Posted on 05/27/2015 2:45:59 AM PDT by markomalley
Do you remember the joke about the Irish brewery worker who drowned in a vat of suds? Poor Sean, the new widow said upon learning her husbands fate, He didnt stand a chance. Oh, I wouldnt say that, Mrs. Reilly, replies the foreman. He did crawl out three times to use the bathroom.
The Republic of Ireland has just voted, by a commanding and unprecedented popular vote, to establish gay marriage in its territory. The world, and the Irish themselves, who generally look at themselves from the viewpoint of the foreigner in a sad kind of double consciousness, will not fail to read the message: Catholic Irelands dead and gone, its with De Valera in the grave.
The coverage of the vote holds it up as an occasion of joy, of national pride, of a new era in an old country. I am sure there are some who use these expressions sincerely. Modern westerners usually think of life in this world in therapeutic terms. Matters of what is sometimes called private morality are decided entirely in terms of the question, How will this make me feel? while matters of public morality are submitted to a utilitarian calculus the numbers of which are usually undefined or unsatisfactory, boiling down to something like, How will such-and-such a measure affect public health? These are the only questions one can ask, if one inhabits an impoverished world where goodness and truth, happiness and justice, are taken for mere subjective projections onto the wandering atoms of the universe. But this diagnosis is not my interest today, because it cannot wholly explain the queer elation in Dublin.
What I want to consider is the specific conditions in Ireland that led up to this moment. My account will be somewhat hobbled; though for a number of years I resided in Dublin regularly, I have not visited the country since 2007, and so learned of some of the more recent and traumatic events in Irish life only from the newspapers.
My days in Ireland began just after the peak of the so-called Celtic Tiger. The economy was expanding, the ribbon effect, or suburban sprawl was spreading out around Dublin and Galway, and the restaurants, bars, and hotels were staffed by immigrant workers, most of them from Eastern Europe.
My interest in Irish culture was incidental to begin with. I had fallen in love with the modern Irish poets, from Yeats to Mahon, for their formal dexterity. But I also loved God above all things, and viewed the love of country as little less sacred than the love of ones father and mother. The Irish narrative of faith and fatherland, fought and died for, resonated with me and, I thought, provided an occasion to deepen my understanding of those loves. To study Irish literature, it seemed to me then, was to study the work of authors who lived and died for the sacred.
What I found in the Ireland of 2001 provided little occasion for dwelling on any of that rubbish. In the previous decade, the hierarchy of the Irish Church had been wracked with scandal. Its prestige had come to be viewed as hypocrisy and arrogance, its power as conceit and corruption. Regular Mass attendance had dropped from nearly 90 percent a few years prior to around 60 percent, and it continued to plunge in the years of my visits. If practice of the faith was plunging then, it has plummeted since. The churches were full on Sunday, then, now they sit empty, as if Dublin were Paris or New York.
I saw few signs of genuine piety, and the demeanors of the pious seemed passive and weary. The Irish saw well that prosperity had at last come to their land; it seemed to entail a giving up of both Irish folkways and the ancestral religion, and that was a bargain they were willing to make.
The political elite in Ireland had long since come to have more in common with their counterparts in other western European nations than with the supposedly backward sensibilities of the people they ruled. They clearly saw the embarrassment of the Church as something to be capitalized on to advance the secularization of the countryits normalization, you might say, within the post-Christian mainstream. A prime minister brought his concubine to dinner with the Archbishop; it created a sensation rather than a scandal. Where Nelsons Pillar had once stoodblown up in a symbolic act of nationalism by the IRA in 1966the Irish government had erected a millennium spike. It is just as bad and stupid as it sounds. I wrote about it thus in my first book of poems, one inspired by the Belfast poet Louis MacNeice:
Where Nelsons Pisgah pillar pruned, then plumed,
Theyve propped a sterile spike up like an altar
To pious E.U. secularity.
Irish society never fully recovered from the Civil War that humiliated it in 1922-23. The internecine conflict was, as Thomas MacGreevy once wrote, a last humiliation by the British Empire, disillusioning Irish nationalism just at the moment when it had achieved something like victorya modest independence called home rule. In the subsequent decades, Irish politics was marked by a persistence of nationalist ambition to make Ireland in actuality what it has long been regarded as being: a distinctively Catholic republic that would stand outside the main tendencies of western Europe toward secularization, economic liberalization, and, later, the welfare state.
In this ambition, they succeeded. The Church enjoyed a central place in Irish public life; its charitable institutions served as a non-state agent to educate, heal, and care for the Irish people in lieu of public schools, hospitals, and other social services. The long-reigning Eamonn De Valera attempted a third-way economyone founded on agriculture and autarchy, especially in regards to its powerful neighbor. This last was not a great achievement, though it was more successful than it would have been had the ranks of Irelands lower classes not already been emigrating in a continuous flow for most of the previous century.
The persistence of these nationalist ambitions should not surprise us, given the tremendous symbolic power generated in the decades before independence. Nonetheless, it was a waning influence from the beginning. In the 1950s, the Irish economy was liberalized and increasingly opened to the European market. That was sufficient to make most Irish conclude that their country was nothing special; it should rightly assume its place as a marginal junior player in the global economy. Economic liberalization led to secularization, or might have, were it not for a string of public controversies, including votes on abortion and divorce, that reminded many Irish of their distinctive self-image as a Catholic nationmuch to the anguish of liberals, including the literati, who sought to show that the only thing distinctive about Ireland was that it was much worse than other countries.
It was the expansion of the Irish economy and the sex scandals in the Church in the 1990s that brought this long developing contempt for Irish exceptionalism to a head. It seemed to vindicate every accusation of Ireland as a backward backwater of hypocrisy. But this contempt for the past was softened by the unprecedented prosperity of the Celtic Tiger. The young were too busy earning money and spending it to have children much less to attend to the dissolution of Irelands Catholic culture.
When the global economy collapsed in 2008, Ireland was among the handful of worst-hit small countries. Emigration increased to highs not seen for decades. The time had come for reprisals. Their hopes for prosperity dashed, the Irish tilted hard left. Enda Kenny was elected Prime Minister on a European left economic platform, but it soon became clear that his power could only be enhanced by taking Irish society in a leftward direction, too. Every confrontation he staged with the Church, he won. He was called brave for taking on such a venerable but hidebound institution in the name of truth and progress; but, indeed, how much bravery could it require to fight a battle he could not lose? The disappointments of Irish society were increasingly expressed as contempt for the Church.
Year by year, government inquiries into sexual abuse within Church-run institutions, the physical abuses of those in the care of nuns and priests, and finally the supposed unearthing of mass graves of children on the properties of homes for unwed mothers. The stories themselves were increasingly distorted in the press, but nobody cared; the outrage and contempt only increased. To present oneself as a faithful Catholic in contemporary Ireland would require far more bravery than, say, to present oneself as a practitioner of sodomy.
For more than a century, the Irish had been told, had told themselves, that they were something distinctive in the history of Christendom. A Catholic nation that had persisted in the faith despite domination by a Protestant foreign power, the service of country and of God seemed almost as one. But, for just under a century, a nagging doubt had haunted such convictions. Ireland was insignificant: its dream of itself consequently stood in the way of its simply getting on as one more country on a continent that had long since lost its faith but had embraced the mundane contentment afforded by a liberalized economy, the welfare state, and a far more immanent horizon of beliefs.
Some scholars tell us that the gothic genre of story-telling grew up as a response to the Catholic Irish. A society that saw itself as enlightened, rational, secular, and modern suddenly found itself haunted by some frightful other, a ghoul, a return of the repressed: an avatar of superstitious, atavistic, arcane Catholicism. The Irish and Catholic response to such tales of Whiggery was easy: Catholicism returns not as the ravenous claw of the past reaching up from the grave to strangle the present, but as the truth, which never goes anywhere. Truth always asserts its inescapable claim on every person.
But what is one to do when that claw represents not simply the past, but also the future, the Catholic nation that Ireland was meant to become, but never quite did? What is one to do when the gothic monster is not something intruding from the depths beneath ones society, but is, if anything, the institution that seemed to represent the most distinctive virtues of that society? Kill it, of course. Kill it, and take joy in the sport.
The joy with which the gay marriage referendum is being greeted not only in the streets of urban Dublin but across the whole country must surely be a complex emotion. Insofar as the Irish are just like most of us westerners, they are celebrating a new freedom of the will to assert itself without any moral prohibition. But the therapeutic triumphed long ago, and didnt need Ireland to cement its victory.
The reason the Irishas Irishare celebrating is that they have with this referendum delivered a decisive and final blow to their venerable image as a Catholic nation. They have taken their vengeance on the Church. They must relish the unshackling; they must love the taste of blood. But, finally, they take joy in becoming what, it seems, they were always meant to become. An unexceptional country floating somewhere in the waters off a continent that has long since entered into cultural decline, demographic winter, and the petty and perpetual discontents that come free of charge to every people that lives for nothing much in particular.
There’s more to this story than Ireland. Ireland was a pawn in the movement to legitimize gay marriage in the US.
That last sentence is a work of art.
Very sad. Very sad indeed.
Agreed. Other than the reference to the location it would fit nicely describing our Nation.
While mentioning booze in passing the article gives little shrift to debauchery as a significant and substantial influence. Marxism promotes immorality by its incessant attack on the church. Much as in mother Russia criminal cabals will now begin their final assault on dear old Ireland.
There are those who would think that both are inexorably connected.
This same thing happened to Quebec 45 years ago under Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
My brother’s Irish expat in-laws say the country started hurtling down the moral crapper the day they joined the EU.
England is every bit as bad a Ireland. Homo “marriage” is legal, pro-abortion all over the country. The “conservative party” in England is pro homo “marriage” and pro baby killing. Anything goes. Ireland was just following the example set by their masters in the United Kingdom.
The Catholic hierarchy has utterly failed the entire Western world.
.
.
That may be the case, but indirectly, it came through Leftist Great Britain, due to its close proximity.
Infections aren't contained by political borders. We aren't exempt either. The Windsor decision came straight to us from factors that originated in Canada.
“What can a man - dominated by his appetites - understand of
higher things? He is coerced, by his willfulness (which is a symptom of spiritual disorder) to dismiss the higher because he is given over to
his appetites. He cannot respond to the reasoning of another
because he can no longer respond even to his own reason, having smothered it by the darkness of sin.”
This explains a lot.
This started a long time ago, when families were expected to “grant” one of their children to the church. A family might have selected an effeminate male, thinking that they’d be unlikely to produce more children or grandchildrenunknowing of the consequences to the future.
There is no mystery to this. Ireland, like most of the rest of Europe, is a secular statist society. And so is the U.S. Not much to analyze. Unfortunate, but true.
A family might have selected an effeminate male, thinking that theyd be unlikely to produce more children or grandchildren
effeminate males have long gravitated towards the clergy of all stripes, which is why for the most part the clergy was not highly thought of by other well ordered males...women, on the other hand, idealized these individuals, thus giving them station otherwise unobtainable...
it is still that way today...who runs the local parishes, men or women? Who devotes the hours and energy required to make the social club atmosphere of the modern church function, men or women? In my opinion, were it left to men to decide, going to church at all would be sporadic in quantity, and perfunctory in quality...and the old bugaboo of homosexual participation in the clergy is all the more prevalent today, and working its old black magic...
Hmmm, so embracing homesexuality is viewed as spurning catholicism. In that case is Pope Francis still catholic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.