'The Best Catholics in The World'

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Catholics-World-special-relationship/dp/1844884414/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8


Excellent, well balanced book on the abuse scandals on Ireland, its effects on the relationship with the RC Church, and the history of that relationship

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Catholics-World-special-relationship/dp/1844884414/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8


Excellent, well balanced book on the abuse scandals on Ireland, its effects on the relationship with the RC Church, and the history of that relationship

Thanks for your opinion on this book NS.

But I'm struggling to see how this can be the prelude to a thread discussion unless others have read it (I haven't and I suspect most others here won't have either) or you summarise the conclusions from the book.

Unless you are the author, using a pseudonym, and are just looking to drive up sales

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for your opinion on this book NS.

But I'm struggling to see how this can be the prelude to a thread discussion unless others have read it (I haven't and I suspect most others here won't have either) or you summarise the conclusions from the book.

Unless you are the author, using a pseudonym, and are just looking to drive up sales

Here's a review of it, that chimes with me.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-best-catholics-in-the-world-by-derek-scally-review-john-banville-on-the-fall-of-the-church-in-ireland-vnsxjhg5f

[jeremyp]

Thanks for your opinion on this book NS.

But I'm struggling to see how this can be the prelude to a thread discussion unless others have read it (I haven't and I suspect most others here won't have either) or you summarise the conclusions from the book.

Unless you are the author, using a pseudonym, and are just looking to drive up sales

He could be just making a recommendation.

I probably won't read it but I will note that the claim "a well balanced book" is information free since you can only know it's well balanced if you have a good appreciation of all the arguments and facts and you are not applying any confirmation bias.

As an extreme example, if a book on the conflict between evolution and creationism attracted a review that said it was "well balanced", your opinion of the book might change if you discovered the reviewer was Ken Ham.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here's a review of it, that chimes with me.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-best-catholics-in-the-world-by-derek-scally-review-john-banville-on-the-fall-of-the-church-in-ireland-vnsxjhg5f

Thanks - that's helpful.

Actually before I'd had a chance to read the review I was thinking about the history of the Republic of Ireland and how, with hindsight, they made a terrible, terrible error when they gained independence. Specifically to shift from one form of oppression, an external one, to one perhaps even more insidious, as it was internal. So rather than evolve into a broadly modern mid 20thC democracy, they tipped themselves into a theocracy. Effectively seeing that the response to an external power that persecuted and discriminated against the Irish people (because they were catholic) was to hand power to an equally oppressive organisation - perhaps the only positive being they were 'our' bastards, rather than 'their' bastards.

But actually it isn't uncommon for oppressed peoples to boot out one oppressor and welcome another with open arms only to realise with horror their mistake when it is too late - so the Irish aren't unique in this.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks - that's helpful.

Actually before I'd had a chance to read the review I was thinking about the history of the Republic of Ireland and how, with hindsight, they made a terrible, terrible error when they gained independence. Specifically to shift from one form of oppression, an external one, to one perhaps even more insidious, as it was internal. So rather than evolve into a broadly modern mid 20thC democracy, they tipped themselves into a theocracy. Effectively seeing that the response to an external power that persecuted and discriminated against the Irish people (because they were catholic) was to hand power to an equally oppressive organisation - perhaps the only positive being they were 'our' bastards, rather than 'their' bastards.

But actually it isn't uncommon for oppressed peoples to boot out one oppressor and welcome another with open arms only to realise with horror their mistake when it is too late - so the Irish aren't unique in this.

I think that illustrates why you might benefit from reading the book. It's simplistic to see it as a theocracy in that sense.

[Nearly Sane]

He could be just making a recommendation.

I probably won't read it but I will note that the claim "a well balanced book" is information free since you can only know it's well balanced if you have a good appreciation of all the arguments and facts and you are not applying any confirmation bias.

As an extreme example, if a book on the conflict between evolution and creationism attracted a review that said it was "well balanced", your opinion of the book might change if you discovered the reviewer was Ken Ham.

It's a subjective comment from me, that doesn't make it information free. Indeed given the amount about what I think that you have read  from me, it makes it densely packed with information.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that illustrates why you might benefit from reading the book.

I might, but realistically I'm unlikely to have the time to devote to it.

It's simplistic to see it as a theocracy in that sense.

Actually I wasn't sure whether to use that term. Ireland wasn't a theocracy in the traditional sense - rather it was democracy that constitutionally allowed and supported/condoned the wielding of huge amounts of power (soft and hard) by the catholic church to the extent that the church's power and authority was such that it became de facto above the law.

[Nearly Sane]

I might, but realistically I'm unlikely to have the time to devote to it.
Actually I wasn't sure whether to use that term. Ireland wasn't a theocracy in the traditional sense - rather it was democracy that constitutionally allowed and supported/condoned the wielding of huge amounts of power (soft and hard) by the catholic church to the extent that the church's power and authority was such that it became de facto above the law.

Yep, I would agree with that. I would suggest though that if you get the chance , it's a book worth reading.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep, I would agree with that. I would suggest though that if you get the chance , it's a book worth reading.

I think they also had a real opportunity to have done things differently.

The original 1922 Free State constitution was broadly secular and enshrined freedom of religion in the form of prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion. This would seem very reasonable by modern standards. It is the 1937 DeValera constitution that is so problematic - with religion writ large. And I think he got it tragically wrong in trying to pander to two conflicting issues - being seen to be suitably 'catholic' to satisfy the conservative catholic likely majority (conservative catholic note, not catholic), but also not to frighten the protestant minority which would have happened had catholicism become a state religion.
 
And the constitution did this by first and foremost indicating primacy of catholicism but then (presumably to protect the protestant minority) effectively delegating control on religious matters outside the control of the state (and far beyond as it proved) not just to the protestant church and their rather small membership, but also to the catholic church. And in doing so created a hugely powerful religious block acting de facto outside the control of the state but in a manner seemingly supported by the constitution.

Such a lost opportunity as Ireland from 1922 could have developed as a modern secular state.

[Nearly Sane]

I think they also had a real opportunity to have done things differently.

The original 1922 Free State constitution was broadly secular and enshrined freedom of religion in the form of prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion. This would seem very reasonable by modern standards. It is the 1937 DeValera constitution that is so problematic - with religion writ large. And I think he got it tragically wrong in trying to pander to two conflicting issues - being seen to be suitably 'catholic' to satisfy the conservative catholic likely majority (conservative catholic note, not catholic), but also not to frighten the protestant minority which would have happened had catholicism become a state religion.
 
And the constitution did this by first and foremost indicating primacy of catholicism but then (presumably to protect the protestant minority) effectively delegating control on religious matters outside the control of the state (and far beyond as it proved) not just to the protestant church and their rather small membership, but also to the catholic church. And in doing so created a hugely powerful religious block acting de facto outside the control of the state but in a manner seemingly supported by the constitution.

Such a lost opportunity as Ireland from 1922 could have developed as a modern secular state.

I think that's again simplistic. '22 failed because it was some leaders ignoring who they led. There is an element in '37 of LeDru Rollin stating 'Je suis leur chef, if faut que je les suives'. The change in Irish RC approach from 1850 haunts, but does not define the Catholicism that is left, but it does define where Catholicism was in 37, and why de Valera choose it as a way to go.