Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

ArchBishop Martin; Secularization not all bad.

  • 27-03-2012 04:16PM
    #1
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭


    First off I would suggest that the problem with Irish society was not that it was too dominated by the Church but rather that the Church was to dominated by society. What great works of Christian art or what heroic Saints came out of Ireland between the establishment of the Free State and the 1980s? The answer to that question I believe proves my suggestion.

    "The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has said the secularisation of Irish society "is not entirely a bad thing", as very few people would want to return to a society "where the Church dominated so much of Irish culture".

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/archbishop-secularism-not-all-bad-for-ireland-188196.html

    "Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever."


    1 John 2:15-17

    Clearly the Bible teaches something a bit different to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.


Comments

  • #2
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    What exactly is the problem with what Archbishop Martin said? It seems pretty sensible to me, secularism presents new challenges and new opportunities, and those who take part in the Catholic Church or any other church or faith will now do so because they truly want to, rather than out of some sense of social obligation.


  • #3
    Cossax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    First off I would suggest that the problem with Irish society was not that it was too dominated by the Church but rather that the Church was to dominated by society. What great works of Christian art or what heroic Saints came out of Ireland between the establishment of the Free State and the 1980s? The answer to that question I believe proves my suggestion.

    "The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has said the secularisation of Irish society "is not entirely a bad thing", as very few people would want to return to a society "where the Church dominated so much of Irish culture".

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/archbishop-secularism-not-all-bad-for-ireland-188196.html

    "Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever."


    1 John 2:15-17

    Clearly the Bible teaches something a bit different to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.

    This may shock you but Jesus seemingly disagrees.


  • #4
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Cossax wrote: »
    This may shock you but Jesus seemingly disagrees.

    The Free State and later on the Republic of Ireland always had seperation of Church and State so obviously something else is being to referred to here (Freemasonry wasnt even banned!).


  • #5
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    The Free State and later on the Republic of Ireland always had seperation of Church and State so obviously something else is being to referred to here (Freemasonry wasnt even banned!).

    Artilce 44 of the 1937 constitution read

    The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

    This remained until 1972. Ironically given how un-secular it actually it, this was not enough for many conservative Catholics, including the Pope at the time, many of who wished that Catholicism was made the official State religion. It was dismissed as too liberal. That should give you and idea of how the Catholic Church viewed its role in Ireland around that time.


  • #6
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Not too often that I agree with the Archbishop - but I do on this issue. Secularisation is good for the nation and good for the churches.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Cossax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    The Free State and later on the Republic of Ireland always had seperation of Church and State so obviously something else is being to referred to here (Freemasonry wasnt even banned!).

    There may be a football team by that name but I've never heard of any country titled thus.


  • #8
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Artilce 44 of the 1937 constitution read

    The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

    This remained until 1972. Ironically given how un-secular it actually it, this was not enough for many conservative Catholics, including the Pope at the time, many of who wished that Catholicism was made the official State religion. It was dismissed as too liberal. That should give you and idea of how the Catholic Church viewed its role in Ireland around that time.

    The special position wasnt defined- it didnt grant Bishops power over the state at all. Basically it was meaningless words. It was a fob off to shut up those who wanted something along the lines of the place Roman Catholicism had in Spain under Franco. So yes there was seperation of Church and State.


  • #9
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    PDN wrote: »
    Not too often that I agree with the Archbishop - but I do on this issue. Secularisation is good for the nation and good for the churches.

    How so?

    The nation ignoring the Transcendent and focusing instead on this world is not good for those wanting to live a Christian life. That much should be obvious- no man is an island.


  • #10
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,278 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Cossax wrote: »
    There may be a football team by that name but I've never heard of any country titled thus.
    No, but I dare say you have heard of a state correctly described as such:

    "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland" - Republic of Ireland Act 1948, s. 2.

    It's useful for the state to have a unique description when it shares it's name with a geographic entity which includes territory not included in the state. The context in which HamletorHecuba was speaking seems to me an ideal one in which to employ the description of the state.


  • #11
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    PDN wrote: »
    Not too often that I agree with the Archbishop - but I do on this issue. Secularisation is good for the nation and good for the churches.

    How so?

    The nation ignoring the Transcendent and focusing instead on this world is not good for those wanting to live a Christian life. That much should be obvious- no man is an island.

    Those who wish to live a Christian life have the option of any number of churches to associate with should they so wish. It is hardly the role of the State to facilitate this beyond ensuring freedom of religion.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Those who wish to live a Christian life have the option of any number of churches to associate with should they so wish. It is hardly the role of the State to facilitate this beyond ensuring freedom of religion.

    Secularization in this context is not to do with the state per se but with life in general.


  • #13
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    The Pope constantly warns against agressive/radical secularism.


    http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2012/Jan-19/160416-pope-warns-us-against-radical-secularism.ashx#axzz1qP0IvaDY

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8006272/Pope-Benedict-XVI-warns-against-aggressive-secularism-in-Britain.html


  • #14
    marty1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 788 ✭✭✭marty1985


    Secularisation will be viewed very differently from a Catholic perspective than from a Pentecostal perspective.

    When it comes to separation of church and state it is often Catholicism that has been involved. It has been monopolistic in the past, which has given rise to a lot of anti-clericalism and counter movements.

    Pentecostalism is highly adapted to modern globalisation. It is decentralised, dislocated, apolitical, transnational, with strong appeal to marginalised people, women and highly energetic and intelligent men. It is the second largest denomination of Christianity in the world today, and thrives in so-called secular countries, perhaps because they are secular. Modernity and religion can go hand-in-hand.

    Still, even Pope Benedict has said he is in favour of Secularisation "correctly understood".


  • #15
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    How so?

    The nation ignoring the Transcendent and focusing instead on this world is not good for those wanting to live a Christian life. That much should be obvious- no man is an island.

    When the State favours a religion then you get a lot of people who pay lip service to that religion - being adherents for material rather than spiritual reasons. That in turn makes religious practice shallow and superficial.

    The Christian Church was at its purest and best when it was a minority persecuted by the pagans of the Roman Empire, not when it became the majority and started persecuting the pagans instead.

    Read the account of the death of Perpetua and Felicity and then the account of the death of Hypatia. Which describes a Church to be proud of, and which describes a Church to be ashamed of?


  • #16
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    PDN wrote: »
    When the State favours a religion then you get a lot of people who pay lip service to that religion - being adherents for material rather than spiritual reasons. That in turn makes religious practice shallow and superficial.

    The Christian Church was at its purest and best when it was a minority persecuted by the pagans of the Roman Empire, not when it became the majority and started persecuting the pagans instead.

    Secularization means more though than state supporting or confessing Religion, it means the eclipse of the Sacred in general from everyday life. For instance the Sovereign of the state in England is also head of the Church of England but who would deny that today English society is thoroughly secular and revolves around earthly as opposed to spiritual concerns? While insincerity does often go along with having a Christian society with the Church in a non-Christian society there is the problem of alien influences from the surrounding world that those who are not monastics have to function in penetrating and distorting Christianity.

    So you favour a Church which is made up of only a very dedicated elite?


  • #17
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Secularization means more though than state supporting or confessing Religion, it means the eclipse of the Sacred in general from everyday life. For instance the Sovereign of the state in England is also head of the Church of England but who would deny that today English society is thoroughly secular and revolves around earthly as opposed to spiritual concerns? While insincerity does often go along with having a Christian society with the Church in a non-Christian society there is the problem of alien influences from the surrounding world that those who are not monastics have to function in penetrating and distorting Christianity.

    So you favour a Church which is made up of only a very dedicated elite?

    I'm assuming PDN pretty much means (feel free to correct me) that he would prefer a secular state as it would make it a persons own spiritual duty to uphold the standards of the faith. So in effect would make it more meaningful rather than a state in which a certain faith is prioritised. A government should be responsible for 'material' parts of society rather than the spiritual guidance of the people that is their own responsibility. There is nothing radical or aggressive about secularism, it's merely logical progression...


  • #18
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Secularization means more though than state supporting or confessing Religion, it means the eclipse of the Sacred in general from everyday life.

    That's one definition of it. Another is that secularisation refers to where religion loses its dominant role in determining society's cultural mores. That, as far as I can see, is what the Archbishop was referring to.
    So you favour a Church which is made up of only a very dedicated elite?
    I favour a Church made up of committed individuals who have made a free and unforced choice to be Christians and are endeavouring to live as disciples of Jesus Christ. I would hardly call them an elite since such a counter-cultural Church should be close enough to Jesus as to approach the world as humble witnesses rather than demanding that the world lives by their agenda.

    Church History (a favourite subject of mine) demonstrates that the Church (any Church, btw, not limited to any particular denomination) tends to look and act like the Taliban when it gets into a position of political power or cultural dominance. That IMHO greatly damages genuine Christianity.


  • #19
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Secularization means more though than state supporting or confessing Religion, it means the eclipse of the Sacred in general from everyday life.

    To me secularism means that the state should not tell us what is sacred, and nor should any of its agencies. Secularisation is the process whereby this state is achieved. Religion will not disappear from everyday life as a result of secularisation. That has hardly happened in the secular USA. Moreover, any religion that required state support to sustain, or - worse - impose it, would be seriously lacking in moral authority and credibility.

    I'm in agreement with PDN that we should have a more secular state. Unfortunately the main organisation lobbying for this seems to be Atheist Ireland, and this could lead to secularism and atheism being conflated in the public view. I think there is room for a campaigning umbrella group in Ireland that would bring together people of all faiths and none who have a common interest in promoting secularism.


  • #20
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    Diarmud Martin is a good man, he's an example of what catholicism is really all about.


  • #21
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    PDN wrote: »
    That's one definition of it. Another is that secularisation refers to where religion loses its dominant role in determining society's cultural mores. That, as far as I can see, is what the Archbishop was referring to.

    Surely that is a part of the sacred been shut out?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    PDN wrote: »


    Church History (a favourite subject of mine) demonstrates that the Church (any Church, btw, not limited to any particular denomination) tends to look and act like the Taliban when it gets into a position of political power or cultural dominance. That IMHO greatly damages genuine Christianity.

    So you consider the entire centuries of the western High Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire and Holy Russia to be on a par with the Taliban and to have been dreadful compared to the society, state and culture we have today? That is (or at least seems) an extremely strong statement to make.


  • #23
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    newmug wrote: »
    Diarmud Martin is a good man, he's an example of what catholicism is really all about.

    "And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God."

    Mark 10:18


  • #24
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    It's funny that you say you want things to be Christian here, but which form do you mean?

    You could be referring to the 'standard' Catholicism, maybe Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Protestant and so many more choice.

    I agree with the ArchBishop and even PDN here, in that the Church (any Church for that matter) should not have a strong influence over the running of the state, or the individual control of people or the media.

    I absolutely believe in freedom of Religion, and that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but they should never be imposed on others in the country.


  • #25
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Sonics2k wrote: »

    I agree with the ArchBishop and even PDN here, in that the Church (any Church for that matter) should not have a strong influence over the running of the state, or the individual control of people or the media.

    Are you saying that Christian parents should not be allowed to raise their children as Christian by saying that the Church should not have control over the individual? The problem is if the Church is not to have a strong influence over the media and the state than other forces will, so are you advocating that Christians should surrender the public space to the forces of evil? None of us exist in a vacum.


  • #26
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    So, you basically completely failed to read the rest of my post, right?

    I suggest you try reading it again, before you post.


  • #27
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    Are you saying that Christian parents should not be allowed to raise their children as Christian by saying that the Church should not have control over the individual? The problem is if the Church is not to have a strong influence over the media and the state than other forces will, so are you advocating that Christians should surrender the public space to the forces of evil? None of us exist in a vacum.

    Firstly, I'd have an issue with the implication that non-Christians are in some way the "forces of evil" - they aren't, and have much to contribute to our society. On the broader point, of course churches can publish their own media and so on, the difference now is that we live in a marketplace of ideas and the Church must coexist with those who don't share it's beliefs. That can only be a positive thing.


  • #28
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Firstly, I'd have an issue with the implication that non-Christians are in some way the "forces of evil" - they aren't, and have much to contribute to our society.

    Im not saying they are. I wouldnt consider a Muslim (well most Muslims) or a Platonist to be part of the forces of evil.


  • #29
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    So you consider the entire centuries of the western High Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire and Holy Russia to be on a par with the Taliban and to have been dreadful compared to the society, state and culture we have today? That is (or at least seems) an extremely strong statement to make.

    It would be, if I had made that statement. :rolleyes:

    But, to those who dared to disagree with the prevailing groupthink in those times and places, there probably wasn't much difference to what happened to those who dared to disagree with the Taliban.

    I'd certainly much rather be living in Ireland today than in any of those other times and places you mention.


  • #30
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    The problem is if the Church is not to have a strong influence over the media and the state than other forces will, so are you advocating that Christians should surrender the public space to the forces of evil? None of us exist in a vacum.

    The public space and the state are not the same thing. The state should guarantee the rights of people of all religions and none to argue their case in the public space, but it should not grant any particular religion privileges to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    HamletOrHecuba wrote: »
    "And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God."

    Mark 10:18

    If you have an issue with Archbishop Martin please have the personal courage to state your case instead of this ridiculous textproofing of the bible. The passage you chose is about Jesus turning down unnecessary flattery from a rich man.
    This constant Bible pimping is a disgrace. I doubt you can even understand what is so immoral about your behaviour.

    And Archbishop Martin is a fine and good man.


  • #32
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Doc Farrell wrote: »

    And Archbishop Martin is a fine and good man.

    Humans are not good. I will leave out the Biblical evidence for that seeing as quoting the Bible seems to annoy you (personally Im very fond of Wolfsbane's habit of having a Bible quote at the end of very post).

    True humans can participate in goodness through the Grace of God, but that is God in us.

    It was making a general theological point.


  • #33
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    What a horrible outlook on life.


  • #34
    HamletOrHecuba
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 676 ✭✭✭HamletOrHecuba


    Doc Farrell wrote: »
    And Archbishop Martin is a fine and good man.

    What makes you so sure of that?

    Have you had any personal dealings with him?


  • #35
    Doc Farrell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,882 ✭✭✭Doc Farrell


    I'm delighted to say that that's none of your business. Why don't you try being positive for a week, do something positive while you can.


Advertisement