The Case Against Condoms and The Power of the Rosary September 7, 2007
Posted by franklittle in Culture, Ireland, Irish Politics, Religion, Secularism, Sex, Society.trackback
There are unlikely to be many regular readers of the Cedar Lounge in the RDS tomorrow and in one way it is a pity as a valuable insight into an aspect of Ireland some of us have warned against wishing away will be on view.
Courtesy of emails circulating on pro-choice lists, it has come to my attention that the good folk at Human Life International (Ireland) are holding what they are calling a ‘Pro-prayer, Pro-life, Pro-family Conference’ in the RDS all day tomorrow. No doubt many a knee will be bent in the kitchen tonight asking for the Lord’s intercession in making the dangerous trip to the stronghold of the Dublin 4 Intelligentsia around Rathmines and Donnybrook, with whom they consider themselves to be waging implacable war.
Two of the most curious sounding seminars are mentioned in the title but my favourite has to be ‘Homosexuality: Helping the homosexual orientated person to be chaste’. Interesting to note that there is clearly no such thing or person as a homosexual, merely ‘normal’ people with homosexual orientation. Marvellous.
There are some other interesting ones, ‘The Catholic as a pro-life leader’, ‘Abortion: War on women’, and the slightly American sounding ‘The Hour of Power’, which interestingly is only due to go on for 45 minutes according to the schedule suggesting a concentrated kind of power. And, of course, there’s a Mass to ensure people can perform their weekly duty.
Elsewhere on Human Life International (Ireland)’s site can be found the ‘Fasting rota’ where people, 800 so far they claim, sign up to fast once a month for the pro-life cause. Human Life International’s main site has a column from the organisation’s president Fr Thomas J. Euteneur entitled Fr Tom Reports from Ireland in an article that’s interesting to see the international anti-choice movement’s view of Ireland, even if references to the ’saints and scholars’ and the ‘wee drop’ abound.
It is easy of course to take the St Michael out of this event. It is also, I am pleased to report, fun. But it would be foolish to ignore this at the same time. I posted previously about the Youth Defence roadshow rolled out over the summer, which saw public meetings in 16 different towns across the country. We still have Gerry McGeough’s Hibernia publishing in the background and again, it is easy to mock, but many left-wing organisations have failed to keep a publication going for so long. Rónán Mullen snatched a Seanad seat campaigning on a conservative Catholic ticket. And last month we had Archbishop Seán Brady’s broadside against the media “commentariat” and the liberal agenda.
Patsy McGarry, the religious correspondent of the Irish Times, had an interesting analysis piece on the speech here (sub required). Pointing to Brady’s statement that ‘rumours of our (The Church’s) death are greatly exagerrated’ McGarry believes there is a rising confidence within the Catholic Church that the ‘winter-time of the Church’ as one priest called it of the last 20 years is coming to an end and the time has come to assert confidently the place the followers of the Catholic Church believe their organisation is entitled to in Irish society.
Interesting to look at some of what Brady said:
“I believe that there are increasing signs that the secular project in Ireland has failed. It has failed to bring the happiness it promised or the answers to the really important questions of people’s lives.”
“..”the truth is that many of those who claim to have set Ireland free from the shackles of religious faith in recent years are now silent in the face of the real captivities of the ‘new’ Ireland.”
I haven’t been hearing any ’silence’ from the socially progressive left recently, but then I get different newspapers and magazines to Brady I suspect.
Top marks by the way to RTE’s Keelin Shanley who interviewed Brady about his remarks on Drivetime and tackled him on his warnings against people taking up tarot cards, astrology, crystal balls alternative religions, shakras and the like by pointing out that a belief in life after death and the immaculate conception was just as ridiculous. The shocked silence that ensued was filled in the Little household by the sound of me laughing.
Still, and I am a terrible one for exaggerating possible trends, there does seem to be growing indicators of a renewed confidence in the Catholic Church. In particular, Brady’s remarks and Mullen’s election shows that the Church is perceiving itself differently, that it believes it has spent too long on the ground being stamped on by ’secular Ireland’ and the followers of Fintan O’Toolism, that in the words of Howard Beale, “I’m mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
Don’t forget that the RC Church is a broad one. The people and groups you mention could, I think, be described as the right wing of that broad church. And there is no doubt that they haven’t gone away, you know. But there are other tendencies in there. I haven’t studied them, but the headlines over ArchBishop Diarmuid Martin’s recent comments on primary schools – that there is a need for new thinking, for new models of management – seem to me to be as close to a breath of fresh air as we are likely to get from within the RC Church. Of course the brother was a Stick. Which way did Séamus go in the split, anyone?
[...] Religion, Religious Right Dressed up as research institutes Thanks to Frank @ Cedar Lounge for letting me know that I’ll be missing Fr. John Harvey’s visit to the RDS Dublin tomorrow to speak at the [...]
Not sure Joe, I’d forgotten that completely. And I’d agree with you. There are much much less reactionary voices, some of which I’ve noted here. Indeed my experience at second hand is that it is elements of the laity, those still in thrall to pre-Vatican II thinking, who scare the hell – so to speak – of much (but not all) of the Church organisation. I wonder is that because, layer after layer of the more ordinary members have done a runner in the wake of the last decade leaving smaller but more ideologically pointed groups behind.
And it is true that the conservative wing is re-energised after recent events.
Catholicism 2.0?
Well, there’s the Liberation Theologists and Catholics for Choice.
Anyway, indeed was a scary day.. other choice seminars include
“Embracing Natural Family Planning within God’s Plan for Marriage” And the “Case Against Condoms”
Words fail me….it’s all too bloody appalling and reactionary
WBS – Not sure I get your point – what recent events have re-energised the conservative wing of the church?
Election of Mullen, renewed confidence in the promotion of the message. But what is interesting is that it is presented in much more muted language than in previous years.
I would say that the election of Pope Benedict for one has re-energized the conservative wing of the church. There were really only three front runners for the position after John Paul died. One was from Italy but too liberal, the other was from Latin America but reactionary (my money was on him) and one from Africa who was an outside shot but was a compromise between the two.
I was shocked when they chose Benedict, he was 27-1 of getting the job (I wish I had placed a bet on him now).
Since his rise to the papacy he has burnt any ecumenical bridges John Paul built, blasted liberation theology and reinstated the Latin mass. All in all a fairly active Papacy for one who was simply supposed to keep the seat warm until the legacy the John Paul had died down a little bit.
I would like to speak in defense of NFP though. I know the church is self righteous and pompous in regards to birth control, but NFP actually can be a valuable. I’m getting married so condoms seem a little ludicrous and we’re not quite ready to have kids but to have my fiance on birth control for years also seems (to me) rather unfair. So here is a natural way to prevent pregnancy until we are ready. No harm, no foul and everyone is a winner. I’m not anywhere near the line, “birth control kills babies” but the long terms effects on the female body are not positive in my opinion.
I still think that the church needs to let priests marry to really counteract the waining numbers though.
the long terms effects on the female body are not positive in my opinion
Erm, isn’t her opinion the important one here?
I would agree yourcousin, that Benedict has certainly managed to re-energise the situation. I’m not certain that his activism is necessarily as cut and dried as you present it. His actions in Turkey struck me as rather more nuanced than you suggest re relationships with other religions, as indeed did his actions this week in Austria.
Vis contraception, I’d have thought that your partners vote was the controlling one in this instance – no?
[NFP sounds great, and perhaps with enormous dedication it can work, but how many couples are going to apply that dedication, and to be honest it seems rather clinical to me]
Weds and WBS,
As has been the case since we started dating as long as some form of protection was used, the decision of what kind of contraception has been in her court. I even offered to investigate the male birth control market to see if one existed (she declined that offer). But since I’m only giving my opinion here, not dictating what my fiance does I felt I was free to throw it out there.
Yes NFP does work best with couples in long term relationships. It is rather clinical but I don’t see the harm in a woman knowing her body’s own cycle. Now again, at the end of the day it’s up to my fiance on that one, I’m not the one charting the flow a cervix.
To me NFP is simply natural birth control. Most of the women who I had long term relationships were on the pill after awhile and while they obviously appreciated the freedom it gave them in certain areas they were not always happy with the side effects. These were all antecdotal so I won’t repeat them here. The only other stuff I have is from the Church and I wouldn’t buy that let alone try to sell it.
Yes WBS, I know what I typed was extremely simplified but it was late and I was tired but piqued to answer the question of a re-energized conservative movement in the Church. Ah, but I think that might end up being a blog all of its own, not just one more comment left in the fold.
Fair enough re both. I wouldn’t slag people off for choosing NFP – although I wonder about the use of the word ‘natural’ in that context
. I understand what you mean as regards side effects, and this is an issue with some people.
Oddly enough I think it’s very interesting how Benedict has managed this early period as Pope. Clearly a retrenchment of certain aspects of the most conservative trends within RC, but still quite nuanced. One almost gets the impression that stuff is thrown out to see whether it flies and if it does well and good and if it doesn’t, hey, reel it back in again!
Most of the women who I had long term relationships were on the pill after awhile and while they obviously appreciated the freedom it gave them in certain areas they were not always happy with the side effects.
This is really an individual thing – it differs from woman to woman and even from pill to pill. The negative side effects are far from universal and some of the side effects are actually quite favourable. In fact in some cases they are the main reason a woman would be prescribed hormonal contraception.
It’s not suitable for everyone, but I think it’s been around long enough now that the long term effects are not really so obscure – and the medical consensus by and large is that is generally safe for most women.
“..”the truth is that many of those who claim to have set Ireland free from the shackles of religious faith in recent years are now silent in the face of the real captivities of the ‘new’ Ireland.”
I haven’t been hearing any ’silence’ from the socially progressive left recently, but then I get different newspapers and magazines to Brady I suspect.
Frank,
It’s my sense that many in the Church hierarchy see little difference in the liberalization of sexual mores and liberalization of the economy. Many Church leaders are fairly left wing on economic matters – much more so than most of the laity, I think. I’m not sure about Archbishop Brady (or Martin), but they were both appointed by John Paul II, who was almost a radical his views of economics were so “out there”.
“Indeed my experience at second hand is that it is elements of the laity, those still in thrall to pre-Vatican II thinking, who scare the hell – so to speak – of much (but not all) of the Church organisation.”
That would be both my understanding and my experience as well. Certainly from the last abortion referendum.
“Many Church leaders are fairly left wing on economic matters…”
I’m not sure I agree. There is a distinction between being left-wing on economic matters and arguing that ‘the poor should get a bit more’. I always got the impression that Seán Healy and the CORI Justice Commission were seen as a bit ‘out there’ to hijack your phrase by the Catholic Church in Ireland which not only would I not see as being of the left on economics, but traditionally in Irish history has been vehemently opposed to any trace of leftism.
I’d tend to agree franklittle. I don’t see the hierarchy as really that radical at all, but there are groups within it who clearly are, CORI being one, whats their names in the Jesuit crowd being another.
Over here we’ve got Bishop Pat O’Donohue who’s a decent fella, always sticking up for immigrants and assailing the government’s shoody record over asylum seekers. And Pope John Paul was apt to describing nationalism as “a sin”.
Who was it who referred to the liberation theologists (sic). Sweet. The same person who referred to Catholics for choice (sic), who aren’t Catholics at all but population-controlling fanatics who are funded by Playboy.
What’s the problem with condoms? They feel rubbish. Bare back riding is so much more erotic.
Different folks, different strokes RM.
Incidentally, what the (sic) re liberation theologists?
The correct term is liberation theologians. And they were pro-life by the way, for the information of the ignoramus who mentioned them, or tried to.
Well, while you’re correct, that’s a trifle pedantic isn’t it considering these are just posts on a blog. And I – who have more than a passing interest in liberation theology – didn’t have alarm bells going off in my mind regarding it. Incidentally, I’m intrigued as to your certainty that all liberation theologists were/are pro-life?
What’s the problem with condoms? They feel rubbish. Bare back riding is so much more erotic.
Is this the official position of the Church or just a private hypocrisy?
Really, I think I dislike the Catholic intelligentsia even more than I do the clergy.
Incidentally, I’m intrigued as to your certainty that all liberation theologists were/are pro-life?
More importantly, who cares if they are? Louise mentioned them as an example of non-reactionary Catholics. She also mentioned Catholics for a Free Choice as an example of non-reactionary Catholics. She didn’t say that liberation theologists are pro-choice.
It’s funny how often people make really stupid comprehension errors like this in the context of calling somebody else an ignoramus. Isn’t it?
Yeah, and I note that the comments take an unusually combative tone… ah well. The joys of internet pluralism – eh?
Thanks for that WBS and Wednesday.
I have met liberation theologists who are pro-choice though I can’t say what the official line is however. I have also worked with Catholics for a Free Choice over defending a woman’s right to choose.
More than welcome. My own impression would tally with yours re whatever progressive and more specifically those who agree with liberation theology within the Catholic Church that they take different lines, some being pro-choice, others not to varying degrees. In a way it reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who would be extremely conservative on such matters and is a member of the Legion of Mary. Her attitude was people (and nuns and priests) who didn’t agree with the conservative line on issues of sexuality should ship out. I hardly thought it worth pointing out that there has been no consistent line over the past two hundred years on such matters within Catholicism – let alone beyond it – so just what was the basis for her certainty?
WorldbyStorm: You said you were interested in Liberation Theology, I don’t know if this will interest you as there is a section on LH.
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=807
Michael Lowy wrote an interesting bk on Marxism and Liberation Theology.
Thanks a million for that Louisefeminista, it certainly does interest me.
Catholics for a free choice *aren’t* Catholics, or even Christians, or even, as far as I can tell, Monotheists. They are a well-funded lobby group comprising of a handful of members who represent nobody but themselves.
Moreover, CFFC’s pro population-control position, deletes them from the ranks of the progressive, indeed places them firmly in the reactionary camp.
Whatever view one takes of the liberation theologians (liberation theologists is Louise’s own peculiar construction) it is a slur on them that they are bracketed with CFFC. Liberation theology was an honest attempt and a genuinely creative one at that, at reconciling Roman Catholic doctrine with the imperatives of social justice informed by Marxism. Whether it succeeded or not is another matter – they are criticised by orthodox Marxists and Catholics for trying to square circles, for hopeless naivete. But liberation theology never departed from the essential tenets of catholic Christianity, nor did it attempt to.
Louise may have met liberation theologists (whatever they may be) who are pro-abortion but not liberation theologians. But Louise doesn’t know anything about Catholicism anyway, or even much about the history of the pro-choice movement she is part of.
As to the erotic delights of bareback riding, I’m not sure that the RCC in its infinite wisdom comments on such things. ‘Twas my own personal observation. And if I may say, a married woman frankly acknowledging the sensual pleasures of the unsheathed phallus does not seem like much of a hyprocrisy to me at least, though you may be of a different opinion.
liberation theologists is Louise’s own peculiar construction
It took me all of two seconds to disprove this via Google. Unless you’re suggesting Louise wrote all 861 articles in which the term appears.
CFFC’s pro population-control position, deletes them from the ranks of the progressive, indeed places them firmly in the reactionary camp.
I don’t know anything about this particular group of pro-choice Catholics (they are hardly the only pro-choice Catholics). On what basis are you stating that they are pro-population control? Or is that just another one of the ad hominem attacks you seem unable to construct an argument without?
Red Maria, you are entirely entitled and indeed welcome to express your opinion here and anywhere else, but perhaps a tad less antagonistically? That said, I still wonder at your absolute certainty that Liberation Theology eschewed any deviation from tenets of RCC (particularly since some of those tenets are of – ahem – historically recent implementation). Certainly that’s not the line emanating from the Vatican on it… they don’t seem as sure as you are of the compatibility of the two.