25 March 1738: The death of the Harpist Turlough O'Carolan/ Toirdhealbhach Ó Cearbhalláin on this day. He was the most famous Irish musician and player of his age who plied his trade throughout Ireland. He was born in 1670 at Nobber, Co Meath and from an early age trained to become a player of the harp. However at the age of 18 he caught the smallpox and was left Blind. Nevertheless he continued his love of the instrument and mastered his disability. Due to the generosity of a patron, Mrs. MacDermott, he was able to equip himself for the road with a harp, a horse, a guide, and the money to launch a career as an itinerant harper, playing for patrons throughout the Irish countryside.
Various sources say that he was cheerful and gregarious, enjoyed ludicrous stories, practical jokes and he was an excellent backgammon player. As with many harpers of the time, he also drank a great deal, and he had a temper to be avoided. He developed his natural musical talent and turned his hand to composition, penning over 220 works of Irish music many of which are still recorded and played today. In his travels around the Country he stayed at the Houses of various Patrons, both native and planter and his influences were drawn not just from Ireland but also further afield.
He eventually married a woman called Mary Maguire, they lived on a farm near Mohill, Co. Leitrim and had seven children. Mary died in 1733 and just five years later, feeling ill, Carolan returned to the home of his original Patron Mrs. MacDermott Roe. After several days, he called for a drink and repeated these lines to his first patron:
Mary Fitzgerald, dear heart, Tusk
Love of my breast and my friend,
Alas that I am parting from you,
O lady who succoured me at every stage.
His final composition was to the butler, Flinn, who brought him his last drink. And, in a final fitting salute, his wake lasted four days.
When he died his passing was recalled bi a famous man of letters of the time:
Saturday, the 25th day of March 1738. Turlough O'Carolan, the wise master and chief musician of the whole of Ireland, died today and was buried in the O'Duignan's church of Kilronan, in the sixty-eighth year of his age. May his soul find mercy, for he was a moral and religious man.
Charles O'Conor
The herein (very) further below research links regarding Ireland's historical debates is not exhaustive, yet may provide for your further inquiry and considered thought on the historical development on the issue; and regarding those who, decades later, would seek to cherry-pick from hindsight with an agenda in mind, and, with reference to the more immediate below, regardless of what you perceive your father's oldsmobile party to be today.
ReplyDeleteI. "Family Amendment" which would have removed a clause about the importance of marriage and family to society from Ireland’s 1937 constitution and legally redefined “family” as either “founded on marriage or on other durable relationships,” drew a "No" vote from nearly 68% of voters.
ReplyDeleteII. “Care Amendment,” which would have removed a clause noting that the “state recognizes that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, "drew a "No" vote from just under 74% of voters.
“While the old adage is that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, I think when you lose by this kind of margin, there are a lot of people who got this wrong and I am certainly one of them.” - Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said Saturday.
---
The resignation of @LeoVaradkar as Irish Taoiseach is an important moment in Irish politics. Here is the broad historical context. Fine Gael used to be the more socially conservative party. Yes, in pre-1990s Ireland all parties were basically conservative except maybe Labour, but Fine Gael were moreso 'in theory' conservative and self-identified in this manner. Fianna Fail were effectively a populist party that appealed to and recruited from a wide strata of the population.
Fine Gael, on the other hand, were the party of educated elite - lawyers, judges, accountants, and so on. In pre-1990s Ireland the average educated elite in Ireland was deeply Catholic and would be interested in theology, Catholic social teaching and so on.
This started to change as segments of the Irish elite became more liberal - arguably due to the influence of British culture, television, music etc. The key figure here was Garrett FitzGerald who was Fine Gael leader and Taoiseach (Prime Minister) between 1982 and 1987. FitzGerald was an economist with an interest in theology, but he greatly favoured more liberal forms of Catholic theology. This allowed him to straddle the fence between the (younger) liberals in Fine Gael and the (older) conservatives. It also anchored Fine Gael as a socially conservative party until at least the 1990s.
ReplyDeleteAll of this started to change as the properly Catholic elite started to die off; basically as the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation were replaced by the Baby Boomers and Gen X. Being a liberal in the older generations - as FitzGerald was - was a truly countercultural position, hence why he arguably hid his social liberalism behind liberal theological positions.
Being a liberal in the younger generations, however, was simply the norm. This is where Varadkar comes in. He represents the moment when Fine Gael went fully 'mask off' and revealed to the country that they were the party of social liberalism.
Varadkar himself is an interesting figure in this regard because he was a very conservative student in his college days but went on to lean into LGBT identity politics when he became party leader and then Prime Minister.
Here is where it gets really interesting. Varadkar was in charge when the recent constitutional referendum on removing the word 'mother' from the Irish constitution was put before the Irish people. The Irish people overwhelmingly rejected this constitutional change. Now Varadkar has stepped down. What he represents has arguably been rejected by the country.
Does this mean that Ireland is turning away from social liberalism? Not clearly, but something is happening. Does it mean that Fine Gael will revert to being the socially conservative party? Again, not clear, but they will have to reevaluate their identity in light of these changes.
Changes are happening in Ireland. It is not clear exactly what form they will take. But the writing is on the wall.
https://twitter.com/philippilk/status/1770428426484109824
[Hmm. My thought was that, psychologically, once abortion was obtained, the rest was a bit too far...for now satiated, ready for the next drip-drip. But, glass half-full is encouraging, and may depend on social-economic developments going forward.
For that, it was interesting to see this year's Chicago Saint Patrick's Day Parade interview with the Cork, Ireland, business person present there, and speaking about the closeness with the USA in reciprocal hoped business relationships; and specifically pleading for young persons to come over there to Ireland.
Then, the annual release of this Choir, this year, beautifully, but plaintively encouraging the young 'diaspora' to Come Home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAdgsaNjfzk (recommended viewing/listening) ]
+++
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
National Service Plan(NSP) for 2024
Varadkar held the position as Taoiseach from 2017 until 2020, and again in December 2022, with the support of centrist Fianna Fáil and Green Party. As prime minister, he has presided over a decade of intense liberalisation in the Republic, culminating in the legalisation of abortion, as well as overseeing the country’s response to Brexit.
ReplyDeleteHis government recently suffered a major setback through the defeat of two referenda to further liberalise the nation’s constitution with regards to the exact definition of a family under Irish law. Varadkar emphasised his handling of the COVID crisis and legislating for abortion during today’s remarks.
His exit from Irish politics three months before June’s European and local elections in Ireland appears to have come as a surprise to even members of his parliament and party, most of whom were taken back by today’s decision.
Rumours are swirling around Dublin as to the exact reason for Varadkar’s departure from Irish politics, with a high volume of members of Varadkar’s party, Fine Gael, coincidentally announcing their intention not to serve in the next parliamentary election despite the party doing reasonably well in the polls.
The ruling Fine Gael party is expected to elect a new leader before their annual congress in mid-April, with education minister Simon Harris and enterprise minister Simon Coveney being mentioned as potential replacements.
The Republic of Ireland is required to hold an election before March 2025. Varadkar’s resignation is seen by many as the starting pistol in an election cycle that could see victory for the left-populist party Sinn Féin as migration is fast becoming a defining issue in Irish politics, alongside systemic issues over housing.
"This is a time for fresh leadership. Not just a change of taoiseach, but a change of government, and a change of direction," said Sinn Féin President Mary Lou McDonald, speaking to the Dáil [which party is pro-abortion, among other post-'revolutionary' morphed policies]
ReplyDeletehttps://crisismagazine.com/opinion/hope-for-catholic-ireland
ReplyDeleteInter alia, figuring out how to let go of the government teat.
Even if you have purchased the original animated Hobbit, purchase The Secret of Kells here: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Kells-Brendan-Gleeson/dp/B0036TGSW6/
ReplyDeleteThen have your children (or seminarians) compare themes along with the Bible.
Okay, okay, here you go historians, researchers and thinkers-
ReplyDeleteFor your file:
(There is a way to maintain tradition within its proper development, and to also combat the baby-with-the-bathwater ideological attempt to wipe out all tradition. Unfortunately, the Macro-Battle of ideologies, and of in-the-moment-politics, substitutes for probative consideration, and seeks while they may the speedy all-or-nothing ram-rod, to the detriment of people and society.) (One example: While women are not locked to the home, the recent Vote [on Constitution Amendments, and the disengenuous video campaign with respect to same] seems to have more to do with what the alternative definition of the home may be) [Update, post-vote: and so it seems to have been].
ReplyDeleteWednesday, May 12, 1937 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1937-05-12/12/
ReplyDeleteDáil Éireann debate - Friday, 4 Jun 1937 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1937-06-04/12/
Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Jun 1937 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1937-06-09/16/
Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 14 Jul 1943 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/1943-07-14/4/
Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 13 Jan 1944 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/1944-01-13/3/
Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Feb 1956- Citizenship and Marriage - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1956-02-29/45/
Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 2 Nov 1972 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1972-11-02/5/
Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 2 Nov 1972 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1972-11-02/63/
Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 3 Nov 1972 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/1972-11-03/4/
Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 1 Dec 1976 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1976-12-01/3/
Miscellaneous:
ReplyDeleteRemember the EEC? https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/1971-03-11/3/
The EU? https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_european_affairs/2009-09-08/3/ and https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/libraryResearch/2012/2012-11-12_the-oireachtas-and-the-european-union-the-evolving-role-of-a-national-parliament-in-european-affairs_en.pdf
Contraception circa 1974: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/1974-03-27/4/
Giving this right to grandparents and others is not as straightforward as it might appear. Within that context I am advised that the family vests rights in the parents, who are the key people where the family and the children are concerned. If one parent supports or brings the application it is open to the court, under section 11 of the existing legislation, to make provision for access by an outside person if it is in the interests of the child. That requires the consent of the non-custodial parents and the application must be brought by that parent. The thrust of Deputy Wood's amendment, with which I have some sympathy, is that the consent of the non-custodial parent is not necessary. In that case one must look carefully at cutting across the parental provisions in Article 41. I do not suggest it cannot be done but one must put it in context and frame it carefully, which we are doing in drawing up the children's Bill. - Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate - Tuesday, 16 Jul 1996 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/select_committee_on_legislation_and_security/1996-07-16/3/
Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 11 Mar 2010- https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2010-03-11/14/
in cases involving children of marital families, due to the constitutional presumption in favour of the family under Article 41, no independent investigation can be undertaken as to the child's best interests in the court's decision making unless the exceptional circumstances outlined prevail. ...rigid judicial interpretation of Articles 41 and 42 has impinged upon the effective operation of our child protection, care and adoption systems. - Dáil Éireann debate -Wednesday, 26 Sep 2012 - Childrens' Rights - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2012-09-26/26/
Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Sep 2012- https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2012-09-27/11/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44026835
ReplyDelete(Man and Woman loses to the utimate consideration, simply by omission)
Always consider thoughts: The prohibition on unlawful abortion contained in the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act prevented unlawful abortion in this country for 120 years.
ReplyDeleteThe 1983 pro-life amendment, which according to the Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn, "was designed to preserve the prohibition on unlawful abortion contained in the 1861 Act", fell at the first fence in the first legal challenge on the substantive issue in the X case earlier this year. It seems that the statutory prohibition in the 1861 Act was more effective than the constitutional prohibition introduced in 1983.
The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means at any time, so clearly we can never be absolutely certain what any Amendment to the Constitution means when framed, debated, passed by this House and endorsed by the people. This is particularly so as the Supreme Court, especially since the sixties, has regarded the Constitution as an organic document which must be interpreted in its totality. They also expect it to be interpreted in the light of the circumstances of the times in which the interpretation is made. It must also be interpreted in accordance with the preamble to the Constitution.
In the course of his judgment in McGee v. The Attorney General, 1974, Mr. Justice Walsh stated as follows:
In this country, it falls finally upon the judges to interpret the Constitution and in doing so to determine, where necessary, the rights which are superior or antecedent to positive law or which are imprescriptible or inalienable. In the performance of this difficult duty there are certain guidelines laid down in the Constitution for a judge.
The very structure and content of the Articles dealing with fundamental rights clearly indicate that justice is not subordinate to the law. In particular, the terms of Section 3 in Article 40 expressly subordinate the law to justice. Both Aristotle and the Christian philosophers have regarded justice as the highest human virtue. The virtue of prudence was also esteemed by Aristotle, as by the philosophers of the Christian world. But the great additional virtue introduced by Christianity was that of charity — not the charity which consists of giving to the deserving for that is justice, but the charity which is also called mercy. According to the Preamble, the People gave themselves the Constitution to promote the common good, with due observance to prudence, justice and charity so that the dignity and freedom of the individual might be assured. The judges must, therefore, as best they can from their training and experience, interpret these rights in accordance with their ideas of prudence, justice and charity. It is but natural that from time to time the prevailing ideas of these virtues may be conditioned by the passage of time; no interpetation of the Constitution is intended to be final for all time. It is given in the light of prevailing ideas and concepts.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth asking, how a Minister for Justice can give such guarantees to this House as to the certainty of how words can be interpreted when one of the principle advocates of the type of constitutional interpretation we now have, has spoken as I have quoted?
Subsequently, in the course of his judgment in the State (Healy) v. O'Donoghue in 1976 in the Irish Reports at page 374, Chief Justice O'Higgins spoke as follows:
The Preamble to the Constitution records that the People seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of prudence, justice and charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored and concord established with other nations, do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.
In my view, this Preamble makes it clear that rights given by the Constitution must be considered in accordance with concepts of prudence, justice and charity, which may gradually change or develop as society changes and develops, and which fall to be interpreted from time to time in accordance with prevailing ideas. The Preamble envisages a Constitution which can absorb or be adapted to such changes. In other words, the Constitution did not seek to impose for all time the ideas prevalent or accepted with regard to these virtues at the time of its enactment.
That is worth repeating. Justice O'Higgins the former Chief Justice talks about interpreting the Constitution in accordance with the virtues of prudence, justice and charity which are laid out in the Preamble, but then he says that this interpretation may gradually change and develop as society changes and develops and will fall to be interpreted from time to time in accordance with the prevailing ideas. After reading that quotation it is worth asking how the present Minister for Justice can give guarantees in this House as to what any form of words inserted in the Constitution will mean, when it is up to the Supreme Court to decide in accordance with the Preamble to the Constitution in a changing society what the words mean at any time in any test case. If Deputies and members of the public would only take on board the clearly stated views of several Supreme Court judges, they would find no difficulty in explaining the dichotomy between what the people thought they were voting for in 1983 and what the judges decided in the X case almost ten years later, because that is the way constitutional interpretations are made, and that is the way they have to be made, according to these eminent jurists, to be consistent with the organic nature of the Constitution and arising from the Preamble to the Constitution itself."
ReplyDeleteChief Justice Finlay referred with approval to those quotations and actually incorporated them in the X judgment when he made it clear that he was following the same approach. It is quite clear therefore that it is not possible to pin down the Supreme Court in advance to a particular interpretation of words in the Constitution, and to attempt to do so is futile because our Supreme Court since the late sixties has exactly the same notion of their interpreting function with regard to the Constitution as the Supreme Court in the US has, and they will interpret it as society changes in the light of prevailing circumstances against the background of the Preamble and in the light of the virtues of prudence, justice and charity. They thought it was just to lift the injunction on Miss X and they thought it was the charitable thing to do. That is why they made the decision. I put it to the Minister for Justice that it is not possible to give the kind of guarantees which the Minister gave in this House and which he gave from these Opposition benches in 1983, or to say with any certitude what way words in the Constitution may be interpreted in two years' time, in ten years' time or in thirty years' time.
- Michael Noonan, Fine Gael, https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1992-10-21/27/
In thinking of where we have been/we are; What is this Republic of which you Speak? Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 10 Dec 1948 - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/1948-12-10/3/
ReplyDeleteOn the P.R. - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1959-05-05/25/ and https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/1959-01-28/21/
I truly thank your host for permitting the above to be provided. It is important, in both our understanding who we are, what some wish us to become, what some have indeed become, and May God Bless in all His Understanding and Patience and Wisdom, within each of our given Blessings and Graces to encourage and obtain true Virtue and share it in our works...
ReplyDeleteThe above has alot of atheistic/humanistic impositions and statements. Alot seeks to take some items and twist them to modern explanation. Ironically, they haveno answer to what they see swim about them in their modern. Yet, we see, since apparently they see it, or knew it's ramifications, their nevertheless trying to ignore what is clearly in (some) of their conscience (prayers for those whom one says they seek to at least try to bring them to realize), to ply on and refer backwards to the societal mess that they did nothing to prevent, and only then said, well we can't reinvigorate that, so we will move on instead.
ReplyDeleteFaced with an allowed development, you are faced with a fait accomplis
ReplyDeleteOr so they think
ReplyDeleteTake Heart! You have kept the Faith!
ReplyDeleteMumble Jumble, they said this they said that. Essentially they said we need a family based society. We agree. They said that the political society shpuld always reference such a society. We agree. They said the Catholic Church provides the means by which such a society should understand itself. We agree.
ReplyDeleteOnly after reading the above, may one address properly the Constitutional issues which are supposedly to be discussed with both anachronisms and relevancy in mind. The question again is whether human wisdom is subject to legislative imposition such to be what one ideology likes and another dislikes, and certainly the lead-in to subsequent interpretation as to what neither like.
ReplyDeleteThus, when one considers in one's heart, in one's daily life, the development of a loved child, the preparation for a right world, yet not blind to societal and polis' encouragements and implementations, have yet an integral surrounding, which continues to nurture, defend and yes demand! not only off-handed recognition as something that they hoped would have died off, but the Norm from which they in fact deviate.
ReplyDeleteA Man should be in the Home, and All About. A Woman should be in the Home, and All About.
ReplyDeleteThe question sought to be expanded for EACH of us, is: Where is home? Where is about?
ReplyDeleteTherein is the sought elasticity. Undermine the family and the home, and all now is like a vacuum sucking breath from the Hearth to the government Hall.
ReplyDeleteReturning then to the, wow, that's old, and was subject to history that I know longer understand, or feel is no longer relevant. Again with baby and Bathwater.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you haven't known. Or have had the good fortune of being provided with the accumulated known. The ability to then throw out the bathwater without so doing the baby, is (or should be) the very idea of historical inheritance and correction. Or if one wants to do so, they can seek to re-invent the 'wheel' of war and horror, only laid low muchly by the Catholic principles and its infusion into decision-making alongside technological capability. Even then, without grounded principles, societies are always on the lookout for those which look across their horizon for something more, and manipulate those within for purpose of supporting, not just actual or manufactured aggression or defense, but sliding the scale ever away from a family-oriented social life from birth to death.
Can you go to school, succeed and make something of it?
ReplyDeleteCan you not go to school, succeed and make something of it?
ReplyDeleteCan you support each an every one of your family members and those around you near and far?
ReplyDeleteDo you have a flint-skill? Do you have a talk-skill? Do you have a fatherly and motherly tendency to foster the beautiful idea of being a proper nurturer to either or both a flint.talker?
ReplyDeleteI will conclude now as I especially appreciate the goodness of your host, to say, that I hope that before we attempt, as all children do when they are growing up, to change anything in our now immediacy/convenience society, that we reflect upon what means to say yes to I prefer not to do that since it conflicts with my Faith.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are many things we do not understand. But do you start any internal thought with there is a transcendent aspect to our life and this is very important or really at the end of it really means not so much in comparison. Yes, I think this is the best way to do that.