National Blasphemy Day

This is the best I can offer as a contribution to Brother Bock's (bless his new layout) National Blasphemy Day, Thursday, 14th May 2009. It only goes a very short way towards expressing my feelings on the matter.










You can check out the clubhouse here

Health Warning: Blasphemy can damage your chances of achieving eternal life. The above matter is posted in a positive spirit and in the the interest of the spiritual health of the nation. It should not be taken as intended to offend any of those who oppose free speech, however misguided they may be.

The last Word

Despite my own and Fr. Seán's criticism of his theology, Fr. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD, Editor in Chief, has captured the essence of the WORD magazine in his valedictory summing up of this very worthy publication. According to Fr Twomey, the Word was the largest selling magazine of any kind in the early 70s:

“It was a time when Ireland was a different place. The magazine wasn’t just religious, it was of general interest. At that time there were no glossy magazines or papers. People didn’t travel. The Word provided glimpses of mysterious cities like Prague, Vilnius and Riga and this was a breath of fresh air."

The sad announcement of its demise appeared on the magazine's website in early December last.

When I was growing up this was the best magazine in the world. It's production standards were outstanding in its day and have held up very well since. The content was first class with contributions from many of the world's top writers and photographs from the world's top photographers.

This was no mere religious magazine. It was a first class magazine in its own right despite coming out of a religious stable.

The final edition, or the last WORD, so to speak, is currently on sale (at €1.50!) and will hopefully become a collector's item in time (and, no, I haven't bought them all up, yet!). It is packed with a selection of some of the best items from years past and gives a very good idea of the broad range and quality of the content of the magazine.

On the literary front there is an interview with Brian Friel (1970), articles by Mícheál MacLiammóir (1970), Graham Greene (1974), and Paddy Kavanagh (1962). Bro. Hurley has a piece (1991) on "Famous Last Words", where he observes that "dying words tend to live on. But their standard seems to be declining, maybe because more people now die in hospitals - and outside visiting hours". There are pieces on: social and cultural affairs, at home and abroad; archeology; moral issues (euthanasia); lifestyle (Cardinal Suenens on the need to relax!); medical matters (NAPRO or Billings 2); biography (Thomas à Beckett & Agatha Christie); and, the next life (Fr Twomey on Purgatory - he attempts to extricate himself from the literal fire but does little to solve the temporal aspects and the role of prayer and indulgences).


Fr Twomey has a long editorial in the final issue. He is now going to write for the magazine Inside the Vatican. That magazine claims, inter alia, to introduce you to "movers and shakers of ecclesiastical policy". A flavour of the writing in the magazine can be got from the owner/editor in chief's review (PDF) of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ.

Best, perhaps, to finish with parting thoughts from Bro. Paul Hurley, SVD, who founded the modern version of the magazine in 1952 and edited it for 40 years.

"Yes, there’s a time for everything. Now it’s time to thank all our readers and, especially, our most generous and loyal promoters, our contributors and all those who helped us in various ways. And, sadly, it’s also time to say goodbye."

Amen.

All things new

In my post of 15 July 2007, I underlined the "no surrender" theme underlying the Roman Catholic view of ecumenism. I have seen no reason to change my mind since. This ecumenism has concentrated on unification within the Christian churches.

We thought we had dealt with the Jews. The coming and crucifixion of Christ had rendered them theologically superfluous. Judaism prepared the way. Christ came and took over the helm. Christians are now the chosen people. At least that is how I understood what I was taught in school.

Imagine my surprise to hear on the radio the other day that attempts are now being made to reconcile the theologies of Judaism and Christianity which involve Christians accepting that the Jews have an ongoing and valid covenant with God.

This was the subject of a lecture by John McDade, SJ, in town on last Thursday night. Fr. McDade is a Glaswegian, with Irish roots, and he is currently principal of Heythrop College which is the Specialist Philosophy and Theology College of the University of London.

The gist of his thesis is that Judaism and Christianity are interdependent and have their own distinct missions in this world. Christianity did not supercede God's covenant with Israel but rather fulfilled it. Both faiths are siblings in the family of Israel. Judaism is a non proselytising religion. Christianity is a proselytising one and can therefore widen the scope of the family of Israel.

In this light, Paul’s remarkable statement in Romans gains in significance: ‘Christ became a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy’ (Rom 15.8).

This thinking was further developed by Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II.

I must confess that these are new and challenging ideas and their subtlety is totally beyond me.

One of Fr. McDade's remarks did resonnate with me. In asking why we are embarking on this reconciliation at this time he ventured to wonder if Christianity was now being marginalised by the world in the same way as Christianity itself had marginalised the Jews over two millennia. Circling the wagons is a concept I understand more readily.

I also wonder, if this theology of complementarity has been brewing since the time of St. Paul, how I was served up such a lethal, exclusive and triumphalist cocktail in school? Perhaps I should not even think the question and, rather, adopt a stance of constructive amnesia.

If you wish to pursue these thoughts further, you might like to read Fr. McDade's article on which he based his lecture.

Insights in the form of comments would be most welcome.

To Every Cow Her Calf ...

It has taken me six months to cool down sufficiently to do this post. And I almost lost it again when I saw the remarks of Bishop Dermot Clifford of Cashel and Emly in last Monday's Irish Times (18/8/08).

The gist of the story is that certain Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland have been systematically denying people direct access to parish records of baptisms and marriages despite these records being included in the microfilm collection in the National Library of Ireland.

To be fair, most Bishops have given direct access to their original records, both through the National Library and in parish offices. This allows direct consultation of the records even where they have not been filmed. Most parish offices are very cooperative in this regard.

There are, however, three bishops listed as limiting access to the filmed originals in the National Library and Clifford was the most obdurate of these. To get access it was necessary to get clearance from the relevant palace. Clifford's palace informed callers that the bishop never gave permission for direct access and that it was always necessary to approach them through the diocesan heritage office.

This office operates on computerised versions of the originals and charges a whack for what is in effect pushing a button.

I do not object to people providing a service and charging for it. It is a very useful facility for those who are not in a position to consult the originals or who are happy to have the records pre-sorted for them. My objection is to the bishop denying parallel access to the original records. As every researcher knows, there are always transcription errors in populating databases. So there is no substitute for consulting the original. Also new lines of search can suggest themselves from details spotted on the originals (eg sponsors, locations, name variations etc.).

Clifford has put forward a grandiose justification of his stance on the diocesan/heritage site.

We are told that these records are not public records and that the information in them has been entrusted to the church by the subjects concerned.

Am I hallucinating when I seem to recall clergy reading people off the altar for inadequate contributions to various collections.

No question of confidentiality here when the financial implications were in the opposite direction.

And these same people would already have been charged a whack by the church for access to the sacraments, the records of which are now yielding a further flow of income in perpetuity. I'm not sure whether this would best be described as a cash cow or a golden goose. A golden calf more likely.

I am also old enough to remember the original introduction of "planned giving" in the Dublin diocese when the church attempted to have its cake and eat it by "pawning" church furniture, from the high altar to the cruets, to top up its coffers.

It is interesting that the bishop has quoted the judgement of Diarmaid against St. Colmcille in the case of the copying of the bible. Some of St. Colmcille's arguments are extremely relevant today and in reading up the case I was struck by the extent of the uisce faoi thalamh involved. Nothing, it appears, is as it seems.


The National Library has now opened access to these filmed originals in the face of objections from the bishops concerned. It has taken a stand which is in the interest of the people of Ireland and against the mean money grubbing stance of a small minority of the RC hierarchy.

These registers are clearly quasi-public records. This emerges quite clearly if they are set in the context of their day and of the dominant position of the church over its flock.

Indeed, the roles of church and state were so entwined that the church insisted that its marriage ceremony served also as a civil one and the parish simply notified the state that the marriage had taken place. No only that, but the reading or posting of the banns in church was accepted by the state authorities in place of the usual notices in the national press required in the case of purely "registry office" marriages.

And as far as letters of freedom were concerned, these simply proved you had not already been married in a church and that a church wedding could take place. However, I'll bet many of these ceremonies were notified as civil marriages without regard to whether any civil ceremony had already taken place.

Until fairly recently, church marriage certificates were accepted as evidence of civil married status by the authorities (eg for state or occupational pension schemes).

Some priests carried this symbiosis to the point of "near-perjury". I know of a case (in 1950) where a couple got married in a Protestant church. The vicar duly notified the civil authorities and the marriage was registered by the state. Six months later, and probably due to ecclesiastical and/or family pressure, the couple married again, this time in a Catholic church. The priest duly notified the state which recorded the new marriage. In the second case, the bride and groom are described as spinster and bachelor respectively, which, respectfully, they were not, at least in the eyes of the state.

So this church (sorry, a few members of its hierarchy, in this particular case) is claiming to be a private institution, and this in relation to periods when they were anything but. (We can save the discussion on education and property and salaries for another day, or go check out Bock below.)

While I'm at it, the originals of some of the parish registers around the country are so badly kept that, had they been acknowledged as public records, those who kept them should have stood trial for malicious damage to public property. Some of the ledger pages look like the parish priest had regularly eaten his lunch off them.

I don't know the content of the legal advice that has given the National Library the confidence to do what they have done. All I can say is I hope they hold their nerve and, if the church wants to go to court, may they get the judgement of Colmcille over that of the pagan MacDe.

I was going to title this post "God Bless the National Library", and would have meant it, but I couldn't resist the temptation of the insult I eventually settled on.

If you still have steam coming out your ears you might enjoy some further ruminations at Brother Bock's Asylum for Refugees from the Pulpit.


Addendum

I really can't decide whether to laugh, or cry, or just keep banging my head off the nearest stone wall.

It has been drawn to my attention that the Bishops' latest excuse for whatever restrictions they are putting on access to parish records is to avoid the posthumous conversion of the dead to Mormonism.

The Vatican has apparently put the Bishops on notice that their deceased flock are not to be hijacked in this manner and the only way to avoid this is to make sure that parish records (from whatever era) do no fall into the hands of these evil evangelising Mormons.

What a load of theological crap and self serving rubbish.

My initial reaction to this Bishop's defence (as my chess friends might describe it) was that any bishop that believed this heretical rubbish should be immediately sacked by the Vatican. Imagine my horror to find that it was actually the Vatican itself that was circulating this nonsense.

If the Roman Catholic Church believes, which it appears to, that the Mormons can posthumously hijack its flock in this way, it should just fold up its tent and go home. This is ceding theological supremacy to the Mormons, in whose church there should not, strictly speaking, be even salvation.

How low will the RC church stoop to protect its income stream?

That we could bring back Jesus Christ himself and eject these traders from the Temple.

This article in the Irish Times of 28/8/08 sets out the background. I agree wholeheartedly with every word written by its author, as you will have gathered by this stage.

Pwy sy'n TYCWR?

Follow your conscience, sort of !

I really shouldn't read the Irish Times. Not even when the article is written by that nice Patsy McGarry.

He was close to giving me apoplexy today by drawing my attention to an article in the current (January 2007) issue of the Word magazine on the theme "what is meant by an informed conscience?".

I used to know what a pre-Vatican II "informed conscience" was - very much so. It was a wonderful concept which allowed the Roman Catholic Church to defend itself against the taunt of Protestants that it imposed its views on its flock willy nilly. "Not so", the Church would reply, "every Catholic is not only allowed but is obliged to follow his conscience."

"So", you might ask, "why are we not all Protestants, then?" Indeed, when I heard this line for the first time myself, that is precisely what I wondered.

Ah, but there is a catch, there had to be. And it lies in the definition of conscience for the Catholic. He is obliged to follow his informed conscience. "And what is an informed conscience?", I hear you ask. Well it is a conscience that is informed by the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic is obliged to inform himself of the teaching of the Church, and not only that, but to accept it as a matter of obedience/discipline/faith, or whatever you're having yourself. So there is never any dilemma here. Pity the poor Protestants in their anguish. Martin Luther and Henry VIII sold them a bum product, designed to raise their adrenalin and cholesterol levels and all to no good purpose.

Anyway when Vatican II came along (40 odd years ago) it seemed to me that the pre-Conciliar Catholic position had eased up. You were only obliged to gen up on the Catholic position, in good faith, and then act on the basis of your newly informed conscience, so to speak. Mind you, there were still a lot of unresolved issues here for the Church's authority but the position seemed to be veering towards the human.

John XXIII was a nice man but he mistimed his exit to the other world very badly and left a half formed new theology for the traditional vultures to unpick, a gobful at a time.

And now we're back whence we came.

Fr. Twomey, in his Word article, gives a virtuoso exposition of the traditional informed conscience. The current formulation is neatly summarised in the axiom that to be a Catholic is to accept that the Church cannot teach what is wrong in itself.

Bottom line.

That's the sort of stuff that got it into trouble in the first place and has kept it skewered on the hook of Humanae Vitae for decades.

In the beginning was the Word, and it used to be a most readable and lookable at magazine produced to the highest aesthetic and production standards.

Maybe in keeping with this new-old theology it should now carry Divine Ads, such as for budding exorcists, which the Pope wants to recruit by the bucketful, to give the Devil a taste of his own pointed tail.

I joketh not. Check it out.

As they say in the cinema, I think this is where I came in.

Ut omnes unum sint

Is it the Antichrist at work sowing the seeds of confusion or are people just plain stupid?

Perhaps I should spell it out?

The Roman Catholic Church has always been in favour of ecumenism, healing the wounds of Christianity, call it what you will, but subject to very specific conditions which add up to unconditional surrender on the part of the non Roman churches:

• the Vatican has recently spelled out that, while elements of the one true church may subsist in other churches — who really should not have the cheek to call themselves such, them being only second class congregations of half believers — there is only one true apostolic church, which is the Roman Catholic Church.
  
  
• Reunification will therefore have to include:
  
  
  
  • acceptance of the Pope, successor to Peter, as the head of the Church with ultimate power to define dogma and pronounce infallibly, when this is considered appropriate
    
    
  • belief in the real presence, or to give it its proper scientific name, transubstantiation. This one gets harder to pin down as we enter the world of subatomic particles and wave propagation, but a suitable affirmation of faith in the matter, so to speak, may suffice here. After all, it's the thought that counts.
    
    
  • acceptance of the presence in heaven, with full plenipotentiary powers of mediation, of all those canonised as saints by the Popes, and including those so elevated by popular acclamation in the old days when people knew no better. (George and Patrick please note. Philomena, go away.)
    
    
  • acceptance of the bodily assumption into heaven of Mary the mother of Jesus, and her status there as the mediatrix of all graces. The physics of all this can be referred to a committee of experts who can sit on it in perpetuity.
    
    
  • acceptance of the infinite benefits which flow from the Mass, which is why regular attendance is advised/mandated. The philosophical rationalisation of this apparent contradiction could also be referred to the above committee.
    
    
  • acceptance of the property of remission which goes with indulgences. While precise quantification of these is no longer required, the mathematics of matching up the time-limited concepts involved with the infinite attributes of the divine world could also be referred to the above committee.
    
    
  • acceptance of the homeopathic properties of holy water, ie one drop contaminates all infinitely. The guy who succeeds in applying this process to beer will become the only saint by popular acclamation in modern times. (Blessed Bock seems to be already half way there.)
    
  
  
• there will be no à la carte menu here. You take the full shilling and drink all of the soup.
  
  
• outside the church there will be little, if any, salvation. Non members in possession of skills in short supply can make the usual application for entry visas.
  
  
• PX: Admission of Allah, Jehovah and any other deities outside the Blessed Trinity, will be subject to all of the above conditions.
  

If you think the above is intellectually taxing, try summing this up in one phrase, and forget the stamped addressed envelope.

Sicut erat in principio ...

Divine Intervention

This is the sort of stuff I like to see:



Seen briefly on another blog.

More bridges to build

Hi Folks,

Benny is back in town and raring to go.

Stay tuned.