20th June 2011

“Irish writers in the early part of the 20th century… sensed that something was seriously wrong with 'traditional Irish Catholicism'. They saw it as narrow-minded, anti-intellectual and rigorist on morality. They were right.”

Father Vincent Twomey

5 Responses to “20th June 2011”

  1. RJ Says:

    AND THEY’RE still RIGHT !!!!!!

  2. archaeopteryx Says:

    Here is a section from this priest’s Wikipedia entry. “Since 1978, he has been a member of the Ratzinger circle of doctoral and post-doctoral students…”

    I don’t expect truly enlightened thought from any member of clergy of any religion, but with a pedigree of that type, one would expect him to favour “traditional Irish Catholicism”. I’m puzzled.

  3. Jeff Says:

    Given that in the early 1960’s then Father Ratzinger was a participant in the Vatican council, and was seen as a reformer (he was then a professor of Theology at U Bonn and then U Munster) it is neither surprising nor particularly unexpected that those who were gathered around him at that time would continue in that tradition within the church. His later career would suggest a change of heart in this, but that would not be reflected in the teaching and students of that prior time. It would seem that the change occurred after his elevation to Archbishop, and possibly after his selection as the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith by JP II, in effect making him JP II’s chief Inquisitor. (BTW, sourcing for all of the above is B XVI’s Wiki article).

  4. Jeff Says:

    Just a further thought – given the dates involved, it would seem possible that JP II appointed Ratzinger as chief Inquisitor in order to co-opt his voice. That particular tasking creates an almost impossible to resolve conflict for a reformer within the Curia. His appointment to Archbishop and then Cardinal took place PRIOR to his selection for the Curia, and helped cement JP II’s reputation for openness to dissent within the high ranks of the church. To then place him in the DotF post would then force him to toe the line which JP II wanted to draw. Assuming all of the above Machiavellian thought process on JP II’s part (something I of which I believe him quite capable – the man survived both Nazi and Communist occupation after all) making Ratzinger his (essentially) hand picked successor would cement the change in place and convert the reformer into a zealous defender of the faith from the throne…

    Just a bit of blue sky thinking from one who spent some of his life inside the Diocese of Cleveland as the resident Atheist and IT professional. I can assure you that at that level there is a strong tolerance of even the strongest form of opposition. I still fondly remember the Friday lunches I shared with the Bishop and his Auxiliary (always a wonderfully prepared seafood, and a fine bottle of white) arguing both the management requirements of the Diocese and an occasional question of faith. Much as I disagreed (and eventually left over such a disagreement) they were good men. Knowing that they sometimes went overboard in the defense of their institution does not change that, merely suggest that they were indeed normal men. As are both Fr. Twomey and the former Fr. Ratzinger.

  5. archaeopteryx Says:

    Thanks for that, Jeff. Very interesting.