John Updike has died, and the Indo printed a short article about him yesterday. The article mostly just gave basic information about his life and work, but contained one rather odd passage:
"Updike was a controversial figure, labelled a misogynist, racist and an apologist for the establishment during a tempestuous career. But his searing wit ensured that his writing, [sic] remained enduringly popular."
Misogynist, racist and an apologist for the establishment? Was Updike ever really accused of this? I purposely did not consult Wikipedia to find out before writing this post, because I wanted to ask the question from the point of view of an educated layman, and see what answer I came up with. I do not remember ever hearing anyone call Updike a racist or a misogynist. Not my father, on whose shelf I first saw his books. Not Mrs G, a very politically-correct, Irish Times-reading teacher who once gave us a passage of Updike's to study in class. Not the Marxist Terry Eagleton, who devotes a good deal of his Introduction to Literary Theory to analysing the first two sentences of Couples. Not Ian McEwan, who was discussing Updike with Jeremy Paxman on TV the other night. If Updike was accused of racism and misogyny, none of these people seem to have cared.
I myself have read two of Updike's novels, both fairly recent. Neither contained anything remotely racist or misogynistic as far as I could see. Indeed, one of them was told entirely from the perspective of a woman, no mean feat for a male writer. They were "pro-establishment" only insofar as they were about white people in small towns and suburbs. (The most objectionable thing about them, as far as I was concerned, was the embarrassing amount of space they devoted to sex. Page upon page of unbelievably tedious descriptions that might have provoked a few giggles from adolescents, but in the end would probably have had even them yawning with boredom. It was as if Updike was defiantly telling the world "I may be old, but I can still write dirty with the best of you!")
So where did the Irish Independent get this extraordinary claim? I suspect that once upon a time, hidden away in the bowels of some university English department, some ageing feminist lecturer with too much time on her hands wrote an article claiming that Updike's work supported patriarchal discourse by its focus on heterosexual relationships, or manifested a subconscious post-colonial fear of the Other by dealing mainly with white people, or some other such nonsense. That obscure tract is now the justification for the claim that Updike was "labelled" a racist/misogynist/reactionary. I may be quite wrong, but I suspect that's how the "controversy" came about.
But what disturbs me is the alacrity with which the newspaper seized upon this silly accusation, triumphantly calling Updike a "controversial" writer. I know, I know, newspapers have to sell copies, and they do so by means of attention-grabbing headlines. But it seems to me that if you truly believe racism and misogyny to be bad things, you will be careful not to ascribe them to people without good reason. You will not bandy the words about carelessly, for to do so is to rob them of their meaning, or at any rate their shock value. Eventually, like the villagers in the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people will just roll their eyes and sigh "Here we go again!" each time another accusation of racism/misogyny in high places is levelled. That cannot, in the long run, be good for the fight against racism and misogyny.
RIP anyhow.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
What I like about the Irish Independent ...
... is that although it's a broadsheet, it's not too priggish to give us headlines like this.
Dismissing that sort of headline as "populism" does not get rid of the problem.
Dismissing that sort of headline as "populism" does not get rid of the problem.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Deo Gratias
So the excommunications against the four SSPX bishops have been lifted. What wonderful news, and what a wonderful answer to prayer. It should be a reminder that we can never aim our sights too high in prayer. It's one thing to pray that Gran gets over her illness soon or that Patrick does okay in his exam next week. But I always felt an inner reservation when praying "And let the Pope lift the excommunications and let there be unity between the SSPX and the rest of the Church." It seemed like such a presumptuously big thing to be praying for. But now we've seen that prayer, the prayer of so many traditional Catholics, answered.
Of course, this is only the first step towards total "unity between the SSPX and the rest of the Church". Fr. Z sets out how things stand, and how much ground is yet to be covered, here. But it's an amazing step, one that seemed unimaginable for so long.
Bishop Fellay's press release can be found here.
And of course, as you can imagine, the media greeted the news with typical lack of objectivity. They were not slow to pick up on Bishop Williamson's comments on the Holocaust (that is, his claim that the evidence points to a mere 200 - 300 000 Jews killed, and not six million). Indeed, the very media savvy Damien Thompson is convinced that the leaking of the Swedish interview with the Bishop was deliberately timed to coincide with the lifting of the excommunications, thus allowing the gleeful anti-Church press to print headlines like "Dismay as Pope welcomes back Holocaust Bishop Richard Williamson."
The problem is that the average layman doesn't know the esoteric history of Catholic traditionalism and doesn't know that neither the excommunications, nor the lifting of them, had anything to do with the Bishop's historical opinions. They may well assume that he was declared excommunicated because he denied the Holocaust, and that the Pope has just decided that that's not such a serious matter after all. The media certainly aren't doing anything to enlighten them. Reading articles like this one from the London Times, one is struck by the mixture of outright error ("there are an estimated 500 levebvrist bishops and 600, 000 followers worldwide") and a total lack of context. There is almost no information about the SSPX in general, about the anguish and persecution suffered by traditional Catholics since Vatican II. There is no sense given that this was an earnest attempt by the Pope to reconcile Catholics to full communion with the Church; Bishop Williamson and his controversial views dominate the article entirely. Remarkable, too, is the implication that the lifting of excommunications should be dictated by policy considerations. If this or that special interest group is going to be offended at the lifting of an excommunication, then don't lift it - that's very much the tone of Richard Owen's article.
We should leave the media to their own stupidity and hope and pray for the talks between the SSPX and Rome which lie ahead - especially that both sides will enter into them in a spirit of humility and earnest desire for unity.
Of course, this is only the first step towards total "unity between the SSPX and the rest of the Church". Fr. Z sets out how things stand, and how much ground is yet to be covered, here. But it's an amazing step, one that seemed unimaginable for so long.
Bishop Fellay's press release can be found here.
And of course, as you can imagine, the media greeted the news with typical lack of objectivity. They were not slow to pick up on Bishop Williamson's comments on the Holocaust (that is, his claim that the evidence points to a mere 200 - 300 000 Jews killed, and not six million). Indeed, the very media savvy Damien Thompson is convinced that the leaking of the Swedish interview with the Bishop was deliberately timed to coincide with the lifting of the excommunications, thus allowing the gleeful anti-Church press to print headlines like "Dismay as Pope welcomes back Holocaust Bishop Richard Williamson."
The problem is that the average layman doesn't know the esoteric history of Catholic traditionalism and doesn't know that neither the excommunications, nor the lifting of them, had anything to do with the Bishop's historical opinions. They may well assume that he was declared excommunicated because he denied the Holocaust, and that the Pope has just decided that that's not such a serious matter after all. The media certainly aren't doing anything to enlighten them. Reading articles like this one from the London Times, one is struck by the mixture of outright error ("there are an estimated 500 levebvrist bishops and 600, 000 followers worldwide") and a total lack of context. There is almost no information about the SSPX in general, about the anguish and persecution suffered by traditional Catholics since Vatican II. There is no sense given that this was an earnest attempt by the Pope to reconcile Catholics to full communion with the Church; Bishop Williamson and his controversial views dominate the article entirely. Remarkable, too, is the implication that the lifting of excommunications should be dictated by policy considerations. If this or that special interest group is going to be offended at the lifting of an excommunication, then don't lift it - that's very much the tone of Richard Owen's article.
We should leave the media to their own stupidity and hope and pray for the talks between the SSPX and Rome which lie ahead - especially that both sides will enter into them in a spirit of humility and earnest desire for unity.
Friday, January 23, 2009
What exactly do YD have to do with all this?
The liberal élite are evidently determined that the horrific revelations from Roscommon must claim as many victims as possible. Not only must the Constitution be changed, as we heard yesterday, but those who have campaigned for the rights of the family in Ireland for decades must be smeared as well.
This article in today's Irish Times devotes a lot of space to the excellent Mina Bean Uí Chroibín as well as Youth Defence and Cóir - before admitting, so casually you'd barely notice it, that
"nothing was said in court this week to link any of these groups to the woman at the centre of the case."
The childcare manager contacted by Bean Uí Chroibín is also quoted as saying that there is "no evidence" she was involved with the woman's application.
Nothing? No evidence? Then why, for heaven's sake, devote an entire article to trying to smear these people? It's done incredibly subtly. One section begins with the words "Youth defence also provided the girl's father with a legal team ..." and if you were just skimming the article, you might think that Youth Defence were involved in the Roscommon woman's application. Only if you were reading carefully would you see that the case referred to here is the unrelated "C" Case. The context makes it look as if the Roscommon woman is involved.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time that Carol Coulter, one of the article's co-authors, has made out the facts of a case to be very different from what they really were, confining the truth to a single sentence buried away in the middle of an article.
But since the only "dirt" they manage to find on Bean Uí Chroibín is that she has helped run a post office for years, has campaigned tirelessly for the Irish language, is devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, has helped numerous families in north Co. Dublin and is one of the city's Unsung Heroes, I'd call it a pretty poor smear job.
This article in today's Irish Times devotes a lot of space to the excellent Mina Bean Uí Chroibín as well as Youth Defence and Cóir - before admitting, so casually you'd barely notice it, that
"nothing was said in court this week to link any of these groups to the woman at the centre of the case."
The childcare manager contacted by Bean Uí Chroibín is also quoted as saying that there is "no evidence" she was involved with the woman's application.
Nothing? No evidence? Then why, for heaven's sake, devote an entire article to trying to smear these people? It's done incredibly subtly. One section begins with the words "Youth defence also provided the girl's father with a legal team ..." and if you were just skimming the article, you might think that Youth Defence were involved in the Roscommon woman's application. Only if you were reading carefully would you see that the case referred to here is the unrelated "C" Case. The context makes it look as if the Roscommon woman is involved.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time that Carol Coulter, one of the article's co-authors, has made out the facts of a case to be very different from what they really were, confining the truth to a single sentence buried away in the middle of an article.
But since the only "dirt" they manage to find on Bean Uí Chroibín is that she has helped run a post office for years, has campaigned tirelessly for the Irish language, is devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, has helped numerous families in north Co. Dublin and is one of the city's Unsung Heroes, I'd call it a pretty poor smear job.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Is all this media fuss completely disinterested?
It is obviously intolerable that an unfortunate woman in Co. Roscommon kept her four children in filthy, inhuman conditions for several years while physically and sexually abusing them. It is shocking that no-one intervened. But at a time of global recession, a new US President, genocide in Gaza and a burgeoning energy crisis in Europe, does it really merit five articles in today's Irish Independent, including an editorial? Have some of our liberal élite seen this as a vindication of their view of how the state is really better at looking after children than parents are?
Take, for example, this piece by Dearbhail MacDonald in the Indo. She goes into the harrowing facts of the case in some detail, but she does not confine herself to them. At the end of the article, she notes crossly that
"[t]he Constitution places enormous barriers in the way of health boards removing children from dangerous situations in their family home. The now-shelved children's rights referendum sought to allow the State to intervene earlier when children are suffering abuse at the hands of their parents and care-givers."
Ah. The Children's Rights Referendum. Knew that was coming somewhere.
Mind you, the High Court did declare, in the case of G v. An Bord Uchtála in 1981, that children have a natural right under the Constitution to have their welfare safeguarded. I do not think the Constitution needs to be mutilated to make it any easier for the state to drag children away from their parents, and the Christian Solidarity Party would oppose such a move.
But not all my peers agree. This evening I overheard some of my fellow Law students on the matter. "They say she was financed by a right-wing Catholic organisation, I think that makes the whole thing really sinister," said one. Another told of a friend, a lawyer, who had said "They'd never have been able to send social workers in because of all that ****ing rights of the family stuff, so they should have gone straight down the Criminal route." [i.e. Criminal Law]
"All that ****ing rights of the family stuff". Indeed.
Take, for example, this piece by Dearbhail MacDonald in the Indo. She goes into the harrowing facts of the case in some detail, but she does not confine herself to them. At the end of the article, she notes crossly that
"[t]he Constitution places enormous barriers in the way of health boards removing children from dangerous situations in their family home. The now-shelved children's rights referendum sought to allow the State to intervene earlier when children are suffering abuse at the hands of their parents and care-givers."
Ah. The Children's Rights Referendum. Knew that was coming somewhere.
Mind you, the High Court did declare, in the case of G v. An Bord Uchtála in 1981, that children have a natural right under the Constitution to have their welfare safeguarded. I do not think the Constitution needs to be mutilated to make it any easier for the state to drag children away from their parents, and the Christian Solidarity Party would oppose such a move.
But not all my peers agree. This evening I overheard some of my fellow Law students on the matter. "They say she was financed by a right-wing Catholic organisation, I think that makes the whole thing really sinister," said one. Another told of a friend, a lawyer, who had said "They'd never have been able to send social workers in because of all that ****ing rights of the family stuff, so they should have gone straight down the Criminal route." [i.e. Criminal Law]
"All that ****ing rights of the family stuff". Indeed.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dubious anglicisms
In between Law books I'm currently reading a book given to me by a Polish friend in Germany at the weekend. It's called Viva Polonia and is by Steffen Moeller, a German comedian living in Poland. When I heard the words "German comedian" I had a sinking feeling, but the book is actually very witty and also very informative. Moeller is actually a Kabarettist, which I suppose implies a more sophisticated form of humour than our "comedian."
In one chapter, he was discusssing the endless back-and-forth in airports and trains that ex-pats have to put up with, and which is the price they pay for living in a time when people can fly more often than they could in the past. He used a word I hadn't seen before: Betweener. What did that mean? It looked Dutch or Low German. I guessed it must be pronounced bet-VAY-ner. I looked it up in the big Collins, the best German-English dictionary in my opinion, but couldn't find it. (The nearest thing was betuetert, a new word for me; "tipsy, dazed.")
So I shrugged and read on. Then the word came up again, this time in a chapter about the Berlin to Warsaw railway line. Then it hit me: it's a fake anglicism. It's a word the Germans have borrowed from English and twisted for their own use, innocently thinking it to be a sophisticated English word, not realising that English-speakers don't actually use it. They use it to mean long distance commuter, an ex-pat on the move between two countries. I looked the word up in a few English dictionaries in the library, but it was not to be found in any of them.
Another anglicism the Germans use like this is Wellness. They use it to mean the whole sauna-reiki-massage therapy circuit. You see the word all over the place in Germany; on posters, in holiday brochures and in magazines. But do we use it in English like this? I checked the OED. There, wellness simply means "The state of being well or in good health." First recorded use is by one Sir A. Johnston in 1654: "I ... blessed God ... for my daughter's wealnesse." He could have been referring to a sauna voucher she'd just won in a raffle, but I doubt it somehow.
But the most amazing example of a fake anglicism I ever heard was when a Spaniard said something about "thubbing" with a remote control. Apparently, it means flashing from channel to channel with the remote.
"You mean thumbing?" I asked, holding up my thumb.
"No, thubbing."
I said I'd never heard of it.
"In Spain we think it's an English expression."
Anyone have any ideas how they came to think that?
In one chapter, he was discusssing the endless back-and-forth in airports and trains that ex-pats have to put up with, and which is the price they pay for living in a time when people can fly more often than they could in the past. He used a word I hadn't seen before: Betweener. What did that mean? It looked Dutch or Low German. I guessed it must be pronounced bet-VAY-ner. I looked it up in the big Collins, the best German-English dictionary in my opinion, but couldn't find it. (The nearest thing was betuetert, a new word for me; "tipsy, dazed.")
So I shrugged and read on. Then the word came up again, this time in a chapter about the Berlin to Warsaw railway line. Then it hit me: it's a fake anglicism. It's a word the Germans have borrowed from English and twisted for their own use, innocently thinking it to be a sophisticated English word, not realising that English-speakers don't actually use it. They use it to mean long distance commuter, an ex-pat on the move between two countries. I looked the word up in a few English dictionaries in the library, but it was not to be found in any of them.
Another anglicism the Germans use like this is Wellness. They use it to mean the whole sauna-reiki-massage therapy circuit. You see the word all over the place in Germany; on posters, in holiday brochures and in magazines. But do we use it in English like this? I checked the OED. There, wellness simply means "The state of being well or in good health." First recorded use is by one Sir A. Johnston in 1654: "I ... blessed God ... for my daughter's wealnesse." He could have been referring to a sauna voucher she'd just won in a raffle, but I doubt it somehow.
But the most amazing example of a fake anglicism I ever heard was when a Spaniard said something about "thubbing" with a remote control. Apparently, it means flashing from channel to channel with the remote.
"You mean thumbing?" I asked, holding up my thumb.
"No, thubbing."
I said I'd never heard of it.
"In Spain we think it's an English expression."
Anyone have any ideas how they came to think that?
Monday, January 19, 2009
The exile returns
I'm back from Germany, where I spent a very pleasant weekend with some good friends in Erfurt and in Frankfurt. The weather was bracingly cold, the food and drink were excellent (and cheap!), and the people as courteous and helpful as ever. Some other brief impressions:
Late on Friday night I went into a bar in Erfurt and ordered a beer. The barmaid brought it and asked me if I needed an Aschenbecher. An ashtray? In a bar? Oh yes. All around me people were smoking. I declined the offer, and sipped my beer thoughtfully as I watched the drinking, chattering smokers. The smell was not at all unpleasant. Everyone was in a good mood. No one had to go outside into the freezing cold if he wanted a smoke. I'm a tolerant non-smoker and I've always thought the smoking ban here in Ireland was a silly idea concocted by over-zealous self-appointed guardians of public health. An enjoyable beer in this perfectly cosy pub made me even more certain of that.
When I left my hotel in Erfurt early on Saturday morning, there was ice everywhere. The few people on the street were inching their way along gingerly, many of them slipping. I slipped and fell twice on the short walk to my friends' place. But en route I saw the council vans chugging along scattering gravel to make the ground less slippery. It wasn't yet 9:00 on a Saturday. That's what you call German efficiency.
There was a regional election in Hessen yesterday. Posters were all over Frankfurt. The Commmunists had issue-related slogans on theirs ("One school for all!" "Abolish the Casino!" [do they mean the banks?] The Christian Democtats and the Liberals, by contrast, had vague platitudes on their posters ("A sure bet!"). The Christian Democrats and Liberals won.
Traditional High Mass yesterday in Frankfurt. The most formal ceremony I've ever seen. Everything was done at half the normal speed, and with more bowing, hand-kissing and incense than I ever dreamed was allowed! I got sprayed no less than three times during the Asperges. This being Germany, there was also plenty of hymn-singing, although not during the Introit, as is often done there. The Mass is held in St Leonard's church at 6pm. It's in a central spot, near Frankfurt Cathedral, and well worth a visit if you're ever in the city.
Late on Friday night I went into a bar in Erfurt and ordered a beer. The barmaid brought it and asked me if I needed an Aschenbecher. An ashtray? In a bar? Oh yes. All around me people were smoking. I declined the offer, and sipped my beer thoughtfully as I watched the drinking, chattering smokers. The smell was not at all unpleasant. Everyone was in a good mood. No one had to go outside into the freezing cold if he wanted a smoke. I'm a tolerant non-smoker and I've always thought the smoking ban here in Ireland was a silly idea concocted by over-zealous self-appointed guardians of public health. An enjoyable beer in this perfectly cosy pub made me even more certain of that.
When I left my hotel in Erfurt early on Saturday morning, there was ice everywhere. The few people on the street were inching their way along gingerly, many of them slipping. I slipped and fell twice on the short walk to my friends' place. But en route I saw the council vans chugging along scattering gravel to make the ground less slippery. It wasn't yet 9:00 on a Saturday. That's what you call German efficiency.
There was a regional election in Hessen yesterday. Posters were all over Frankfurt. The Commmunists had issue-related slogans on theirs ("One school for all!" "Abolish the Casino!" [do they mean the banks?] The Christian Democtats and the Liberals, by contrast, had vague platitudes on their posters ("A sure bet!"). The Christian Democrats and Liberals won.
Traditional High Mass yesterday in Frankfurt. The most formal ceremony I've ever seen. Everything was done at half the normal speed, and with more bowing, hand-kissing and incense than I ever dreamed was allowed! I got sprayed no less than three times during the Asperges. This being Germany, there was also plenty of hymn-singing, although not during the Introit, as is often done there. The Mass is held in St Leonard's church at 6pm. It's in a central spot, near Frankfurt Cathedral, and well worth a visit if you're ever in the city.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
De Rossa shows how he values the opinions of dissenters (including his own countrymen)
When I watch videos like this I can understand the vehemence of a woman I once canvassed on a doorstep who hissed "That de Rossa's a horrible man - horrible!" The really amazing thing is that, as Daniel Hannan points out on his blog, the Czech Foreign Minister is actually pro-Lisbon. Yes, Mr Topolánek had just made a moderate speech which was guardedly in favour of the Treaty, but respected the decision of those who disagree with it. But for the Eurocrats, anything less than wholehearted endorsement of the European project is treachery.
(This might be a good point at which to remind readers that the Christian Solidarity Party totally opposes a re-run of the Lisbon referendum. We believe that the people have spoken and that the plan should be shelved.)
At one point the former Communist informs the Czech minister that unless he "parks" his "conservative" views, he's "going to be in constant conflict with this parliament." Just in case you thought the EU had no specific agendas ...
Tarot Update (last time I'm mentioning this subject, I promise)
I was in the aforementioned bookshop today, and although the wretched Tarot sets were still there, they were marked €6:99. I could have sworn they were €9:99 a few days ago. Plus, the pile still looks untouched. Evidently they're not being snapped up very eagerly. Deo Gratias!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Foolhardy reader dares contradict Party Soldier
My good friend Valentina takes issue with my disapproval of Tarot sets being sold in bookshops. She writes:
"God has given us free will so that anybody should do whatever they want with their lives. "Seeing" and predicting the future should not be seen as a sin. It's just a way to see "on the other side of today" as one of my teachers said one day."
Now, I do believe from my own experience that some people do have the ability to see into the future. I've seen too many uncanny instances of predictions coming true to doubt that. One girl I knew in Germany was told by a fortune teller that her husband's name would begin with the letter Y; she was baffled as she didn't know any men's names beginning with that letter. Then she moved to Germany to study and met a Turkish student, whose name began with - guess what letter?
I don't think, moreover, that people who have this ability are sinning every time they have a presentiment or make a prediction. They can hardly help it. But seeking out such people and regularly consulting them is another matter, and I think it is this that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is talking about when it says:
"All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practises falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to consult hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." (CCC 2116)
This may seem a bit heavy-handed (who hasn't glanced at his horoscope in the paper at least once or twice?) but we can safely say that not all of these astrological practises are equally grave; "recourse to Satan or demons" is presumably a lot more serious than having someone read the tea leaves at the bottom of your cup. Nonetheless, they are sobering words. The Catechism seems to have two main problems with them: that they deflect our devotion away from God, and that they feed a desire for power over the natural order and over others.
What's interesting (and what caused my anger when I saw these neatly packadged Tarot sets in a bookshop) is that recourse to these things comes out of a hunger. A hunger for power, but also a hunger for an object of "honour, respect and loving fear". Why is that hunger there? Why isn't it being fed with better food? Once upon a time, the Christian faith supplied that food. People believed in God and had a strong sense of the supernatural. People still have a strong sense of the supernatural, but that sense is no longer being nurtured by the Church. Most Catholic priests today are embarrassed by the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith, and play them down as much as possible. You know what I'm talking about: the parish priest who refuses to preach about the Incarnation at Christmas or the bodily Resurrection at Easter, and for whom the miracle of the loaves and fishes is really just "a story showing how important it is to share." The liberal Catholic who thinks the faith looks down on women, but who dismisses the Rosary and the veneration of Our Lady as reactionary. It should be noted that Valentina's own branch of Christendom, the Romanian Orthodox church, hasn't gone quite so far down that heretical slippery slope - yet - so she might be unaware of the bitter irony of Irish people turning to Tarot when their churches can offer them nothing but simpering commentaries of the nine o'clock news. But people do yearn for the supernatural and the mysterious, even as priests continue to turn away from these things. This is shown even by the success of attacks on the Christian Faith; the Da Vinci Code reaches far more people than the cold, rationalist pronouncements of Richard Dawkins.
That is what annoyed me in that bookshop yesterday. You want true religion? You won't hear it from many Catholic pulpits, and you'll even have a hard time finding it in the religion section of this bookshop. But the occult? No problem! We have it here, a complete set of Tarot cards, neatly packaged and with an explanatory book and DVD, price €9.99. No confused young person should be without one.
What a depressing state of affairs. But it doesn't have to be that way.
"God has given us free will so that anybody should do whatever they want with their lives. "Seeing" and predicting the future should not be seen as a sin. It's just a way to see "on the other side of today" as one of my teachers said one day."
Now, I do believe from my own experience that some people do have the ability to see into the future. I've seen too many uncanny instances of predictions coming true to doubt that. One girl I knew in Germany was told by a fortune teller that her husband's name would begin with the letter Y; she was baffled as she didn't know any men's names beginning with that letter. Then she moved to Germany to study and met a Turkish student, whose name began with - guess what letter?
I don't think, moreover, that people who have this ability are sinning every time they have a presentiment or make a prediction. They can hardly help it. But seeking out such people and regularly consulting them is another matter, and I think it is this that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is talking about when it says:
"All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practises falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to consult hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." (CCC 2116)
This may seem a bit heavy-handed (who hasn't glanced at his horoscope in the paper at least once or twice?) but we can safely say that not all of these astrological practises are equally grave; "recourse to Satan or demons" is presumably a lot more serious than having someone read the tea leaves at the bottom of your cup. Nonetheless, they are sobering words. The Catechism seems to have two main problems with them: that they deflect our devotion away from God, and that they feed a desire for power over the natural order and over others.
What's interesting (and what caused my anger when I saw these neatly packadged Tarot sets in a bookshop) is that recourse to these things comes out of a hunger. A hunger for power, but also a hunger for an object of "honour, respect and loving fear". Why is that hunger there? Why isn't it being fed with better food? Once upon a time, the Christian faith supplied that food. People believed in God and had a strong sense of the supernatural. People still have a strong sense of the supernatural, but that sense is no longer being nurtured by the Church. Most Catholic priests today are embarrassed by the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith, and play them down as much as possible. You know what I'm talking about: the parish priest who refuses to preach about the Incarnation at Christmas or the bodily Resurrection at Easter, and for whom the miracle of the loaves and fishes is really just "a story showing how important it is to share." The liberal Catholic who thinks the faith looks down on women, but who dismisses the Rosary and the veneration of Our Lady as reactionary. It should be noted that Valentina's own branch of Christendom, the Romanian Orthodox church, hasn't gone quite so far down that heretical slippery slope - yet - so she might be unaware of the bitter irony of Irish people turning to Tarot when their churches can offer them nothing but simpering commentaries of the nine o'clock news. But people do yearn for the supernatural and the mysterious, even as priests continue to turn away from these things. This is shown even by the success of attacks on the Christian Faith; the Da Vinci Code reaches far more people than the cold, rationalist pronouncements of Richard Dawkins.
That is what annoyed me in that bookshop yesterday. You want true religion? You won't hear it from many Catholic pulpits, and you'll even have a hard time finding it in the religion section of this bookshop. But the occult? No problem! We have it here, a complete set of Tarot cards, neatly packaged and with an explanatory book and DVD, price €9.99. No confused young person should be without one.
What a depressing state of affairs. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Monday, January 12, 2009
If you've got €10 to spare ...
... You might like to pick up one of the Tarot kits on offer at Easons. Price €9.99. For that you get a set of Tarot cards, a book explaining how to use them and an hour-long explanatory DVD. I saw a stack of them there today. For the benefit of foreign readers, this is one of the major Dublin bookshops we're talking about.
A phrase beginning with the words "A man who stops believing in God ..." springs to mind.
The only remotely positive thing about this stomach-churning sight was that the stack of Tarot kits looked relatively untouched; not too many people seem to have been willing to splash out on one, even for such a low price.
My goodness, I thought, is there no hope for western civilisation? I went downstairs and browsed in the religion section (now rebranded "Spirituality"), but that did not improve my mood. That section contained outright attacks on Christianity (the Hitchens-Dawkins oeuvre), sensationalist accounts of the Secret Marriage of Our Lord and Mary Magdalene and the Sinister Vatican Plot To Cover It All Up, and various thought-for-the-day-type tomes by ageing 1960's relics like Fr Brian Darcy - but scarcely a single orthodox work. There were spiritual classics, of course, like the writings of St Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine, but there were hardly any books by a modern conservative writer. C.S. Lewis was about the only one - and he died in 1963! Is it any wonder that people, deprived of spiritual nourishment from the Christian churches, are turning to things like Tarot?
I thought of writing a cross letter to the manager of Easons; maybe I will yet. But I think the best way to react to things like Tarot kits with the pitying contempt they deserve.
A phrase beginning with the words "A man who stops believing in God ..." springs to mind.
The only remotely positive thing about this stomach-churning sight was that the stack of Tarot kits looked relatively untouched; not too many people seem to have been willing to splash out on one, even for such a low price.
My goodness, I thought, is there no hope for western civilisation? I went downstairs and browsed in the religion section (now rebranded "Spirituality"), but that did not improve my mood. That section contained outright attacks on Christianity (the Hitchens-Dawkins oeuvre), sensationalist accounts of the Secret Marriage of Our Lord and Mary Magdalene and the Sinister Vatican Plot To Cover It All Up, and various thought-for-the-day-type tomes by ageing 1960's relics like Fr Brian Darcy - but scarcely a single orthodox work. There were spiritual classics, of course, like the writings of St Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine, but there were hardly any books by a modern conservative writer. C.S. Lewis was about the only one - and he died in 1963! Is it any wonder that people, deprived of spiritual nourishment from the Christian churches, are turning to things like Tarot?
I thought of writing a cross letter to the manager of Easons; maybe I will yet. But I think the best way to react to things like Tarot kits with the pitying contempt they deserve.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A doctor's words
"We are wading in death, blood and amputees. Many children. A pregnant woman. I have never experienced anything so terrible. Now we hear tanks. Pass it on, send it around, shout it out. Anything. Do something! Do more! We are living in a history book now, all of us."
This is a text message sent by Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor working in Gaza, to friends back home yesterday. Courtesy of the Irish Independent. He asks people to send the grim news around, so I am.
Oh by the way, today the Israelis were kind enough to stop bombarding Gaza for three hours in order to give Médecins Sans Frontières the chance to go in and tend some of the wounded. The media are citing this act of extraordinary generosity as a hopeful sign that Israel is open to peace talks. I'm not so sure. I think yesterday's post was over-optimistic.
This is a text message sent by Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor working in Gaza, to friends back home yesterday. Courtesy of the Irish Independent. He asks people to send the grim news around, so I am.
Oh by the way, today the Israelis were kind enough to stop bombarding Gaza for three hours in order to give Médecins Sans Frontières the chance to go in and tend some of the wounded. The media are citing this act of extraordinary generosity as a hopeful sign that Israel is open to peace talks. I'm not so sure. I think yesterday's post was over-optimistic.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Silver linings
Well, just when we seemed to be plunged into a bleaker January than usual - unemployment still rising, TD's claiming Independents' allowence despite no longer being Independents, Israel murdering civilians in Gaza, Bush refusing to condemn Israel's murder of civilians in Gaza, Waterford Crystal tottering on the edge of collapse - in the midst of all that, two faint glimmers of hope.
First, the news that the US has called for an immediate Israeli ceasefire. Only 720 or so Palestinians had to die before the Bush administration figured out that, on the whole, the random murder of besieged civilians was not, really, a very good thing. They certainly took their time. But the news is certainly welcome. Let's hope to God they're serious about it and that Israel let supplies in.
Then something even more unexpected: the news that Cardinal Archibishop Vingt-Trois of Paris has celebrated Mass in the extraordinary form - for the second time in two months. Remarkable, given that His Eminence was not seen as being friendly towards the old rite, and the liberalism of the French episcopacy generally. Who could have imagined this ten years ago? Bishop Fellay said that if Catholics were free to choose between the traditional rite and the new rite, they would eventually all choose the traditional; the new rite would simply "wither away." He said this by way of predicting that the French bishops would oppose making the old rite available tooth and nail. Well, it seems, Deo gratias, that they are not so hostile to the traditional rite as many of us imagined.
How wonderful it is to watch history in the making like this. The return of Tradition is well and truly afoot!
First, the news that the US has called for an immediate Israeli ceasefire. Only 720 or so Palestinians had to die before the Bush administration figured out that, on the whole, the random murder of besieged civilians was not, really, a very good thing. They certainly took their time. But the news is certainly welcome. Let's hope to God they're serious about it and that Israel let supplies in.
Then something even more unexpected: the news that Cardinal Archibishop Vingt-Trois of Paris has celebrated Mass in the extraordinary form - for the second time in two months. Remarkable, given that His Eminence was not seen as being friendly towards the old rite, and the liberalism of the French episcopacy generally. Who could have imagined this ten years ago? Bishop Fellay said that if Catholics were free to choose between the traditional rite and the new rite, they would eventually all choose the traditional; the new rite would simply "wither away." He said this by way of predicting that the French bishops would oppose making the old rite available tooth and nail. Well, it seems, Deo gratias, that they are not so hostile to the traditional rite as many of us imagined.
How wonderful it is to watch history in the making like this. The return of Tradition is well and truly afoot!
Friday, January 2, 2009
RIP Tony Gregory
Although we would not have seen eye to eye on many issues, Tony Gregory was a great politician. Anyone I ever spoke to who had any dealings with him had nothing but praise for the man. He was a firm patriot and a champion of his consituents.
Tributes have already been pouring in. Interestingly, while msn includes the tributes of Sinn Féin's Christy Burke and Gerry Adams in its article on Gregory's passing, the Irish Times article does not see fit to quote any member of Sinn Féin - despite the fact that Gregory was a staunch republican and knew Cllr Burke intimately. What a detestable snobbish rag it is.
Tributes have already been pouring in. Interestingly, while msn includes the tributes of Sinn Féin's Christy Burke and Gerry Adams in its article on Gregory's passing, the Irish Times article does not see fit to quote any member of Sinn Féin - despite the fact that Gregory was a staunch republican and knew Cllr Burke intimately. What a detestable snobbish rag it is.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
New Year thoughts
I was in party headquarters the other week, looking over bits and pieces. There are fascinating reminders of the Christian Solidarity Party's history lying around there. Old copies of the glossy newsletters with colour photographs that the party sent out in 1996 and 1997. Piled up copies of the manifesto, in both English and Irish and bearing Dr. Casey's picture, that were brought out at about the same time. The text of the National Secretary's address at the 1997 Ard Fheis, in which he states that the party has been going from strength to strength, that newspapers and radio stations are always looking for opinions and interviews, that the Irish political landscape has been shaken by the CSP's rise. "They know we mean business" he told the assembled members, that day in 1997.
How far away that all seems now. Today, most people in Ireland hardly know what the CSP is. The phone in the office stays eerily silent. Even one of its senior members described the party as "largely moribund" in a newspaper article in September. No one gives us the ghost of a chance at election time.
Nevertheless, Party Soldier is optimistic, and that's not just because of the no longer quite full bottle of Montepulciano sitting at his elbow. There is no doubt that the majority of Irish people are fed up with European bureaucracy, of the soft treatment of criminals, of the dictatorship of political correctness, the increasing threat to Irish neutrality, and of the erosion of the traditional family. And it is equally obvious that the mainstream parties can offer them no relief from these things, so thoroughly have they sold out to the liberal agenda. The two parties in the Dáil commonly called "conservative" are not remotely conservative. The Labour party does not even pretend to have different policies from either of them. The only party in the Dáil that is genuinely, idealistically patriotic, Sinn Féin, is dominated on family issues by a liberal, feminist agenda that must alienate most Irish voters. There is a yawning gap on the Irish political spectrum that is crying out to be filled. We need a conservative, patriotic and social party. The Christian Solidarity is that party. It only needs people in order to succeed.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". It's been many years since I first heard those words by Franklin Roosevelt, and I always considered them a bit vague and woolly. (In the "Change you can believe in" league of wooliness, in fact.) But I realised recently that that's exactly what we in the CSP have most to fear: fear itself. Fear that people won't take us seriously. Fear that the might of Fianna Fáil can't be shaken. Fear that we'd be wasting our time. Fear that people will take our leaflets, crumple them up, drop them in the mud and vote for the other parties. This is an irrational fear, because we know that the people are on our side on so many things. We only have to reach them.
Yes, my friends, if we pull together 2009 will go down in history as the year of the breakthrough, the year the CSP burst on to the Irish political stage and got candidates elected. We will get Paul O'Loughlin elected to Dublin City Council in May. We will get pro-life, patriotic candidates elected to the European Parliament in that same month. Ireland will sit up and take notice. I sit here, sipping my wine and looking into the fire in the hearth, and I see things burning there. Not coal. Tired old liberal Ireland. Copies of the Irish Times, EU directives, the Lisbon Treaty, Fianna Fáil brochures. It's all going up! Join me, join us and help bring about the Christian Solidarity Party's breakthrough in 2009!
Happy New Year!
How far away that all seems now. Today, most people in Ireland hardly know what the CSP is. The phone in the office stays eerily silent. Even one of its senior members described the party as "largely moribund" in a newspaper article in September. No one gives us the ghost of a chance at election time.
Nevertheless, Party Soldier is optimistic, and that's not just because of the no longer quite full bottle of Montepulciano sitting at his elbow. There is no doubt that the majority of Irish people are fed up with European bureaucracy, of the soft treatment of criminals, of the dictatorship of political correctness, the increasing threat to Irish neutrality, and of the erosion of the traditional family. And it is equally obvious that the mainstream parties can offer them no relief from these things, so thoroughly have they sold out to the liberal agenda. The two parties in the Dáil commonly called "conservative" are not remotely conservative. The Labour party does not even pretend to have different policies from either of them. The only party in the Dáil that is genuinely, idealistically patriotic, Sinn Féin, is dominated on family issues by a liberal, feminist agenda that must alienate most Irish voters. There is a yawning gap on the Irish political spectrum that is crying out to be filled. We need a conservative, patriotic and social party. The Christian Solidarity is that party. It only needs people in order to succeed.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". It's been many years since I first heard those words by Franklin Roosevelt, and I always considered them a bit vague and woolly. (In the "Change you can believe in" league of wooliness, in fact.) But I realised recently that that's exactly what we in the CSP have most to fear: fear itself. Fear that people won't take us seriously. Fear that the might of Fianna Fáil can't be shaken. Fear that we'd be wasting our time. Fear that people will take our leaflets, crumple them up, drop them in the mud and vote for the other parties. This is an irrational fear, because we know that the people are on our side on so many things. We only have to reach them.
Yes, my friends, if we pull together 2009 will go down in history as the year of the breakthrough, the year the CSP burst on to the Irish political stage and got candidates elected. We will get Paul O'Loughlin elected to Dublin City Council in May. We will get pro-life, patriotic candidates elected to the European Parliament in that same month. Ireland will sit up and take notice. I sit here, sipping my wine and looking into the fire in the hearth, and I see things burning there. Not coal. Tired old liberal Ireland. Copies of the Irish Times, EU directives, the Lisbon Treaty, Fianna Fáil brochures. It's all going up! Join me, join us and help bring about the Christian Solidarity Party's breakthrough in 2009!
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
