|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 20:25:38 GMT
Well, I wouldn't go so far as servantofthechief, but I do think that a line has to be drawn with apologies and shame. I mean, should the British still be apologizing to the Irish, all the time? There's centuries of injustice to lament there, but...at some stage, I think we have to let these things go.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 7, 2017 20:51:04 GMT
I don't really agree with intergeneration blame on most issues. It would be wrong to blame a Protestant Farmer in Northern Ireland for stealing land that was stolen 400 years ago for example. But I am open mind and ready to be corrected. I would love to hear what people think?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 7, 2017 20:56:36 GMT
I think inter-generational guilt can apply in two ways; one, because of inherited benefit derived from a past wrong; two, because someone identifies with a particular heritage or position, which (in my view) gives one a vicarious participation in its wrongs and its achievements.
I can't glory in Catholic history (which I do) without also taking on whatever shames are also attached to it.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 7, 2017 21:25:01 GMT
I am largely against intergenerational guilt unless the wrong done in the past is still actively being pressured against the injured party. Otherwise we'll never see the end of guilt tripping. Perhaps, for example, the protestants in Northern Ireland were still guilty for the crimes of their forefathers by actively harming Catholic nationalists' housing and economic prospects so as to maintain political dominion. Once that was largely rectified (through many tears) I can no longer intellectually hold the grudge against them. An example of intergenerational guilt being applied without recourse to reason or even historical reality is the issue of slavery in America. Perhaps the white majority could be justly considered guilty for the crimes of their forefathers against the black population, because the Jim Crow laws and organised electoral malfeasence to intimidate black voters to stay away from the polls. But once that was rectified I utterly fail to see the need to keep dredging that issue of the past up other than as a rhetorical bludgeon to beat over the heads of the majority, >90% of whom had absolutely no slave owning ancestry whatsoever. Racism in American institutions is a problem, but it is not one to such an extent that tribalism needs to be stirred up in hatred of the 'Other' over it. This is why it'll never end until both sides of a grievance can let bygones be bygones.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Jun 15, 2017 20:31:31 GMT
I think inter-generational guilt can apply in two ways; one, because of inherited benefit derived from a past wrong; two, because someone identifies with a particular heritage or position, which (in my view) gives one a vicarious participation in its wrongs and its achievements. I can't glory in Catholic history (which I do) without also taking on whatever shames are also attached to it. Interesting this topic about collective guilt, the points stated above (quoted) were both new to me and hits as most reasonable. I agree also to the following line. On a side-note I was very disappointed once when I heard a young religious suggest in a sermon that we might all be put to blame for the countless abortions being made in our own day, and my immediate reaction then were "hey, why should everyone be to blame for what some commit, how fair or sound is that?". From a comment afterwards I understood that this was a rather odd statement to be made in a sermon. Regarding which could - or, worse, should - be to blame for this or that wrong in the past seems easily to slip into a tendency towards a never-ending spiral of blaming, why would it be so important in the first place? As follow up to the question of the Jews in particular, on the other hand there might also be all too easy to relativise their position as a special people being "victims of injustice" (albeit one among many others). Maybe there must be some balance between the relations. What about Simon Wiesenthals persecution of Nazis? What would have happened if Jews like him had not made their oppressors pay for their sins so to speak? This is a tough subject to say the least. The term Judeo-Christian can mean so much it seems, or so little...?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 15, 2017 20:39:51 GMT
Indeed. I think there's a danger of becoming too fixated on the term. It's like "British Isles" in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Jun 15, 2017 21:00:51 GMT
No harm meant anyway. I hope not to have added any confusion by posting "reservations" (or sort of) myself being too much fixated on the semantics. Simple or not, the subject you others discussed has different angles! ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 15, 2017 21:02:00 GMT
Of course not, Tomas. Your points were very good and I'm delighted to see you post here!
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 15, 2017 21:08:12 GMT
Tomas the views of the religious you mentioned above seem to be barmy to be frank. Sermons should not be used to express a priest's personal opinions particularly when they have no basis in Chuch teaching.
The notion of generational guilt was condemned by Pope Pius xii after the Second World War when he said all German people were not to blame for the Nazi atrocities.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Jun 15, 2017 22:31:16 GMT
It was only some small phrase to that effect at the end but it stuck with me. For the better I must say it was a normal sermon otherwise and not as if he made a main point of what I described or anything like that. My hope is that it was either some slip of the tongue, or else that I actually got it wrong in listening somehow.
There is a book on Pius XII and the Second World War - "according to the archives of the Vatican" - written by Jesuit historian Pierre Blet and said to be good. Would like to read more on this Pope but finding no time for it.
|
|
|
Post by seangladium on Jun 16, 2017 1:17:39 GMT
On a somewhat related thought, I have sometimes wondered if church property confiscated during the Reformation will be eventually returned especially as the Church of England continues to decline. However, I somehow suspect that due to the maintenance costs of these structures that no one will want to step up to reclaim them.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 16, 2017 9:00:42 GMT
The catholic bishops and liberal clergy would not want anglican churches most of which are the original catholic foundations. Why? They have enough buildings already and not enough priests and increasingly parishioners. Many anglican churches are legally protected structures which would be difficult to wreck in accordance with the spirit of Vatican ii. It's a dogmatic principle of modern catholic liturgy that the catholic church must be the most ugly building in any neighbourhood.
Also and sadly most catholic clergy are ignorant of our ecclesiastical medieval architectural heritige or actively hate it.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 16, 2017 9:08:40 GMT
It's a dogmatic principle of modern catholic liturgy that the catholic church must be the most ugly building in any neighbourhood. Oh...is that what they mean by "the spirit of Vatican II"?
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 16, 2017 16:52:18 GMT
As you know Maolsheachlann there are good spirits called angels and bad ones called demons. I couldn t say which category the "spirit of vatican ii" falls into. I just know she is a very big spirit!
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Aug 2, 2017 20:10:53 GMT
I read the theory today that the Saturday-Sunday weekend came about so that Jews and Christians in America could both have their holy day. That's something to be grateful for, if true! (And I did check a few more sources that repeated the claim, although the evolution of the weekend seems a bit more complicated.)
There's another thing to be grateful for in modern life, by the way-- shorter working hours.
|
|