orthodoxy, for example) hold out greater hope for the mass of humanity than certain Protestant denominations have been known to do. Reasonable, orthodox Christians evidently can disagree with each other on this matter somewhat.
But the Bible states pretty plainly what is needed to be called to Heaven. “None come before God except through Me.” And part of accepting Christ as our Savior is confessing your sins, repenting, and striving to sin no more. Unless we are going to argue that God is just going to allow everyone to reach Heaven, in which case the question becomes why bother with any of the rituals of Christianity to begin with? We either believe in whole the Word or we don’t. There cannot be an in between.