"...In a pluralist society like our own, religious faith is felt to be divisive. To avoid conflict Christians frequently take refuge in the excuse that people should be left free to make up their own minds about what to believe. After all, they say, no one can be argued into faith. Even to raise the question of truth in religion is considered impolite.
This withdrawal from controversy, though it seems to be kind and courteous, is insidious. Religion becomes marginalized to the degree that it no longer dares to raise its voice in public. This privatization has debilitating consequences for the faith of believers themselves. If we do not consider that it is important for others to hear the Christian proclamation, we inevitably begin to question its importance for ourselves. The result is a massive loss of interest in religious teaching. The reluctance of believers to defend their faith has produced all too many fuzzyminded and listless Christians, who care very little about what is to be believed. Their halfhearted religion is far removed from that of the apostles and the martyrs. It is a degenerate offspring of authentic Christianity.
Recognizing that faith is enfeebled if its rational grounds are denied, committed Christians are today returning to apologetics..."
Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.
First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.......
{Christian also worked for secular NGOs] It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.
There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.
I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.
Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.
The Muslim context helps explain the sensitivity of gay issues in one other key respect. In the region later known as Uganda, Christianity first arrived in the 1870s, when the area was already under Muslim influence and a hunting ground for Arab slave-raiders. The king of Buganda had adopted Arab customs of pederasty, and he expected the young men of his court to submit to his demands. But a growing number of Christian courtiers and pages refused to participate, despite his threats, and an enraged king launched a persecution that resulted in hundreds of martyrdoms: On a single day, some 30 Bugandans were burned alive. Yet the area’s churches flourished, and, eventually, the British expelled the Arab slavers. That foundation story remains well-known in the region, and it intertwines Christianity with resistance to tyranny and Muslim imperialism–both symbolized by sexual deviance. Reinforcing such memories are more recent experiences with Muslim tyrants, such as Idi Amin, whose victims included the head of his country’s Anglican Church. For many Africans, then, sexual unorthodoxy has implications that are at once un-Christian, anti-national, and oppressive.
Madam, - I wonder if Prof Brian Arkins is missing the point of the Nativity stories in the Gospels? The facts he states are not in dispute. But what may be in dispute is his interpretation of the Gospels as a literary genre.
I find Morna Hooker's book Beginnings: Keys that Open the Gospelsmore enlightening than Prof Arkins's array of petits faits vrais on the point of Matthew's and Luke's opening narratives. Of course they are fictions - what else do you expect religious poetry to be? But being fiction isn't the same thing as being fraudulent, false or meaningless - or, worse still, well-meaning. Nor need fictions be without allusion to "real" places and events, though that is not their "point".
The 18th-century champions of the European Enlightenment were reluctant to go beyond the "hard facts" of history - as, curiously enough, are contemporary fundamentalists. Prof Arkins is certainly doing his bit to try to drag little Ireland, kicking and screaming, into the 18th century. But who wants to live in the 18th century? - Yours, etc,
MARTIN HENRY,
Lecturer in Dogmatic Theology,
St Patrick's College,
Maynooth, Co Kildare.
Procession of Anglican Clergy in Australia with a friend- Darth VaderChristmas Message - Bishops Buckley & Colton (Joint)
The Most Reverend John Buckley, Bishop of Cork and Ross and The Right Reverend Paul Colton, Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross
"Our celebrations of Christmas come this year in the midst of a difficult time for many people. There have been many expressions of concern about the economic outlook and commercial life in our society, including here in Cork.
We encourage everyone, as a first priority, to celebrate a simple Christmas – a Christmas which concentrates on the Christmas good news of the birth of Jesus Christ the light of the world, a light that no darkness can overcome.
As Jesus Christ himself lived among us as a sign of God’s presence and solidarity with humanity, we encourage everyone to show practical and generous solidarity with those for whom Christmas brings hardship and anxiety. These are times when we need to discover afresh the value of community life, of friendship and of support towards each other.
We wish you all every blessing of joy, peace and hope this Christmas and throughout the New Year."
Madam, - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (November 28th) seeks to clarify the interpretation of remarks he made on marriage and civil unions at a recent Maynooth press conference, which I attended.
Bishops and archbishops can all too easily go down the road of condemnation when speaking out on the issues of the day and know there will be no misunderstanding of their position. To be fair to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, he does try to take the harder road in his public utterances as advocated by Pope Benedict, which is to promote Christianity as a positive option.
It would be a shame if this approach and the merits of the Archbishop's argument were lost because of a misunderstanding of the nuanced position he was trying to articulate.
Dr Martin, while promoting the positives for society of the Christian view of marriage, was also striving to inform those who misinterpret the church's position as uncaring and unsympathetic. The Church does care about the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships. This position is largely lost in the current debate on marriage and civil unions.
To ensure clarity in future Maynooth press conferences may I suggest to the bishops that the gatherings be less of a sprint to the finish and that they stay behind to meet reporters - who make the effort to travel out to Maynooth - and clarify any queries. - Yours, etc,
GARRY O'SULLIVAN,
managing editor,
The Irish Catholic,
Bluebell,
Dublin 12.
Archbishop and civil unions
Madam, - I have received a number of calls from people who feel that my remarks, as presented in your report of November 26th, "Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions", seem to indicate that I do not accept Catholic teaching on marriage.
I was responding to a series of questions from journalists regarding a variety of aspects of the forthcoming Civil Partnership Bill. It is possible that the manner in which my different remarks appeared may have given rise to false interpretation.
While saying that I might have addressed the theme differently, I did clearly say that I was supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position on the Bill and of his comments at the recent Céifin conference.
Above all my remarks wished to stress that the Christian teaching on marriage, rather than starting out from negative criticisms, is a positive endorsement of the unique and irreplaceable contribution to society made by the family based on marriage, that is, on the mutual and exclusive love of husband and wife.
While stressing, as I have consistently done, the Christian teaching on the mutuality of the sexes as fundamental to the understanding of marriage, I am fully aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships, different to marriage.
Unfortunately, some members of the public and some public commentators seize on such comments and concern as an opportunity to say that I advocate positions in conflict with Catholic teaching. For my part, I regret if my comments may have appeared unclear. On the other hand, the contrived polemic of such commentators does little to promote marriage and its value to society.
- Yours, etc,
Archbishop DIARMUID MARTIN, Archbishop's House, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
Dublin's Diarmuid Martin is still refusing to endorse the Catholic Church's opposition to the legalisation of Civil Unions for homosexuals.
Dear Editor,
I am surprised at the comments of your columnist, Mr David Quinn, (Dec 4) on my remarks at a Press Conference at the conclusion of the Winter meeting of the Irish Episcopal Conference and in my subsequent letter to the Irish Times.
On both occasions I clearly indicated that I was [sic] "was supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position on the Bill and of his comments made at the recent Ceifin conference", yet Mr Quinn continues to insinuate that in my comments I was placing my myself at odds with those of Cardinal Brady.
I spoke of the contribution of "the family based on marriage, that is, on the mutual and exclusive love of husband and wife" as "unique and irreplaceable". I fail to understand how Mr Quinn could interpret as being "remarkably conciliatory" to any Government which would propose to accord rights belonging to marriage to civil unions.
The debate about civil unions is precisely about a situation in which the mutuality of the sexes is no longer seen as something anthropologically unique and irreplaceable, but simply a cultural construct which can be adapted and changed. That is the central issue which the Church should be addressing in her catechesis and in her witness towards society.
Yours etc.
+Diarmuid Martin
Sir - The Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, wishes to express his disappointment at the manner in which a recent newspaper interview was taken up in a subsequent article in your paper under the heading 'Missing Sunday Mass is not a mortal sin, says Archbishop'.
In the original interview with another paper, Archbishop Martin addressed the situation of people who had drifted from Church practice, but who still maintained bonds with the Church through prayer and occasional Church attendance. The Archbishop would not be drawn into answering questions about the subjective dispositions of conscience of individuals. In no place did he challenge or deny the current norms of Church teaching and discipline on Mass attendance, as some have interpreted the headline in the Irish Independent.
Indeed the Archbishop clearly recalled the centrality of active membership of the Eucharistic community and attendance at Mass each Sunday.
This matter again indicates the difficulty the Archbishop increasingly encounters in attempting to address questions of Church life, which are complex in their nature and require to be examined in a sensitive manner. The Archbishop sincerely feels a mature debate on Church life is not served when genuine attempts to address these issues in a receptive manner are responded to with superficial newspaper headlines. Archbishop Martin remains genuinely committed to fostering such a debate.
Annette O Donnell,
Director of Communications, Archdiocese of Dublin
Missing Sunday Mass is not a mortal sin, says Archbishop
By David Quinn Religious Correspondent
Wednesday February 23 2005
'NOT going to Mass every week isn't necessarily a mortal sin, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, has said.
Archbishop Martin said there are many people who don't practise "but who may be of deep faith", and that an action is only a mortal sin if a person knows what they are doing is gravely wrong. He said this would rarely be the case "with many of the people who don't go to Mass".
Dr Martin said in a newspaper interview that although Mass and the Eucharist are still central aspects of the faith for Catholics, a new model of the Irish Church was emerging which would see regular, occasional and very sporadic church attendance. He said: "There are many, many instances of people who don't practise, but who may be of deep faith."
He also said it is not necessarily a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
Dr Martin said: "I don't go judging individual people - a mortal sin is always a conscious decision on the part of somebody to do something which is seriously wrong.
"And I don't think that is the case with many of those who don't go to Mass."
Reacting to Archbishop Martin's comments, several priests stressed that although they agreed with him that Mass attendance can be over-emphasised, it was still very important to go in order to remain a part of the wider Catholic community.'
