Not really correct.
Most of the last 400 years were spent under English rule, and whilst a lot of that included religious persecution, certainly there were some significant benefits to an Anglican approach in the latter 150 years or so. Catholicism for much of that time underpinned a sense of cultural difference and thus a factor to focus political rebellion.
No, the real damage from the Catholic hegemony came when we got independence. We traded the increasingly enlightened despotism of a foreign power for the unfettered tyranny of men of the cloth. That was when the "Taliban" came to town, not under the British.
My argument is why there is the distinction? How can Mother Church argue with a straight face that one piece of magic is superior/more acceptable than another? Therein lies the dilemma of all faith - with no independent benchmark of assessment, all claims are surely valid, even unto these crowds chasing their own leprechauns in the sun.Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Padre Pio is a classic example. For a long time, this evident self-harmer was rightly scorned by the Church and various popes. Then, as his cult took hold, they reconsidered. On what basis? The marketing franchise (wouldn't be the first time)? He's now a saint. What rational process allows this kind of re-assessment?
Bookmarks