End of an era for the "word"

Run_to_da_hills

The Catholic magazine 'The Word', which was read by over a quarter of a million people nearly 30 years ago, has literally printed its last word.

The last print run of the missionary magazine took place this week in Drogheda and with it, a chapter in Ireland's religious and social history was closed.

I was quite familiar with this magazine at school as it was a part of classroom reading material. It had some interesting articles not just on religion.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/end-of-an-era-for-religious-magazine-as-it-prints-last-word-1570557.html

robindch

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Catholic magazine 'The Word', which was read by over a quarter of a million people nearly 30 years ago, has literally printed its last word.

No doubt chased out of the marketplace by Brian McKevitt's extreme right-wing "Alive" which claims a circulation of 359,000 copies per month.

Michael G

robindch wrote: »

No doubt chased out of the marketplace by Brian McKevitt's extreme right-wing "Alive" which claims a circulation of 359,000 copies per month.

Some explanation of the term "extreme right-wing" would be helpful here. I find it a harmless and fairly bland mainstream publication that faithfully follows Church teaching on many topics — including those relating to sex and family life, on which it is considered impolite for Catholics to express themselves; or is it perhaps the last aspect that makes it "extreme right-wing"?

--amadeus--

I've only looked at the website myself but I wouldn't agree that it is either harmless or bland.

You are correct though - many (including myself) would consider the RCC to be pretty right wing as an organisation and the views of christians (in general) tend to be socially conservative rather than liberal. Talking in broad demographics social conservatism tends to be associated with economic liberalism and a lack of belief in taxation / teh welfare state. All of which (especially in the States) has led to the Theocon phenomenon. So I don't see much wrong with Robins assessment myself.

schween

I've read alive many times and had a great laugh at the stuff they print. e.g. homosexuals are evil. haha

Húrin

--amadeus-- wrote: »

You are correct though - many (including myself) would consider the RCC to be pretty right wing as an organisation and the views of christians (in general) tend to be socially conservative rather than liberal. Talking in broad demographics social conservatism tends to be associated with economic liberalism and a lack of belief in taxation / teh welfare state.

I think in this country as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon countries, economic liberalism is associated with secularism (PDs) and I find that most socially conservative religious people also favour the government protecting vulnerable people from the market economy. It's a pity that the Labour Party and other left-wing groups do so much to alienate their natural allies in the religious sphere. (I say this as a Christian who is also a left-wing political activist)

Michael G wrote: »

Some explanation of the term "extreme right-wing" would be helpful here. I find it a harmless and fairly bland mainstream publication that faithfully follows Church teaching on many topics — including those relating to sex and family life, on which it is considered impolite for Catholics to express themselves; or is it perhaps the last aspect that makes it "extreme right-wing"?

It aggressively attacks other Christians and lots of other people generally. I don't think that's suitable for a magazine with a supposedly Christian ethos.

robindch

Michael G wrote: »

Some explanation of the term "extreme right-wing" would be helpful here.

Well, I used "extreme right-wing" after backspacing over the moderately accurate "neo-fascist" which some forum regulars would probably find offensive (a german friend of mine described it as "neo-fascist" and wondered why the publishers weren't prosecuted for publishing hate literature; her words, not mine, btw).

Michael G wrote: »

I find it a harmless and fairly bland mainstream publication

From the wiki page on Fascism:

Wiki wrote:

Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology, which is primarily concerned with notions of decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth, exalting the nation or race above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity. [...] Fascism opposes international socialism, communism, conservatism, democracy, individualism, liberalism, materialism, pacifism, laissez faire, and political pluralism.

Not all of which applies to Alive, but a lot of it does. So while its fascist credentials are debatable, I think it's fair to take one step back and call it "extreme right-wing".

Michael G wrote: »

[...]faithfully follows Church teaching on many topics — including those relating to sex and family life, on which it is considered impolite for Catholics to express themselves; or is it perhaps the last aspect that makes it "extreme right-wing"?

No, no, I'm not appealing to your healthy sense of persecution at all! It's the obsessional, crayon-level prose and the hysterical, pop-eyed nuttiness of the publication that make it extremist

Run_to_da_hills

robindch wrote: »

No doubt chased out of the marketplace by Brian McKevitt's extreme right-wing "Alive" which claims a circulation of 359,000 copies per month.

I hope this magazine Alive thrives in the run up to the next referendum and you can only blame the Government.

Michael G

schween wrote: »

I've read alive many times and had a great laugh at the stuff they print. e.g. homosexuals are evil. haha

I fear I must have missed that bit. In what issue did they say that homosexuals are evil?

Michael G

Húrin wrote: »

It aggressively attacks other Christians and lots of other people generally. I don't think that's suitable for a magazine with a supposedly Christian ethos.

What do you mean by "aggressively attacks"? Do you mean "disagrees with strongly"? You say you are a Christian and a left-wing activist. As an activist, do you not disagree strongly with some people and perhaps even "agressively attack" them?

robindch

Michael G wrote: »

I fear I must have missed that bit. In what issue did they say that homosexuals are evil?

Their attitude to gay men is really quite difficult to miss. Two minutes with Adobe shows that every one of the twelves issues refers to gays or male homosexuals at least once, while some issues refer many more times than that (there was only one reference, though an incidental one, which wasn't openly contemptuous).

It would be interesting to learn why McKevvit's apparent interest in gay men borders on the obsessional.

Anyhow, if you're looking for something that'll give you a taste of the kind of openly anti-gay article that McKevvit publishes, then check out the left one-third of page six of November's issue, available from the download page at:

http://www.alive.ie/archives.php

Michael G

robindch wrote: »

Their attitude to gay men is really quite difficult to miss ... It would be interesting to learn why McKevvit's apparent interest in gay men borders on the obsessional ... Anyhow, if you're looking for something that'll give you a taste of the kind of openly anti-gay article that McKevvit publishes, then check out the left one-third of page six of November's issue

Ah for God's sake (if I may). What they are saying is not about the individuals and their sexual disposition, it is about Catholic teaching on the moral issues relating to homosexual actions and the social issues relating to the idea that homosexual relationships should be treated the same as (married) heterosexual ones. The debate is fundamental to how we view human life, the generation of life and the raising of children. You cannot plausibly accuse Fr McKevitt of an "obsessive" interest in the subject (a well-worn tactic that I remember from my university days). If Alive didn't deal with it regularly he would be negligent in his duty as the editor of a mass-circulation Catholic paper. It might end up like The Word, which, as I recall, didn't go in much for difficult subjects but preferred the Bono/Mary Robinson soft focus on things.

Húrin

Michael G wrote: »

What do you mean by "aggressively attacks"? Do you mean "disagrees with strongly"? You say you are a Christian and a left-wing activist. As an activist, do you not disagree strongly with some people and perhaps even "agressively attack" them?

No, I'm talking not about disagreement, but about personal attacks on people, and self-righteously questioning the reality of their faith, without grounds beyond disagreeing with Alive! magazine.

In my activism (mostly on climate change issues) I avoid making attacks on people.

Michael G

Húrin wrote: »

No, I'm talking ... about personal attacks on people, and self-righteously questioning the reality of their faith, without grounds beyond disagreeing with Alive! magazine.

But that makes it sound as if Alive! was just some expression of private opinion. It is not; it relates the teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

robindch

Michael G wrote: »

You cannot plausibly accuse Fr McKevitt of an "obsessive" interest in the subject

Given that he's either implied, or explicitly raised, the topic of the moral degeneracy of gay men in every one of his issues so far, whereas something far more serious -- say the Iraq War -- has yet to rate so much as a single article, "obsessional" unfortunately is the best word to use to describe McKevvit's peculiar behaviour.

Michael G wrote: »

If Alive didn't deal with it regularly he would be negligent in his duty as the editor of a mass-circulation Catholic paper.

Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality and the gospels are free of the kind of anti-gay-men nastiness that McKevvit prints. One must admire the chutzpah with which McKevvit adds so much original material to Jesus' message

Michael G wrote: »

But that makes it sound as if Alive! was just some expression of private opinion

Well, McKevitt certainly seems to think it's private opinion. Since June, he's printed the following on his front page:

McKevvit wrote:

The content of the newspaper Alive! and the views expressed in it are those of the editor and contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Irish Dominican Province.

...so say nothing of not representing the views of the Vatican.