Position Papers - May 2015 by Position Papers

A review of Catholic affairs

Ireland's Marriage Referendum • In Passing: This tangled web of deceit • Nine questions about gay marriage • From Ireland to Indiana, the spread of gay-marriage groupthink • Preparing for the Year of Mercy • The madness of motherhood • Three reasons I pray the Rosary • Film review: Cinderella

Number 489 May 2015

€3 £2.50 $4

If you would like to subscribe or donate to Position Papers (10 issues per year) just fill in the form below and return it to:

Subscription (One year, please tick the relevant box):

Number 489 - May 2015

Editorial

In Passing: This tangled web of deceit Michael Kirke

Nine questions about gay marriage Leila Miller

From Ireland to Indiana, the spread of gay-marriage groupthink Brendan O’Neill

Preparing for the Year of Mercy Fr John McCloskey

The madness of motherhood Siobhan Scullion

Three reasons I pray the Rosary Fr Eugene O’Neill

Film review: Cinderella Joseph McAleer

Editor: Assistant editors: Subscription manager: Secretary: Design:

Rev. Gavan Jennings Michael Kirke, Pat Hanratty, Brenda McGann Liam Ó hAlmhain Dick Kearns Víctor Díaz

The editor, Position Papers, P.O. Box 4948, Rathmines, Dublin 6  email: editor@positionpapers.ie; website: www.positionpapers.ie Tel.+ 353 86065 2313  For new or renewed subscriptions contact: info@positionpapers.ie Articles ©Position Papers, who normally will on application give permission to reproduce gratis subject only to a credit in this form: ‘Reprinted, with permission from Position Papers, Dublin’. Please note: the opinions expressed in articles do not necessarily reflect those of the editor nor of the Opus Dei Prelature of which he is a priest. Printed by Gemini Printers, Plato Business Park, Dublin 15.

Editorial

On May 22 the Irish people will be asked to vote on whether or not to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. With this in mind we have included three articles on this question: Lelia Miller’s ‘Nine questions about gay “marriage”’ is taken from the author’s excellent blog Little Catholic Bubble. In this piece she says all the things I would have liked to have said on the matter, starting with the important little point that opposition to homosexual marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality per se, but has everything to do with preserving the uniqueness of marriage. Her piece goes on to tackle eight more hot chestnuts in an admirably lucid manner. Our second piece is from Michael Kirke who dedicates his In Passing column to what he calls the ‘sinister political campaign’ pushing for a yes vote in this upcoming referendum. Deception, he says, has been the hallmark of the campaign to redefine marriage in this country. He points out how language has been the first victim in this campaign, and how its ultimate victims will be those who will be persecuted (and who already are being persecuted in places like the USA) on account of their conscientious objection to homosexual marriage. Thirdly we have taken an article from the UK website Spiked in which the editor Brendan O’Neill shows how the campaign here in Ireland embodies so well the intolerance of this samesex drive which has been ploughing across Western nations like a juggernaut. Of course we are not surprised to see once again the marked bias of the media and the political establishment in favour of the new orthodoxy; what is surprising is how much more brazen it is this time around; we have even been treated to the mind-boggling spectacle of members of the Irish police-force involved in pro same-sex marriage events. Regardless of the outcome of the May 22 vote, there is an underlying issue which needs to be addressed, and Pope Francis drew our attention to it in his Wednesday audience address of April 15. There he made the striking observation that the drive for same-sex marriage points to an underlying

Editorial

anthropological problem, namely a growing incapacity of men and women to relate to one another: I wonder, for example, if so-called gender theory is not an expression of frustration and resignation, that aims to cancel out sexual difference as it is no longer able to face it. Yes, we run the risk of taking step backwards. Indeed, the removal of difference is the problem, not the solution. To solve their problems in relating to each other, men and women must instead speak more, listen more, know each other better, value each other more. It seems as if the perennial ‘Battle of the Sexes’ – that aboriginal struggle of males and females to relate correctly to one another – has been replaced with an ‘Abolition of the Sexes’. The same-sex marriage campaign is really only a symptom of a problem deeply rooted in the hearts of a relatively large number of men and women who, for one reason or another, have lost what should be the most deep seated attraction to the opposite sex. While we have no articles this month dedicated to the recent tragedies which have taken place in Libya, namely the brutal killing there of thirty more Christians by ISIS and the loss of life of hundreds of migrants off the coast of Libya, they cannot go unmentioned. The actions of the ISIS terrorists and the refugee traffickers are marked by the mysterium iniquitatis – the mystery of evil. In both cases we are witnessing the actions of men who have clearly lost the most fundamental capacity to distinguish between good and evil. It is profoundly disturbing to witness such truly, and literally, diabolical actions and it certainly puts me in mind of Our Lord’s admonition that there are certain devils which will only be cast out ‘by prayer and fasting’ (Mk.9:29). In this light we might read Fr Eugene O’Neill’s piece this month on the Rosary and its perennial power, and turn to this great prayer in the month of May in a particular.

In Passing: This tangled web of deceit by Michael Kirke

this campaign. One after another they fall from their lips like honeyed words, feigning compassion and understanding. Deception is the hallmark of this sinister political campaign. Indeed it might be said that nothing more deceitful has confronted the Irish people under the guise of benign and noble labels since the political establishment of another age betrayed their ancestors into an impoverished backwater with the passing of the Act of Union in 1801.

How many weasels does it take to sell a people a treacherously flawed piece of legislation? We don't know the answer yet – and hopefully we may never know. In Ireland's marriage redefinition referendum the country's new Ascendancy – the metropolitan liberal establishment – is relentlessly campaigning to persuade the people of Ireland that the hallowed principles of liberty, equality and fraternity require that they make this change. Of course its proposers are denying that any fundamental change is involved. All this, according to them, is a little tweak to help the country keep up with the modern world.

The truth is that this is not about anyone’s equality, nor about compassion nor tolerance for difference and diversity – their favourite weasel words. This is about an ideology of identity, a spurious identity which puts sexuality above all other human values, above logic, truth and justice. If this ideology prevails it

That is the first bit of weasel behaviour. The weasels and the weasel words are out in force in

will end up depriving people of their freedom of thought, their freedom of association, in the name of a specious concept of equality.

man and woman – have passed their sell-by date and need to be re-configured in a new and flexible way. In this new longed-for vision of human nature, the complementarity of men and women, their respective and inviolable roles in the glorious work of human reproduction is a mere sideshow. The institution of marriage considered as a prerogative of this man-woman relationship – and the institution of the family which arises from it – which has evolved in human society for the greater good and happiness of parents and their children, is just an anachronism in our modern world. Sidelining marriage by draining it of its meaning and reconstituting the family into anything you want it to be will help speed its consignment to history.

This is not a campaign to defend the freedom of anyone. It is not a battle for justice or a compassionate response to the suffering of a minority who identify themselves as different. Without a doubt, those are battles that have to be fought and will have to be fought as long as our race’s propensity for selfishness, egoism and enmity persists. We do need laws to help us in this. But this is not that battle. That is another battle. The battle now being played in Ireland is part of a war raging across the developed world in which gender ideology is the driving force. This is a war in which one side is seeking to impose on the other the recognition and acceptance of an ideology which says that human nature – in all its gloriously rich diversity – is a socially determined thing, a construct, some of whose manifestations – like the sexual differences between

The destruction of marriage by turning it into an anodyne sentimental bonding of two people of any sex is just a means to this end of affirming that human nature is there for us to do anything we like with it. What this battle is about is not just redefin-

ing marriage but redefining human nature itself.

weasels have to be recruited to help them do the job. “Equality” was the first victim to fall to weaselhood. Then came the noble concept of “tolerance”.

This of course is no new agenda. It has been gestating for at least a century. The sexual revolution, of which all this is but a new phase, has a major part of its roots imbedded in the malign theories of Sigmund Freud who told us that everything we think and do arises out of our sexuality. With the acceptance of the hedonistic philosophy and the denial of human freedom emanating from Freudian theory, civilisation now needs to be cleansed of the rules and customs of centuries. For the ideologues behind this campaign these are instruments of repression and worse. Marriage, traditionally understood, was just one of them. The “free love” philosophies fashionable in the early twentieth century made a certain amount of ground in destroying it. Not enough, however. Redefinition, which will amount to a virtual destruction, should complete the job for them.

The hijacking of equality defies logic and reason when we approach it from any normal understanding of how that concept can be understood in the context of human nature as we know it. Of course, if you regard nature as your plaything to do as you wish with it, then the sky is the limit. Logic and reason will not worry you. Taking nature as we find it in the real world we know that in some contexts we can and should be quite passionate about a very rigorous rendering to each and all in a very even-handed way. But we also know that nature’s gifts to us are not always equally distributed. We know that parents who rigorously distribute their time, attention and resources among their children in equal quantities may not be doing the best for those children. If in doing so they ignore the different needs determined by each child’s intelligence, per-

To do this however, language has to be manipulated and

sonality and ability, they may end up doing serious and culpable injustice to some of those children.

cise of that right is based on something impossible, null and void. And what about tolerance? The demand for tolerance which is part and parcel of this campaign is not a demand for tolerance at all. It is a demand for social endorsement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which is a totally different thing. With this demand comes one of the most sinister threats to human freedom seen in the developed world since the demise of those tyrannies of the last century, National Socialism and Communism.

The right of a man and a woman to come together and to bond in matrimony by mutual consent is a right based on their complementary but different sexual natures. On this basis they derive their capacity to give to each other their different but complementary sexual gifts and the greatest gift of all, the potential for creating new human life. A desired marriage arrangement, as we have understood it for centuries in law and in practice, where impotency impedes the sharing of those gifts has always been deemed not to be possible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and any contract entered into and then discovered to be affected by impotency has been deemed null and void.

Do not doubt it. Those behind this campaign, if victorious, will be sending people to prison in the not too distant future for refusing to endorse forms of behaviour that they consider contrary to the best interests of individual human beings and society at large. It will not be because they do not tolerate those behaviours, it will be because they will not bake cakes to celebrate those behaviours, or refuse to turn up to take photographs of them, or even express the opinion that they disapprove of them. Such expres-

So to drag in the concept of equality to argue for the right of two people of the same sex to marry is turning the word equality into a weasel word â&#x20AC;&#x201C; pretending it to be something which it cannot ever be. There can be no right to equality when the exer-

sions of opinion are already labelled as “hate speech”, and punishable in law.

and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild.”

Recently, the O'Connor family in Walkerton, Indiana, was targeted with death threats and online harassment that forced them to close the doors to their Memories Pizza restaurant. The O’Connors’ story started when a local news reporter asked if they would theoretically reject service for a gay wedding ceremony. The owner, Kevin O’Connor, said that while the restaurant serves all customers, they would not be able to participate in a same-sex ceremony. Militant gay activists subsequently targeted the family with death threats, viciously negative online reviews of the restaurant, and other harassment – forcing the O'Connors to close the business they had owned for nine years.

Likewise, Buz Smith: “My partner and I have been together almost 27 years. The Democratic Leadership hi-jacked the Gay community many years ago and continue to spew the intolerance of religion as they promote the tolerances of their choices.” However, a spokesperson for the pro-same-sex marriage organisation Human Rights Campaign refused to issue a public statement about the treatment of Memories Pizza by gay activists.

Needless to say, many gay people were themselves outraged by the treatment of the family. Courtney Hoffman wrote in a note to the O’Connors: “As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you

In two high-profile cases, military chaplains have been punished for citing their religious beliefs during private counselling sessions and other official events, sparking questions about what military chaplains are allowed to say in the name

of faith. Capt. Joe Lawhorn was punished for making references to the Bible and distributing a handout that cited the Christian scriptures during a suicide prevention seminar at the University of North Georgia.

ones. They’re the progressives. They’re the good guys. And yet in their zeal to fight discrimination, often with the law at their heel, they have turned their professed liberalism into its opposite: an unwitting illiberalism, in which key liberal tenets, from freedom of conscience to its corollary, freedom of association, are trampled over in the headlong rush to create a society in their achingly right-on, gay-marriage-supporting, transphobia-fighting image. The road to intolerance, it seems, is paved with do-gooding intentions.

This all awaits the Irish – if they vote “yes” in their referendum on May 22 next. Indeed it has already arrived in that part of their island under UK jurisdiction – with the Ashers’ bakery case in Belfast. Tim Black, deputy editor of the libertarian online journal, www.spiked.com, ruefully comments:

Liberal principles, he says, have been routed by identity politics. Religious freedom, the freedom to act according to one’s conscience, is now considered a problem, an omnipresent threat to the increasingly state-enforced “recognise’n’respect-me” politics which is now predominant. For too many, the idea of religious freedom merely generates a series of worrying questions. What if individuals have the wrong beliefs? What if individuals refuse to associate with

It is a miserable irony today that those who think of themselves as liberal are actively trashing liberal ideals. Of course, they don’t experience their illiberalism as illiberalism. Quite the opposite. As far as they’re concerned, they’re riding on the right side of history, battling bigotry and hunting down hate wherever they suspect its persistence, and leading us all into an ultra-nice rainbow-coloured future. They’re the tolerant

those they profoundly disagree with? What if individuals – cue gasps of horror – think gay marriage is wrong? Judgement and discrimination, all part of the exercise of a free conscience, terrify those cleaving to some vague notion of non-judgemental pluralism. There is intolerance in the world, gross intolerance. There are many people who do not accept the principles of a common humanity and a right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. There are those who feel they have a right to coerce others rather than a right to persuade. For the most part this derives from ignorance and a lack of education. By all means let us tackle this and work together to advance our civilisation. This new “tolerance” is a cure which will be worse than the disease, where the right to freedom of thought, personal judgement and the judgement of conscience, is hopelessly confused with a lack of respect for persons as human beings. The O’Connors, the McArthur family of Ashers’ Bakery, Cap-

tain Joe Lawhorn, and many more, have shown no disrespect for people. I am sure that in other circumstances they might die defending the rights of their fellow human beings, gay or otherwise. They are Christians and this is the ethic of their faith. They should not, however, be forced by unjust laws to endorse and approve of behaviours contrary to what they know to be the law of nature written in their hearts.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Michael Kirke is a freelance writer, a regular contributor to Position Papers, and a widely read blogger at Garvan Hill (www.garvan.wordpress. com). His views can be responded to at mjgkirke@gmail.com.

Nine questions about gay marriage by Leila Miller

Why are you against gay marriage?

Brides have always presupposed grooms.

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not that I am against gay marriage per se, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s that gay marriage is an ontological impossibility. It's like asking why I am against square circles. Marriage has an essence, a meaning. It has always been a certain kind of union of persons, specifically a conjugal union rooted in biology itself; it is complementary and heterosexual by its very nature. The particulars of marriage contracts have varied over time and cultures, but the essence of male/female has not.

The fact that marriage is a universal throughout human history indicates something huge, namely the recognition that this one particular type of personal relationship is unique among all others. It is naturally ordered toward procreation. That children result from the union of man and woman (now mother and father) is the foundational reason that human societies have had an interest in protecting, elevating, and/or providing benefits for this type of union.

Without this sexual complementarity, and without the ability to consummate a marriage, there can be no marriage. With bodies of the same sex, the marital act cannot be completed and consummation is not possible. A bride implies a groom in the same way that a lock implies a key. Two locks make no sense together. Two keys make no sense together. The union of husband and wife, like the integration of lock and key, is a relationship different from any other.

But what about heterosexual couples who are infertile? They are allowed to marry even though they can't procreate! The completed sexual union of male and female is always ordered toward procreation, even if the couple does not actually conceive a child. Age or illness or a defect in the reproductive system may make individual unions infertile, but that doesn't change the nature of the act, which is ordered toward generation. Producing children is not the basis of a valid marriage,

the conjugal union is. Whether or not children are conceived is beyond human control. It's not the conception of children that makes a marriage, it's the total, one-flesh union of husband and wife. The conjugal union itself, not the fruit of the union, is the seal of the marriage. And as we've all known infertile couples who've eventually conceived years or even decades after their weddings, we can never say with certainty who will or will not be childless. God and nature have ways of surprising us. However, we can say with complete certainty that two men will never conceive a child from their sexual acts, nor will two women. The sexual â&#x20AC;&#x153;unionâ&#x20AC;? of two men or two women is always barren, as nature and right order would have it. It's the way it's supposed to be.

What about men and women who are handicapped and not able to consummate? Are you saying that they cannot be married?

low for marital relations, and that is a blessing.

This is a very delicate subject to discuss precisely because we have forgotten that marriage is a conjugal union. If there is no possibility of a conjugal union, not even one time, then the essence of marriage is missing. A relationship between two people without the ability to have sexual intercourse (i.e., to become “one flesh”) is called a friendship. That sounds cold to the modern ear, since we want everyone to feel good and “be happy”. But feeling good at the expense of what is true can never satisfy, not ultimately.

No, marriage is not “all about sex”, of course, but sex is an intrinsic part of marriage. As mentioned above, a close and intimate relationship without sex is called a friendship, and neither church nor state would have reason to validate or elevate or give special status to that, as wonderful as friendship is.

Impotence or the inability to consummate is an impediment to the Sacrament of Matrimony for sure, but even the secular state will annul a civil marriage on the basis of non-consummation. Now, with today's technology, thank God, there are many ways to cure impotence and al-

So you think marriage is all about sex! Can't you see it's about love?

Also, while romantic feelings (what people usually mean these days when they talk about love) are ideal and desired between spouses, they've never, ever been a prerequisite for valid marriage. To say so would be to deny that many of our own ancestors (and even some of our parents and grandparents!) were actually married. My grandparents, for example, did not know each other well when they became husband and wife. Yet they were married for over fifty years and had many children and grandchildren (and

great-grandchildren, and now great-great-grandchildren). A romantic feeling at the time of their wedding was not a requirement for a valid marriage. Heck, if you ask Golde and Tevye (you all are huge Fiddler on the Roof fans like me, right??), they'd say their marriage turned out just fine, even though they met on their wedding day. (Yes, I know they are fictional, but they are also representative. And you might notice that their understanding of love is closer to what authentic love actually is: A choice, and a willing of the other's good, not a “feeling”.)

But the state says that gay people can marry, so that means they can! There are many things the state has said that are legal fictions, i.e., that are not true or based in reality. For only a small example, governments have declared at various times that certain human beings are less human than others (slaves, Jews, the unborn), or that women are men and men are women (transgender laws). None of those laws

can change reality. The law is not magic, and it cannot make black people less human, it cannot make women turn into men, and it cannot make marriage between two men (or two women) possible. The state can play with words, but it cannot change essences. The playing with words is a problem unto itself, and we should be very wary when any political agenda bursts forth in a frenzy, redefining a word to mean something foreign to anything it has meant before. So, when someone says to me, “Look, if the state says two men are married, then they're married!” this is what I hear: “Look, if the state says that a woman is now a man, then the woman is now a man!” “Look, if the state says that all chairs are now clocks, then they are!” “Look, if the state says that Jews are not human, then they aren't human!” “Look, if the state says that black people can be the property of others, then they can be!”

“Look, if the state says that the unborn are not human beings, then they aren't!”(Four out of five of those “truths” have happened, by the way.) I teach my children not to lie. I will not go along with a lie. I will not teach my children to go along with a lie. Marriage is pre-political -- no state invented it, nor can any state redefine it. Heck, even the etymology of the words “marry” and “matrimony” (derived from the word mother) excludes the very concept of a homosexual “marriage”. Of course, the government can give out specific benefits and services to whomever it wishes (that's within its legitimate authority), but what it cannot do is redefine an institution that it did not create in the first place. We may not legitimately demand the change of a thing's essence, simply because we have strong “feelings” about what we want. The truth about marriage is what Hillary Clinton so eloquently stated just a few years ago, before her “evolu-

tion”* on the issue. She believed: “...the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.” and “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” Politicians cannot suddenly pass a law or judges sign some papers and change the truth of it.

Why not support civil unions if you can't support gay marriage? That was tried and it didn't work well, to say the least. Clearly,

gay rights advocates were not satisfied with that accommodation, as they barreled right past that and now demand that the word “marriage” apply to gay unions. Gay unions must be seen as on par with and equal to true marriage. Nothing less will be tolerated. But even before the demands for full “marriage” recognition came, the problems with civil union laws were evident, as they effectively forced the closure of Catholic ministries, including foster care and adoption agencies, some of which had been serving the needy in their communities for a century. This happened despite the fraudulent assurances by the civil union supporters that the law would have no effect on faith-based services [which only begins to answer another common question, “How does gay 'marriage' affect you, anyway?”] Ultimately, the concept of civil unions was always just a stepping stone to the bigger prize, and it never protected religious liberty or traditional marriage anyway.

You should be concerned about all the ways that heterosexuals have weakened marriage! Oh, I am incredibly concerned about that! Divorce (especially the pernicious “no-fault” divorce), adultery, polygamy, swinging, pre-marital sex, contraception and abortion, etc.... All of that has harmed the institution of marriage and, of course, children. However, just because we've severely damaged marriage, that's no argument for demolishing it completely! The proper response to the sad state of marriage today is to strengthen it, not un-define it into oblivion. Besides, every marriage that is weak, irregular, or even broken has at least the potential to be strengthened, regularized and restored. But with two men (or two women), there is no potential for marriage in the first place (see #1).

The Church cannot impose her views of marriage on society!

There are a couple of things wrong with this argument. First, no one is saying that all Americans should be married in a Catholic Church and have a sacramental marriage. In fact, the Church herself recognizes the valid marriages of billions who are not Catholic or even Christian. Valid marriages do not have to be sacramental. Second, the idea of the Church “imposing” the heterosexual nature of marriage is silly. One cannot impose something that has always been there. One cannot impose the status quo. The imposition, as I have written about before, is coming only from one side, and it's not coming from the Church. And of course there is the question of atheist regimes, which do not recognize gay “marriage”. How can that be explained? Certainly, no one is going to try to blame the Catholic Church for that, right? After all, atheistic regimes are all about condemning and persecuting the Church, not acquiescing to her.

Clearly, marriage as conjugal union is a natural law issue and not a “Catholic” issue.

Why do you talk about gay marriage so much? I wish you could see my face right now. Oh.my.gosh. How I wish and even fervently pray that I would never have to speak or write on this topic ever again. It's a cultural obsession (not too strong a word!), with the elites' only aim to beat us down into silence and/or submission on this topic. We are not to utter a peep against gay “marriage”, or we will pay a price, whether that price is simply ridicule, mocking, and harassment, or a more serious penalty such as loss of friends, family, job opportunities, or livelihood. Perhaps jail one day? I wouldn't bet against it. I long for the days where gay “marriage” was not integrated into every news story, every college course, every television show, every court case, every sports event, every holiday, every legislative session, small school children's textbooks, car commercials, hamburger wrappers, etc., etc., etc.

I have gay “marriage” fatigue (like everyone else I know), and yet there is no option but to speak for what is True, because that's who we are as Catholics. It's what we are called to do, in season and out. We won't hurt you or hate you or ask the government to fine you or ruin you if you disagree with us, but we will speak the Truth in love, because lies are no good for anyone. It is always better to understand what a thing is, and then to use that thing according to its nature. That is how human beings and human societies flourish, after all. This is a blog about ideas and about truth. We dialogue here as mature adults (I hope), striving to draw closer to what is True, Good, and Beautiful. I assume that my readers are Truthseekers on some level. None of what I have said above should be construed as “hateful” or “bigoted” or “mean”. It is neither mean nor hateful to say that a dog is not a cat, or that a man is not a woman, or that a chair is not a clock. Love is not a feeling. Marriage is not a construct. Society's very

foundation may not be un-defined on a whim of “But I want it!” Happiness cannot be found by going against our human nature and dignity. Truth does not change. All of this must be talked about. And as much as I don't want to, I will continue to talk about it, because marriage is just that important. This article is reprinted from littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com

with the kind permission of the author.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Leila Miller is a Catholic blogger and mother of eight children.  She lives in the USA.

From Ireland to Indiana, the spread of gay-marriage groupthink by Brendan O’Neill see how straitjacketed the debate about gay marriage has become, look no further than Ireland. There, on 22 May, there will be a referendum, with voters asked to say Yes or No to amending the Irish Constitution so that marriage will be redefined as a union between “two persons without distinction as to their sex”. Sounds good, right? An opportunity for an actual electorate to have a debate and have its say on the future of marriage? Not so fast.

accused of causing psychological harm, branded as “”hate speakers”, and frequently forced to make public apologies simply for expressing its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And as a writer for the Irish Independent says, “It’s not a debate if one side can’t speak”. The public discussion before the Irish referendum has not been a debate, she says – it’s been “a Two Minutes Hate” against anyone who doesn’t think gay marriage is the greatest idea ever.

The run-up to the referendum has been about as far from a fair or open debate as it’s possible to get. One side in the debate – the side that is critical of gay marriage – is demonised d a i l y, t r e a t e d v i r t u a l l y a s heretics, almost as criminals. It’s

Pretty much the entire establishment in Ireland, aside from the increasingly uninfluential bishops and priests, backs gay marriage (giving the lie to the gay-marriage movement’s depiction of itself as a beleaguered

minority bravely battling The Man for its civil rights). From the prime minister, Enda Kenny, to the vast majority of Dáil Eireann, to pretty much the whole media – most notably the Irish Times, voice of the minuscule cultural elite in Dublin that sets the moral and political agenda in Ireland – every person with power is rallying for gay marriage. And barely a week passes when they don’t demonise the other side, the smaller, less powerful side, the side which, in opposing gay marriage, is apparently harming citizens, causing violence and, worst of all, jeopardising Ireland’s political future. As with all heretics in history, Ireland’s opponents of gay marriage stand accused of directly harming the public. So last month, the Psychological Society of Ireland issued a dire warning that the propaganda of the anti-gay marriage camp could “impact detrimentally on people”. PSI said it is “seriously concerned” that this lobby’s claim that traditional marriage is better than gay marriage, on the grounds that a mother and father make better parents than

two people of the same sex, could have “far-reaching implications”. It chastised opponents of gay marriage for promoting ideas that “run contrary to the positions of professional bodies” – that is, for daring to defy the new priests: the expert class – and said their words could wreak mental and moral havoc. As one news report summed it up, PSI thinks that “the debate itself [my italics] carrie[s] the potential to have detrimental effects, both psychological and emotional, on adults and children”. So discussion is dangerous; positing a view that runs counter to the elite’s outlook could cause emotional damage. It’s remarkable how much the authoritarian boot has shifted: once it was those who denied Biblical truths who were accused of doing moral harm to citizens; now it is those who cleave to Christian views and doubt gay marriage whose words, whose desire to have a debate, are depicted as dangerous, warping things. The PSI is not alone in demanding that the anti side watch its words, or better still, stop saying

them. An Irish government minister has urged antis to “refrain from confrontational and offensive language”. The Irish Times has gone further, publishing a piece calling for the establishment of a “homophobia watchdog” in the run-up to the referendum, so that the authorities can “monitor the inevitable destructive rhetoric that will colour one side of the debate”. And to those who cry “what about free speech? ”, the Irish Times has a simple answer: ‘“Free speech’ is not a free pass to inflict psychological trauma.” That is, your words, your very thoughts, are traumatic, even socially destabilising, and thus they must not enjoy liberty; they should not be expressed. Echoing those eco-illiberals in the UK and elsewhere who slam media outlets that offer a “balanced” view in the debate on climate change, the Irish Times has also called into question the need for media balance on gay marriage in the run-up to the referendum. Too much of the media have “a skewed view of what balance is”, it says, feeling the need to offer a platform to “Middle Ireland”, “the silent ma-

jority”, “the mainstream”, when the only consequence of such “polarised conversations” is that “facts and reason are drowned out by emotional arguments and inaccuracies”. “It’s pointless”, it concludes. It means, amazingly, that debate is pointless. Gaymarriage activists see themselves as “factual and reasoned” and anyone who criticises them as emotional, inaccurate, traumatising, psychologically harmful. Who needs to hear from “Middle Ireland” when the well-educated inhabitants of Dublin 4 know exactly what the nation needs? As it happens, the Irish media do not need lectures from the PSI about trauma or from the Irish Times about “skewed balance”, and nor is there a need for a speech-monitoring homophobia watchdog – for the media in Ireland have already dutifully fallen in line behind gay marriage. Indeed, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has recently ruled that too many broadcasters are showing a bias in favour of gay marriage. (There’s no need for rulings like this either, of course; can’t we just let debate flow freely?)

Experts’ and observers’ depiction of gay marriage’s opponents as emotionally harmful is having a direct impact on how the debate is, or rather isn’t, panning out. It is strangling discussion, stifling the expression of what are increasingly depicted as deviant views. In the words of Eilis O’Hanlon at the Irish Independent, the increasingly shrill proponents of gay marriage seem less interested in “finding the truth” than in “identifying [themselves] as members of an enlightened elite”, so that the whole referendum run-up is “reduced to a case of kindly metropolitan liberals versus nasty Catholic conservatives”. A writer for the Sunday Independent admitted to feeling reluctant to express her concerns about the behaviour of the progay marriage lobby. Her friends warned her to “be careful” because “anyone who sticks their oar in risks attack”. There is a “chilling effect” on public discussion as a result of the treatment of one side as wicked and corrupting, she said. The bishop of Kildare, Denis Nulty, had a point when he recently warned

against “the danger of groupthink” on gay marriage. As O’Hanlon says, through groupthink “outsiders are demonised and hounded”. Referring to the Twittermobs that formed during a heated debate on gay marriage last year, she says “anyone who expressed the slightest reservations about same-sex marriage was howled down as a homophobe and pelted with hashtags and slogans until they either submitted to the mob or were driven offline”. Ireland’s opponents of gay marriage have also been subjected to the kind of tabloid exposes normally reserved for social deviants. And such is the debateallergic climate that even bishops, people who should surely be expected to hold a traditionalist view on marriage and the family, have felt pressured to make public apologies. For expressing his view that gay people who adopt children are “not necessarily parents” and that “children need a mother and a father”, Bishop Kevin Doran was slammed and hounded, until he agreed to say sorry. He said he “regrets any hurt” his words caused. Even the Primate of All

Ireland indulged in a mea culpa: “I think that sometimes when we say things we can be insensitive, we can hurt.” It seems the old bishops have heeded the warnings of the new secular bishops that make up Ireland’s expert and chattering classes, and have agreed to genuflect at the altar of safe, stultified discussion on gay marriage. What is striking is the extent to which the critics of gay marriage are now treated in a similar way that gays were treated for decades. Homosexuality wasn’t decriminalised in Ireland until 1993 – making you wonder where the Irish state gets off now posing as super-gay-friendly – and before that gays were seen as a blot on the moral landscape. They were seen as psychologically disordered (not just in Ireland, but across the West) and their words and culture were often censored for fear that they would traumatise young people and tear the moral fabric. Sound familiar? Yes, the same is now done to those who hold traditional views on marriage and the family. In Ireland, as elsewhere, the illiberal, intolerant tactics once used against

homosexuals have been turned against those who dare to criticise homosexual lifestyles. Around the world, the institutionalisation of gay marriage has been attended by authoritarianism, whether of the violent state variety or what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of prevailing opinion”. From French riot police’s tear-gassing of protesters against gay marriage to American activists’ witch-hunting of corporate bosses or small-town restaurants that refuse to cheer gay marriage, this supposedly great civil-rights issue of our age has a powerfully intolerant streak to it. (The recent fiftieth anniversary of the Selma march really exposed gay-marriage activists’ claims to be the new civil-rights movement: far from mirroring the blacks who marched for their rights, the gay-marriage movement, most notably in France, looks a lot more like the Montgomery cops who batoned those marchers off the streets.) Why is the gay-marriage movement so intolerant? Despite winning the backing of almost every powerful figure in the

West, from Barack Obama to David Cameron, from Apple to Goldman Sachs, and despite being turned by the media into the great unquestionable, almost sacrilegious cause of our age, still gay-marriage activists hilariously fancy themselves as underdogs and, worse, seek to shush or shame out of existence anyone who opposes them. In the words of the American journalist Damon Linker, the gaymarriage movement seems curiously hell-bent on “stamping out rival visions”. Or as Reason magazine said in relation to recent intolerant activism by American gay-marriage campaigners, it seems some are “not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples”, but also want to “use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable”. What’s this all about? Why the illiberalism, the intolerance, the ugliness? It’s because gay marriage is not really about expanding freedom at all. Rather, it represents the emergence of a

new, post-traditonalist morality, an attempt by at-sea elites across the West to redefine themselves and their moral missions through the gay issue. Gay marriage has become the favoured means through which our rulers, feeling ever-more detached from their old moral worldview, are institutionalising a new, pseudo-progressive, seemingly consensual morality, based, not around the old ideals of family, commitment and privacy, but around the new po-mo values of relativism (all relationships are the same), nonjudgementalism (who are we to say that a mum and dad are better than two mums?), and illiberal liberalism, the central political outlook of our times, which under the guise of building a new liberal consensus seeks to censure and punish anyone who deviates from that consensus. The reason the elites, from the political classes to the influential opinion-forming set, are so instinctually hostile to criticism of gay marriage is because they have invested their very moral rehabilitation, their future political and moral legitimacy, into this issue more than

in any other. And thus no ridicule of it can be tolerated. For if you knock gay marriage you are not only knocking gay marriage – you are upsetting Western elites’ efforts to establish a new morality that simplistically distinguishes between Us (good, kind, liberal backers of gay marriage) and Them (the old, the religious, the outdated, the Other). Ireland captures this perfectly. The reason so many in the political and media classes want, or rather need, the amendment to the Constitution to pass is because they think legalising gay marriage will help rejuvenate Ireland in the twenty-first century. The minister for children said that if Ireland doesn’t legalise gay marriage, it would “send out a bad message internationally”. Or as prime minister Kenny put it, passing gay marriage will “send out a powerful signal internationally that Ireland has evolved into a fair, compassionate and tolerant nation”. All this talk of “sending signals” to the world shows how absolutely central gay marriage has become to the project of West-

ern elites making themselves over in these post-Cold War, post-traditionalist, post-political times. The Irish state needs gay marriage for the same reason Obama and Cameron need it – to fashion a new moral worldview and “send a signal” about its elitist progressivism, its decency in comparison to the old world, the old people, the old outlook. That so many gayrights campaigners are going along with this politicisation and exploitation of their lifestyles by elites on the lookout for a new sense of purpose is remarkable. That those who hold a divergent view on gay marriage are being silenced is a scandal. This article has been reprinted from www.spiked.com with kind permission.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brendan O’Neill is the editor of spiked.

Preparing for the Year of Mercy by Fr John McCloskey

Easter

Sunday is a week behind us, but we have a long time yet to enjoy the Easter season after our penitential Lent. Rejoice! And on the second Sunday of Easter we will be celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday, added to the Church calendar by the great St. John Paul himself, Polish compatriot of St Faustina, to whom Our Lord entrusted the message of Divine Mercy. In God's Providence, it is no accident that St John Paul died on the eve of that great feast. By early adulthood, he had already suffered greatly from the deaths of his parents and his older brother, and also from the

Nazis, whose invasion of Poland in 1939 provoked World War II and whose eventual defeat and withdrawal from Poland only made room for the nation's subsequent decades-long Communist domination as a Russian satellite. How happy St John Paul must be in Heaven to see that his second successor as supreme pontiff, Pope Francis, has chosen to designate a Year of Mercy. Yesterday, during vespers, the Pope officially announced that the Year of Mercy is to begin on December 8, 2015, the fiftieth anniversary of the end the Second Vatican Council

(and the feast of the Immaculate Conception). Between now and December, we should think about how we can live this year so as to better learn both to receive mercy and to give it to others. And certainly we all need it. Has the world ever been in worse shape? There are reasons you’d think not. Just look at the breakdown of marriage throughout the world and the attempt to change the definition of marriage to include something that in nature is impossible: same-sex marriage. As if this were not enough, the world is plagued by pornography and the ongoing loss of religious freedom, not only in faraway Muslim countries (where the rise of merciless Islam is destroying traditional cultures and thousands of innocent families, Christian and Muslim) but increasingly in Europe and the United States also (look at the response to Indiana’s religious freedom law). And of course there is the ongoing legal slaughter of innocent babies in the womb, a horror that, repeated year after year, decade after decade, can dull

our natural reactions or at least incline many to hopeless acceptance of the status quo. What can be done? Of course prayer is essential, and also each one of us as citizens should do our best where we live to bring Christian mercy to those who need it most. We should start with ourselves, however, seeking God’s mercy for own sins on a regular basis in the sacrament of Confession. Then, by our actions and example we should pass on this mercy, given to us by Jesus himself in one of his sacraments at the cost of his own suffering and death. We should speak to our friends, relatives, and neighbours about the joy that comes of knowing our sins are forgiven in this truly holy sacrament. Unfortunately, this joy has been lost to the sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation. Talk to them about the greatness of knowing one is forgiven and also of that other great sacrament of mercy, the Eucharist, in which Jesus Christ intimately shares with us his Body and Blood in the holy Mass.

The world must be reconciled to God through the sacraments. We know neither the day nor the hour when we will be called to be judged by Christ the King and receive our place in the next life, whether that place is Hell (please, not!) or Heaven, where God wants us to be. Part of our judgment will have to do with how and to what extent we have made a gift of self to family and friends in our efforts to share our faith with others. I believe that in the last two centuries the world has been more wicked than it has been since the coming of the Christian faith. As we know, the Holy Father himself will be coming to the United States in September to attend the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, to visit Washington, and to address the world at the United Nations in New York City. What he says and does will likely give us much to reflect upon as we approach the beginning of the Year of Mercy. Therefore let us use the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is the sacrament of mercy, and the Eucharist, and make use of the graces we receive not only to amend our own lives, but

to show our love and forgiveness to all. If we use these only real means, and share them generously with others, our joy will grow and become evident to those around us. They will ask us why we are so happy and we will be able to reply, “Because of my love of Jesus Christ and his holy Church!” May God help us to be merciful to all around us and also to ourselves. This article first appeared on The Christian Review in March, 2015.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Fr. C. John McCloskey is a Church historian and Research Fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington DC.  Website: www.frmccloskey.com.

The madness of motherhood by Siobhan Scullion

September of last year, my husband and I welcomed baby number three into our family. At the time just before her birth, I experienced a mixture of emotion and feelings that included excitement, nervousness and extreme exhaustion. Sometimes it feels that parenting tiny tots is akin to participating in one of those extreme sports; in other words, it is not for the faint hearted. And now that number three is here, my husband and I are officially outnumbered. Still, being a mother has taught me many things. I always expected it to be the other way around given that parents are the first educators of their little ones, but more and more every day Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m

finding out that I am the one doing the real learning here. So, what I have learnt? Many things to be honest and there are new lessons every day but if I had to share some ideas with a new or expecting mother, the following would be at the top. 1. If life is busy now, it will get even busier Ok, at first glance, that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t sound great. Some days when I have burnt the dinner or forgotten to switch the washing machine on, and have three children loudly demanding my attention, I think back to those peaceful idyllic days when it was just me and my eldest. I thought then that I never had a minute to

myself and in reality it was like that. A new mother is run off her feet. But if the now me went back then, I reckon I could give a fair stab at being the most productive, efficient super mum out there. In my stress back then, I had no idea it would get even busier. But I also know that it does get easier. It really does. It may seem more chaotic but you become skilled at knowing when to fight the battles and when to let go. And when it comes to planning, organising and keeping things in check I’d wager any mother of a large family could give even the most efficient CEO of a business a run for their money. 2. You are actually a “we” – your husband really is on your side Our eldest tiny tot is now our big, strong boy and could buy and sell you quicker than any savvy salesman. It’s amazing how quickly they learn that the tiniest gap in defence could be exploited for an extra jaffa cake or a new toy. We have affectionately coined a phrase in our family, “Team Mammy and Dad-

dy”. Very often, either one of us can be heard saying to the children, “You know, Mammy and Daddy are on the same side, so you can’t really tell on me …” One of the best pieces of advice I was given when I was pregnant with our first baby was to let my husband help as much as he can and never correct him if he is apparently doing something wrong (meaning: not your way). In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter if a vest is put on back to front or if he brings you the wrong fluffy towel at bath time. The reality is, your child is also his child. And you are both learning. You need him on your side as much as he needs you. You are in the adventure of parenting together. Even if the children do want to temporarily break down that defence for an extra piece of chocolate, what they really need is Mum and Dad together. 3. Your children are the most important thing … except they’re not I often hear other mothers say that they will put their children above everything and a mother

knows how to live a life of sacrifice. I never realised how much I would actually do for my children until I had to do it. The thing is, in your marriage your most important port of call is your husband. Perhaps everyone will not agree with me but I honestly believe that the best thing you can do for your family is to love your husband like no one else on this planet. Your children pick up on it. I have often caught my children looking at us when we hug and greet each other. It speaks volumes for your children and help to feel secure. Children notice everything and they especially notice this. I have often heard mothers refer to their other half like the extra “big kid they need to look after”. It is one of my biggest pet peeves and it is not ever a good idea to demean your husband in front of others and most definitely never in front of your children. That big kid is doing a lot more than you think. 4. There will always be “Days like this …” The only way to learn anything in parenting is by doing it and

you don’t get a practice run; it is definitely the most hands on job I’ve ever encountered. Some days will be great, some will be not so great – especially with small children running around. As the saying goes, you either sink or swim; but with parenting, sometimes you have to swim in the shallow end. After our third was born, I found myself trying to get back into a routine as soon as possible for the sake of the older two but very soon, I found myself in a real tizzy trying to be back up and running as super-mum just a few weeks after birth. And the person who suffered most was me. The children didn’t want lunch at exactly the same minute, their vests neatly folded alongside their socks and their books arranged in alphabetical order; they wanted my time and interest. I’m not saying these other things aren't important; a well run home certainly it, but you can’t sweat the small stuff all the time and end up losing your serenity and joy. At the end of the day, when I tuck my little ones in, I want them to have a mother that is joyful despite the challenges.

5. The best things in life involve sacrifice I have always known that I want children and being a fairly positive person, I always tried to look on the bright side when people talked about sleep deprivation, no time to yourself, or the constant running around after little ones. I try to think that people really do mean well when they talk about their children like this and perhaps they are trying to be light hearted, but I can also understand how it would put people off when all they hear is negativity and horror stories. But the ironic thing is we put so much effort into other things in our life: our work, our fitness, our hobbies, our friendships. Should we really be surprised if parenting involves sacrifice and commitment? The best things usually do! When we put effort in, we are rewarded for it. Maybe not at the time, but the reward will come. Parenting is the same and I find it helpful to keep that in mind.

Right now, as the little ones run around me, leaving a trail of Lego, breadsticks and sticky finger prints behind them, these are the things I need to keep in mind and I hope other young mothers do too. I imagine that my list of lessons will change over time and maybe thats one of the joys of parenting; things never get boring or stale!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Siobhan Scullion is an Arts graduate of Queens University Belfast and a regular contributor to Position Papers.

Three reasons I pray the Rosary by Fr Eugene O’Neill

When I speak to you about Our Lady, I emphasise the fact that it’s important for us Catholics to be able to give a reasonable account of our beliefs. Both to defend our faith “in the public square”; but also, less defensively, to answer the reasonable enquiries of the curious. When it comes to The Blessed Virgin Mary, two misapprehensions come up again and again: that we are worshipping a human person; and we do not need intermediaries between ourselves and God. We can answer both directly: firstly, we give Mary “honour” not “worship”. Why? Because of the crucial role this woman played in the central event of the history of the world. For this reason, she deserves honour. Secondly, we pray with and through Mary,

not “to” her – even if we sometimes use this phrase as shorthand. Why? Because she is a human and is in heaven, alive and real. We humans should ask each other for prayers; and the prayers of the human, Mary, are particularly powerful. So, when it comes to our relationship to Our Lady, it’s honour not worship; it’s prayer with and through, not to. Those simple clarifications can be helpful in clearing away confusion and misunderstanding. But what about the Rosary? I have to be honest and confess that for many years of my life, I had not tuned into the Rosary. It seemed to me so much part of a bygone culture – the world of my grandparents and not part of my world. And I’ve felt at times guilty about that, especially since so many of the people I

know who impress me by their humility use the Rosary as a form of prayer. But, as I’ve often argued to you, guilt can be a very helpful emotion – as long as it isn’t pathological: it can be to the soul what pain is to the body – a sign that something may be wrong and has to be put right. So, is the Rosary out-ofdate, boring and irrelevant to your life and mine in 2015? My simple answer is that over the last years, I’ve changed my view of this form of prayer and now say the Rosary, or part of it, daily. Here’s why. For me, there are three reasons. My car prayer Firstly: for me the Rosary has become my car prayer. In the past, when I used to say the Rosary, I’ve tried to say it in various ways – sitting down, kneeling, walking – but always with the same nagging feeling: “This is a bore; I don’t feel closer to God by it; I could be doing something more useful and more helpful.” But, some years ago, someone gave me one of those little Rosary rings. I chucked it into the ashtray of my

car and forgot about it. Sometime later, scrabbling around for some coins for a toll bridge, I found it … felt guilty (that useful Catholic emotion once more!) … slipped it on my finger in the car and thought: “Well, I’d better say at least one decade, that won’t harm me.” So I did. One decade led to two, and two led to a whole Rosary – not all at once but over the course of a day – said when I was alone in my car. I discovered also that it felt easy. I now have three churches in my parish, each ten minutes apart. Te n m i n u t e s – t h a t ’s t w o decades in the daily drives between them, using time that would otherwise be wasted. I do almost nineteen thousand miles yearly in my car, most of those miles alone. That’s a lot of time. I’d be prepared to wager that if you drive, then the car is one of the few places where it is possible to be alone. You know that, if you have a family and a demanding job. Our lives are so busy and so noisy; that’s simply the way it is for most people. If you find it hard to find time to pray, why not capitalise on that precious alone time in the car – if you have it – and use some of

it for prayer? I know it’s tempting to switch on the radio. That’s my first instinct when I turn over the engine. But, let’s be honest, it’s unlikely that we’re going to miss much by keeping the radio off. Why not used a little of that time for you and for God – simply to be together? And you might find – as I have done – the Rosary a helpful way; you might find a Rosary ring useful. The Rosary as a car prayer; that’s the first reason I’ve come back to it: it fits into my lifestyle of so much time spent in the car; and it is one of those prayers which lends itself easily to being split up into sections and done piece by piece. And I’ve found more recently that I’m now better able to say it at other times. But it began in the car; and that’s where I can depend that it gets said. My prayer of meditation My second reason: meditation. I find the Rosary has a real effect on me. It calms and it soothes. When in the car, I say the Rosary aloud. Sometimes it’s a mumble; sometimes I proclaim the words clearly; sometimes it

becomes a drone; sometimes the words come fast; at other times, they’re slow. I find it better if I can take time and go more slowly. Though, speaking honestly, the speed of the words often depends on the speed of my driving! Whichever way of pace, the effect on me is a calming of the mind. I think it’s true that we humans like regular rhythms. All music of quality depends on that fact. Psychologists say that these rhythms remind us of the sound of our mothers’ heart beat heard when we were in the womb and make us feel secure. Others, that they replicate the sensation of being rocked in our mothers’ arms or in the cradle. Perhaps. Certainly, I’ve always felt the rhythm of the car engine has made me feel secure and safe. Maybe the repetition of the words of the Rosary with the regularity of the car engine combine to enhance each other – heart rhythm … engine rhythm … Rosary rhythm. Whatever the true reason, that the effect it has on me: it soothes and calms; and I like that feeling. At its best, the rhythm of the Rosary draws me to meditation.

Meditation is at the heart of all the world’s prayer traditions; and is the heart of the Christian tradition. For most people who try to pray, the real battle is to slow down the thinking mind. When I sit down to pray, I can guarantee that the events of the day – its concerns and worries and agendas – start to spin in my mind, and the hour I had intended to give to God has become an hour of thinking about everything except God. I have found the Rosary helpful in creating stillness. Repeating the simple words of the Rosary has become like repeating a mantra. Mantra repetition has proven effects on the mind and on the metabolism: it slows them. I have found the mantra-like repetition of the Rosary can quieten me; it can break into the continuous, often draining thinking; the rhythm and the repetition can get me out of my head; it can slow everything down; and bring me a little nearer a space where I can receive. And isn’t that the heart of all Christian prayer: being ready to receive?

My family prayer My third reasons for rediscovering the Rosary: it’s become my family prayer. But not in the way you might expect. By family prayer, I mean that I’ve found it really helpful in feeling closer to the foundational events of my principal family: the family of faith which is the Church. The Rosary has in these last years helped me to come closer to the life of Jesus – not as pious stories but as historical events that matter to me. The mysteries are simply the names we give to each of the scenes in the life of Jesus and his mother, Mary. I have found that with the practice of thinking of them regularly and in a defined and orderly pattern – however superficially at times – I have begun to feel a greater sense of their reality; and to feel these events in the life of Jesus Christ as more real, more immediate and more meaningful for my life. More than that, the Rosary has made me really sense that these events are being absorbed into my mind, thoughts and consciousness; and through that process, I am somehow being absorbed into the visible, real life of Christ who

is still alive and real – but invisible. Isn’t that what the mysteries of the Rosary are about at heart? Walking through the events in the life of Jesus and his mother from his conception to her coronation to remember that they are real. It’s like going over our family history as I used to remember doing at my grandmother’s knee, learning who is connected to whom, remembering where I come from, realising why this is significant and what made me who I am. It’s so easy to forget that these mysteries are facts, indeed the central facts of history; that beyond the froth of histories glitzy events of politics or international relations that take up so much of our attention and airtime, these are the events that echo within time and history and give it direction. It’s so easy to let our imagination be filled with the froth or so dominated by what will bring us distraction – money, power, worldly success – but no ultimate satisfaction, and certainly not salvation. The great American writer, Emerson, once said: “What dominates our imagination will determine our lives and character. Therefore,

we must be careful about what we worship … for what we are worshipping, we are becoming.” It’s so true. The Rosary is about filling our imagination with the life of Jesus our companion and guide on the way, so that we can become like him, make the journey better, and ultimately meet him face to face at its end. In different moods, I’m drawn to focus on different mysteries. Sometimes, it is a Resurrection day in my life; at others, a Scourging at the Pillar day. It can be consoling to know that things change; and to feel solidarity with Jesus who has experienced these realities in his life. And, as such, the Rosary is a remarkably flexible prayer form. If you’re asking me if I carefully concentrate on these mysteries all the time I am saying the prayers, then the honest answer is “No”. My mind wanders all the time. Sometimes I hardly know I’ve said the prayers at all; at others, I forget where I am. Often my mind wanders from the words of the prayers to the mystery, to the beauty of the landscape through which I am driving, to what’s going on in the

parish. That’s normal. It doesn’t bother me any longer. I used to think that the Rosary was only “valid” as it were if I said all the words clearly and never lost concentration once. Not any more: it’s a process; no single prayer is the key; it’s the regularity that is important; and sticking to it. Those are the three reasons I have come back to the Rosary: it is my car prayer; my calming prayer; my absorbing into Jesus prayer. This is not the only way to say the Rosary: it’s my way at this point in my life; and it works for me.

mother would have prayed. I said ten Hail Marys between each Our Father. It took a long time, almost an hour to count one hundred Hail Mary’s off on my knuckles. And it helped to keep my mind focused. I prayed with others also imprisoned aloud. It felt energising to speak our weaknesses and hopes together, as if in conversation with God, rather than silently and alone.” Could there be a more perfect definition of prayer? Or more poignant testament to the perennial power of the Rosary?

Nor is the Rosary the only form of prayer: it’s one. But it has been around in one shape or another for over a thousand years now, and you might find that it fits into your lifestyle and brings you a little closer to God. You might find that the practice finds an echo in your soul, as it did in the soul of James Foley, the American journalist and graduate of a Catholic university, who wrote of his time spent imprisoned in Libya in 2011: “I began to pray the Rosary. It was what my mother and grand-

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rev. Eugene O’Neill is parish priest of Killyleagh, and of Crossgar, Co.Down and is a regular contributor to A Thought for the Day on BBC Radio Ulster.

Film review:  Cinderella by Joseph McAleer

Cinderella

(Disney) injects vibrant new life into a venerable fairy tale. The result is an exuberant live-action retelling of the oft-filmed fable, the most famous screen version of which is Disney’s classic 1950 animated feature.

whose final request to her is, “Always have courage and be kind.” This becomes Ella’s life motto – and not a bad one at that. Her sunny nature and good will inspire all creatures, great (fellow humans) and small (white mice).

Opting for fidelity and sincerity rather than a revisionist approach, director Kenneth Branagh sticks to the basic story, displaying genuine affection for its iconic characters. Familiar yet fresh, his delightful take, suitable for the entire family, nicely brings to the forefront dual lessons about compassion and forgiveness.

When her beloved father (Ben Chaplin) remarries, Ella’s patience is put to the test, but she never gives in to the dark side. The same, alas, cannot be said for Ella’s new stepmother, Lady Tremaine (Cate Blanchett), or her shrieking stepsisters, Drizella (Sophie McShera) and Anastasia (Holliday Grainger).

There’s a lot of death in the Cinderella story, but here that aspect of the tale is treated gently. Ella (Lily James) tends to her dying mother (Hayley Atwell),

The ladies are ghastly in every respect, from their poor manners to their garish outfits. And anyone who calls her cat Lucifer, as Lady Tremaine does, is just about bound to be wicked.

The standard narrative unfolds: Father dies, and Ella is reduced to waiting on her obnoxious relations in the manner of a servant. Covered in ashes from cleaning the fireplace, she’s derisively dubbed “Cinderella”.

While there are a few twists in store, a happy ending is assured, and the final message won’t leave a dry eye in the house. Preceding Cinderella is a short animated film, Frozen Fever, featuring characters from the blockbuster 2013 movie Frozen. It's Princess Anna’s (voice of Kristen Bell) birthday, and her sister, Queen Elsa (voice of Idina Menzel), is planning a party – despite feeling unwell. Given Elsa’s frost-producing proclivities, as highlighted in the original, however, her sneezes bring predictably chilly consequences.

Riding her horse through the forest one day, Cinderella encounters Kit (Richard Madden), aka Prince Charming. They meet cute but confused, she unaware of his royal status, he not catching her name. Cinderella retreats, and the prince, his heart aflame, vows to find the enchanting maiden. A royal ball is arranged, with an invitation to all eligible ladies in the kingdom, titled or not. Lady Tremaine forbids Cinderella to attend, tearing her dress to pieces.

The Catholic News Service classification is A-I – general patronage. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is PG – parental guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.

Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter), naturally, has other ideas. The transformation of pumpkin, mice, lizards and a goose into a golden coach, white horses, footmen and driver, respectively, is one of the highlights of the film. The other standout is Cinderella’s shimmering blue dress. Not since Scarlett O'Hara made an outfit from old curtains in Gone with the Wind has a skirt stolen the show to such an extent, swishing and swirling across the dance floor as though possessing a mind of its own.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joseph McAleer is a guest reviewer for Catholic News Service. This article is reprinted with the kind permission of Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com). Copyright (c) 2015 Catholic News Service.

Nazareth Family Institute Pre-marriage preparation. Marriage enrichment, restoration & healing. Dates of marriage preparation weekends: May 8 2015 - May 9 2015 Jul 3 2015 - Jul 4 2015 Sep 25 2015 - Sep 26 2015 Venue: Avila retreat centre, Donnybrook, Dublin. Extended course: A seven week course by arrangement with the course directors Course directors, Peter and Fiona Perrem 01-2896647 For more information see: www.nazarethfamilyinstitute.net

Dawn Eden speaking tour Ireland, June 2015 Monday 8 June

2pm “How the Sacred Heart healed my memories" Avila Carmelite Centre Bloomfield Avenue Morehampton Road Dublin 4 7pm "The Thrill of the Chaste: Loving Fully with Body and Soul" The Davenport Hotel Merrion Street Merrion Square Dublin 2

Tuesday 9 June

2pm “How the Sacred Heart healed my memories" in Belfast. Venue TBC 7pm "The Thrill of the Chaste: Loving Fully with Body and Soul" Malone House, Barnett Demesne Belfast

For updates please see: http://dawneden.blogspot.ie/p/media-appearances-speaking.html