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
Where do people hear that, though? Not from the pulpit. You could be right, and as both a semi-cloistered intellectual *and* an adult convert, my appreciation of the ordinary layman’s experience of Catholic life isn’t that strong. I think there is a kind of underclass in America of resentful people who genuinely hate homosexuals. Also bona fide racists. Also misogynists. None of these groups is that large or at all influential but you do find them in the bowels of chat rooms and buried in comment threads of less-civil sites than this. But that’s just an inevitable result of the progressive agenda: a certain amount of inarticulate, bitter backlash on the part of people who aren’t happy with their lives and need somebody to blame. I don’t think you’re more likely to encounter that sort of sentiment (probably much less actually) in a Catholic parish than at the local bar.
I’m just not sure who the crude popularizers of Catholic doctrine are. If I knew I’d be happy to do what I could to clear up their missteps.
Of all that I’ve read and heard, Paddy, that’s the most baleful. Just staggering.
Nobody wants to be thought of as loathsome.
I noticed this interesting comment, which I will quote anonymously, among the public comments about a news report by EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo.
The comment was in response to a message from Pope Francis an “ecumenism of blood” between Christian denominations. If I understand correctly, he is referring to the potential of shared suffering to forge a kinship between people. When neighbors are made friends (or at least partners) through equal persecution, they listen to each other with greater charity and are more open to honest learning and debate.
Some took the Pope’s message as a surrender to multiculturalist equivocation between theologies. But I think he was suggesting that all kinds of Christians will suffer because of groups like ISIS and movements like the attempted redefinition of marriage.
Yes, but it took Peter to get it onto the main feed.
Isn’t this now fact in Ireland? Are you arguing that schools should be allowed to teach falsehoods about the law of the land?
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 –
You think that the above can be made to sound reasonable to what is now a majority (and growing) number of people who don’t think homosexuals need to be celibate for a lifetime, your argument might be accepted by the choir, but sounds unreasonable to those not already believing.
Sad, yes. But remember that it’s a small country. Ireland’s total population is roughly half that of New York City alone.
For comparison, here are some statistics regarding clergy in the Houston-Galveston diocese. Only 3 ordinations of diocesan priests last year!
I’m not certain what the content of the required curriculum will be, but of course marriage is not just a legal institution. From a Catholic perspective it is not actually possible to unite two people of the same sex in matrimony, though you can pretend by issuing some civil documents.
Yes, but unless you are talking about a seminary, that this would be a general education. One would think that if they are teaching on the institution of marriage that they would at least have to mention the governing law of the land.
Looking back on my Catholic education and going to mass, I’m forced to agree with both of you. I can’t recall the topic of homosexuality ever coming up.
I do recall occasionally being defensive when lumped in with Evangelical Protestants and their often fiery rhetoric on the topic, so again, I think you are onto something there.
I agree that none come before God except through Christ. Various theologians have come to somewhat differing conclusions on how that is accomplished, though.
Again, I don’t think they’ve gotten as far as a specific curriculum, but if it’s anything like the kinds of things public schools do here, the bones of it will probably be some kind of attack on heteronormativity, along the lines of: homosexual and heterosexual marriage are effectively the same, as we can see in our enlightened new laws! I doubt they would bother to mention the intention if it weren’t a deliberate undermining of what Catholic schools would otherwise be inclined to teach.
Pay attention, people — this is how the progressive ratchet works, and it is how point after point, not only Ireland but the world in general is moved off of its conservative anchors.
The question has been answered once, you see, in favor of the progressives, and we should all shut up now. From this point forward, it’s all about the settled law of the land, which never seemed to matter before. But — I’ve already said too much.
I hope you won’t mind if I point out that this traumatic experience may color your reasoning (“it was the Church calling sin ‘sinful’ what done us in!”) about how this disaster befell Irish Catholicism.
If you are saying that we lay faithful (and not the clergy and hierarchy) have done a poor job of informing ourselves on what the Church teaches on marriage and family and then evangelizing the culture of those truths I can agree that we only have ourselves to blame.
But the Church gives us ample resources (here, here, and here for instance).
We need earnest, active, vigorous men to step up to the plate and know, defend, and live the faith and evangelize the culture. We need those who St. Augustine knew as a bearded man.
Well, on reflection why should it have been mentioned? Homosexuals make up around 2% of the population. We have a distorted view of how wide spread homosexuality is. It probably should have been mentioned in school, but premarital sex is more a hazard to one’s soul than homosexuality.
You nailed it :-)
You’ve been exceptionally blessed by the rarefied circles in which you move.
Fellow laity, in large part. Archie Bunkers, as I called them earlier. The grumpy uncle at the family gathering… the prissy aunt… Their sentiments spread rather like playground gossip about sex does, filling the void left by lack of learned instruction.
Spreading stories like Eve Tushnet’s may be a reasonable place to start.
Speaking in general terms (not specifically about Ireland here), it’s not calling sin sinful that’s the problem, but creating the impression that certain sins are so filthy that they’re beyond redemption that is. Now you, as a non-Christian, may be happy to believe that certain sins are so filthy that they’re beyond redemption – it’s a fairly natural belief to have, actually. But for Christian doctrine, this belief is a problem:
Despair or acedia have been regarded as grave sins from the beginning of Christianity for a reason. And they’re fairly easy to fall into when you believe yourself to be beyond redemption. Hence, perhaps, the Christian insistence – Pollyanna-ish as it might strike the nonreligious – that no one is beyond redemption.
Joyce Carol Oates wrote a rather florid description of the sin of despair, “The One Unforgivable Sin”, here.
The Bible either says what is says or it doesn’t. The process of becoming saved is pretty explicit in the Bible and thus not up to theological debate.
Im going to do a follow up piece soon. Never seen such reaction piece Peter.
Ha, funny you’d say that, Midge. I know Eve Tushnet a bit and was thinking about her just this afternoon. We’ve been talking little lately as part of a conference/book project to which we both contributed. I was encouraging her to… refine her talking points a little, perhaps? But I think she’s a remarkable person in many ways, with definite potential to do good.
The multiplicity of Christian denominations may suggest otherwise.
The Orthodox theologian’s Kallistos Ware’s description of the process, “How Are We Saved?”, would doubtless offend many Protestants of a certain stripe. As would his essay “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?”
Disagreeing with his theology is one thing. Calling him un-Christian or a peddler of progressivist post-Christian claptrap would be quite another, considering that the Orthodox Church is perhaps the most theologically conservative body of believers in existence.
I’m doing no such thing as I have not heard of this man. What I am saying is that the words in the Bible are pretty much clear on salvation. Any deviation from what is precise in the Bible is false theology. It is perfectly reasonable to explore the areas that are not clear, but you cannot argue that salvation was left ambiguous, for this was one of the cornerstones of Christianity.
I’ve never gambled, so I’m not down with gambler’s lingo, but I believe the odds are substantially in my favor that you’d vehemently disagree with significant aspects of his soteriology if you acquainted yourself with it. (The essay “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?” is posted free of charge on Scribd if you’d like to take me up on the challenge.)
Since he is an Orthodox theologian, not some word-twisting post-Christian progressive, a reasonable inference from that discrepancy would be that even “pretty much clear” Biblical passages require some interpretation in order to be understood; that your understanding is an interpretation, too, and that it does not speak for all orthodox Christians.
… except that they didn’t vote for Libertarianism. If they voted for libertarianism, and gay marriage just happened to fall under that rubric, I’d accept your point as valid. But they didn’t.
I think it depends on how the government is requiring it to be addressed in the schools… This might be unique to the Irish government; I don’t really understand why they would be required to address it at all. Do our Christian schools need to teach Roe v. Wade? I agree, Jamie, that it isn’t really important – teaching the law of the land does not mean you need to endorse it, and it would be silly to pretend that controversial laws don’t exist.
Rachel, can you expand on what precisely this means for Catholic schools?
I feel like I should be clear here, I don’t think what we are going back and forth about is a salvation issue. I do not wish to sound as though I am claiming that those who call themselves Christian are not, unless they are espousing a theology that is absolutely not in line with what is in the Bible. I don’t want you to misconstrue something that isn’t there MFR.
We’re called to love our neighbors, but we’re also required to call a spade a spade when necessary. You always hear “Judge Not” from liberal Christians, but notice that they always conveniently leave out the “… and sin no more” part? Itching Ears.
Christ also tells us that after we’ve tried giving them his message, if we’re rejected to abandon them. That’s a commandment of Christ himself, not a mean ‘ole white male preacher.
That’s precisely the kind of passage… attributed to the Son of God himself… that infuriates liberals, including liberal Christians. It’s exactly the kind of passage that embarrasses the Buddy Christ crowd. It’s not like our culture hasn’t had the opportunity to hear the gospel. They have. They’re rejecting it, sometimes with utter contempt.
Time to shake the dust off, snake, and move on.
Something tells me that passages like this do more to cheese off Conservative Christians than it does the Left because for some reason Conservative Christians have bought hook, line, and sinker the idea of what you so aptly call “Buddy Christ.” I hate to break it to people, but some folks are going to Hell.