Wednesday, 22 March 2017

MARTIN MC GUINNESS


I only met Martin McGuinness ONCE in my 39 years living in Northern Ireland. 

We both appeared live on an Australian Television breakfast programme broadcast from a B&B in Cushendun in County Antrim.

He was talking to the Australian population about politics in Northern Ireland. I was there to talk about religion in Northern Ireland.

We only chatted briefly. I had written about him in one of my newspaper columns just before then. I had read a poem he had written about his sadness at finding a dead fish in a stream in Donegal. In the column I had wondered if he felt a similar sadness about those who had died in The Troubles - either at his hand or by his orders?


Now in 2017 and on the occasion of his death I must say that I feel sad at his passing - and at such a relatively young age and from such a horrible illness. 

The more time had gone on and the more peacemaking he had done the more I liked and admired him.

I do believe that he played an absolutely vital part in the peace process and he played a part that very few others - if any - could have played. In that sense his later life probably saved many lives here in the North and saved many others from injury and devastation. 


The British Occupation of Ireland for 800+ years was an unjust occupation and there is no doubt that the British have blood on their hands when it comes to Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Protestant "state" from 1922 was an unjust state that heavily discriminated against Catholics in every way including housing and employment.

The RUC was indeed "a Protestant police force for a Protestant people" and committed many horrific crimes against the Catholic community.




The "B Specials" and later the UDR, while having occasional good members in them were really legalised loyalist mobsters that were anti Catholic and committed terrible crimes. I saw them at their worst when I was a curate in Kilkeel in County Down in 1983 and 1984. I had a good relationship with their regular British Armo colonel who admitted to me that the Kilkeel UDR were "out of control". They used to set up roadblocks near the chapel in Kilkeel to try and prevent the Catholics getting to Mass.  On one occasion, late at night, they shot bullets over my head as I parked my car at the rear of the presbytery at Massforth, Kilkeel. 




While on the Falls Road in Belfast from 1978 to 1983 I saw the British Army behave like thugs when it came to searching houses or stopping young Catholics. The local RUC Chief Superintendent - Jim Cructhley with whom I had an excellent working relationship - again admitted to me that he had little control over the army and they caused him great problems.


Martin McGuinness who was born in Derry in 1950 grew up in this unjust state and saw all the injustices that were happening. He and all those he knew would have also being on the receiving end of all these injustices and suffered at the hands of the RUC, the B Specials, the British Army and the UDR.

So of course he grew up in an oppressed community that was on the receiving end of all this state, police and army oppression. Like so many others this would have radicalised him and indeed led him into the republican movement and the IRA.

He had also seen a couple of generations of Catholic / Nationalist politicians fail to improve things for him community - and being allowed to do so by British Governments. 

It is not at all surprising that he came to the conclusion that these oppressors had to be challenged and to be challenged by the gun and the bomb.

He also believed as a Catholic Christian that this "war" he was to become involved was a "just war".

I can clearly see how he took this road.

I came to Northern Ireland in 1978 as a very apolitical 26 year old. Within a short period of seeing my people's sufferings I became radicalised too - but I would never been able to become involved in "violence" - but I knew priests that did approve and even become involved!

I did however support my people in every other way I could.


The most important thing that had to happen to change things in Northern Ireland was the bringing to and end of the old Unionist Stormont Parliament.

Would that have happened without the IRA?

Personally and REGRETTABLY I feel that it would not.

Do those in power ever relinquish it willingly and peacefully?

Very often not.

Would politics have persuaded Hitler to stop?

Would politics have brought an end to apartheid in South Africa?

Would politics have stopped Saddam Hussein?

Would politics have stopped Bin Laden?

I know there are differences in these situations. But it is valid to ask in the old unionist Stormont regime would have fallen through politics alone?

War and violence is ALWAYS OBJECTIVELY WRONG AND AN EVIL.

But is it not a fact of life that bad situations are not always solved by rational and moral means.

Is it not also a fact of life that oppressors very seldom give way through persuasion?

As Christians we can say that from the perspective of OBJECTIVE MORALITY war and violence are evil.

From the point of view of SUBJECTIVE MORALITY can we say that sometimes war and violence are often the lesser of two or more evils?

Image result for the just war

Today and from now on various people will make various judgements on Martin McGuinness and his life.

But only God can judge his soul.

God has already done that.

The rest of us can probably do best if we try and remember all the good he did ???

We can also be sensitive to ALL the victims of Irish history and The Troubles.

And best of all we can resolve: NEVER AGAIN!

  




  

62 comments:

  1. Martin McGuinness' butcher's bill and the IRA's in general (or the loyalists either) didn't even reach the toll a good night over Hamburg or Berlin would have been. While the German menfolk were off fighting Stalin and being killed there, the RAF and Yanks were bombing their cities, killing women, dogs and children in their hundreds of thousands. Peace is made with enemies. Denying that peace twenty, thirty years later and repeatedly blaming a person and cause for the sins and excesses of their youth and focusing on that at the expense of everything else achieved just speaks of ignorance and in many cases racism. A pyrrhic victory over the corpses of millions is fine, a draw with an equally large and well armed foe is understandable, but to be forced to negotiate with a petty band of guerillas or terrorists, depending on your point of view is unacceptable, especially if that band of brigands came from what has been perceived to be a race little better than red Indians or hottentots for much of their history by their bigger neighbour and its collaborators. It seems fine for bigger powers to reduce other countries to ashes with some false narrative of civilising or just war but when these smaller countries, societies, groups, attempt to forge their own destinies or strike back, they are vilified as terrorists. Those who condemn Martin McGuinness are the types who expect a dog to lie silent and shake after it has been kicked, rather than bite back.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no such thing as a perfect State, Religious Denomination Government or individual. All we can do is objectively evaluate the past and with God's help work for a better future. The real Exodus is still a work in progress

    ReplyDelete
  3. What was wrong with Saddam? It was an illegal war instigated by lies and deceit claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction. Try and be clear with your facts pat and avoid populism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you claiming that Sadam was a good man and leader with no blood in his hands?

      Delete
  4. The story of Martin McGuinness is a story of conversion, a conversion from violence to peace making, and for that he must be admired. His friendship with Ian Paisley was one of the landmarks in the peace process. Ian accepted Martin's bona fides completely and lauded him greatly for his role in bringing about a peaceful solution to the Island.
    If we look at his violent past we all share revulsion at the coldheartedness of his actions and if his story had ended there we would all echo a good riddance., but thankfully it didn't. We share the pain that the victims op the violence had thrust upon them and understand how very difficult it must be for them to see Martin McGuiness exalted during these days.
    Martin like all of us was a sinner and will stand before the judgement seat of God to account for himself. Somehow I think he will find mercy for the Lord loves a repentant sinner.
    May he rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with everything you say at12.02 It was great to hear what Paisley's lovely wife Eileen and his two sons had to say in tribute to Mc Guinness and the fact that the friendship he had with Big Ian continued with the family up to this day. May he rest in peace. ( I wonder if the "chuckle brothers" have met up on the other side !)

      Delete
  5. Fuck off you cowardly people. No such place as Northern Ireland Buckley. Ireland is Ireland, the planters need to leave, they have brought nothing but a foreign religion, politics, language and culture. Time to go!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give us back the Old Gods in that case. None of this semitic or Roman muck for us.

      Delete
  6. I do not believe in the so-called 'Theory of Just War'. It is an abandonment of Christ's command to love, even those who persecute. It is an abandonment of faith in Christ's loving victory: that in the end, even in face of apparent and utter defeat of all that is good, holy and true, love prevails. And it prevails because it is stronger than evil, not by virtue of inherent force, but by its character: first, to endure, and then to break open and break down hearts hardened by hatred, prejudice and discrimination.

    Violence excludes (permanently in many cases) its victims from community; love excludes no one.

    It amazes and perplexes me that those who claim to believe in Christ will, when the chips are down, more quickly reach for the gun and the bomb than for the much more powerful spiritual weapons Christ places at our disposal...if we maintain trust in him. But our response too often in these situations is to tell Christ: I'll handle this MY way.

    I have written before, on this blog, against the perverse teaching of one of the most insidious minds ever to influence the course of Catholicism in history: Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. By way of example, the conceiver of the evil doctrine that unbaptised children and adults burn in Hell for eternity, and the conceiver of a theory of war that has destroyed the physical and mental lives of millions in history.

    Augustine betrayed Christ in these (and other) teachings; he has betrayed you and me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Would you ever cop the fuck on. 'Augustine betrayed Christ'. You are one gimp. What about scriptural passages where Jesus commands Hid disciple carry a sword? The arrogance is incredible! Augustine! That is the most ridiculous level of shite you have developed today troll. Back into your hole now, or whatever guy you are laying it into now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus commanded no such thing. Prove your point.

      Delete
    2. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36. You probably dispute the Bible as well.

      Delete
    3. No, I don't dispute what you have literally quoted, but I do dispute your understanding of it. That's the problem with isolating scriptural passages from their context.

      'Sword' here is symbolic, just as are the other elements in that quotation: 'purse' and 'bag'. The language is not literal, but an allusion to Jesus' forthcoming death and the fact that, until his resurrection, the disciples would have to (as it were) live by their own resources.

      You must realise that Jesus was aware, from prophecy in Isaiah, that he would die, so he wasn't trying to avoid this by having his disciples defend him with swords. Besides, 'sword' here is a misnomer, since, under Roman Law, Jews were forbidden from arming themselves in this way. The penalty for breaching this law was death.

      Delete
    4. You are now merely interpreting scripture as Augusgine did. Every accusation you make can be turned back on you. For the accuser of my brethern has been thrown down. That is all you do, accuse.

      Delete
    5. No, I was not interpreting Scripture, but understanding its broader sweep from my knowledge of biblical exegesis and history.

      Do you accept that Jesus knew he was about to die? He either referred or alluded to this even before the Last Supper, for example, when Peter, alarmed, tried to prevent Jesus from going to Jerusalem for a last Passover celebration.

      Jesus knew he had to accept, in obedience to his Father (and, therefore, for the salvation of the world) the death for him prophesied by Isaiah. There was no avoiding it. Nor did he wish to, as his words, later in Gethsemane, attest: 'Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours be done.' Jesus did not tell his disciples to defend him with swords to avoid a death he KNEW he would have to suffer for the reasons I've already stated.

      Delete
    6. Exegesis is interpretation. The Passion is the completion of the Passover, that is pretty obvious. However when you make a simple stupid statement such as 'Jesus said no thing', i reply to your statement as required.

      Delete
    7. No, hermeneutics is interpretation. Exegesis is explanation.

      Who's the stupid one now?

      Delete
    8. Seriously, you merely prove my point. You should have studied your theology a little better before you were kicked out of maynooth paul.

      Delete
    9. You keep missing the mark, don't you? Can't get ANY thing right. Right?

      Delete
    10. You really don't like being proven wrong Paul? Your paltry knowledge of scripture and theology is laughable at best. Poor Paul.

      Delete
    11. Ding ding ding ding the troll is here. It is really clear what magna does. Insults people, avoids the questions and spouts absolute garbage. Is your name paul by the way?

      Delete
    12. Magna what are you talking about? You got a piece of scripture wrong, annon gave a passage and you ramble on about exegesis. A clear passage was identified, case and point. CAP LOCKS MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. twat

      Delete
    13. Neither 21:40 nor 21:42 has even the remotest idea of the disciplinary distinction between exegesis and hermenutics. (Psst! Here's an idiot-proof clue, chaps: they're actually different words with different meanings.

      A knowledge of biblical exegesis (critical explanation of a text) is a pre-requisite for a reliable biblical hermeneutic (interpretation of a text). And neither of you possesses either, as your posts show.

      Exegesis requires scholarly knowledge of such disciplines as biblical languages and history (and even some knowledge of biblical archaeology at times) before attempting a reliable hermeneutic of Scripture. I possess ALL of these; you two clearly don't, since you wouldn't post the kind of illiterate, hare-brained comments that expose you as lesser than dilettantes.

      As for 21:47, what am I talking about? Don't trouble yourself about this, dear. You wouldn't understand, even from a mono-syllabic answer.

      Delete
    14. Ah the satanic edge of magna. Preaches Christ but vomits satan all over this blog.

      Delete
    15. Magna you talk about hermeneutics, exegesis and historical methods of academic pursuit, but based on your comments to these anonymous comments and other posts on this blog, you demonstrate quite aptly many flaws in your arguments from design to actual implementation. Correct formation and scholarly endeavour is required to rectify and indeed remedy an enthusiastic but flawed approach to theological discourse.

      Delete
    16. Magna you mention that the sword is symbolic, yet in the passage that follows the disciples produce two actual swords. Symbolic and actual. Additionally, would temple guards not be subject to Roman law, carrying swords being punishable by death? There is ample archaeological evidence of temple and private guards carrying swords. Also, depending on the jurisdiction, Roman law may have had a different level of enforcement based on the province e.g. king herod as opposed to a regional governor, hence a differenr application of the law. See Tacitus for further details. Obviously the latin transcripts provide a more accurate insight.

      Delete
    17. 23:47, I'd answer your comment if actually it made a point. It doesn't, since you didn't specify which of my comments 'demonstrate quite aptly many flaws in your arguments from design to implementation '. Which arguments? Er, 'design and implementation '? Aren't you capable of 'designing' a coherent sentence?

      Delete
    18. I think you can begin with your incorrect understanding of roman law and politics, pertaining to the punishable by death comment. That is if you are capable of answering the question without returning an insult. Clearly your knowledge of of archeogical history is lacking. You do know who Tacitus is?

      Delete
    19. 23:58, yes, the 'sword' is symbolic. Clearly it had to be, since Jesus didn't endorse violence. Don't you remember what he said to Simon Peter upon his striking off the Malchus' ear in Gethsemane. He didn't praise Peter; he chided him.

      Yes, the disciples produce two swords, according to Luke. Jesus' response, 'It is enough', is better translated: 'That's enough!'. In other words, 'No more talk of this kind!'



      Under Roman Law, Jews were not permitted to carry 'swords' beyond a certain length. Effectively, they were permitted to carry just knives (or daggers). Anything longer was considered a weapon by the Romans. If Jews did carry such prohibited weapons and were caught, they were executed.

      Delete
    20. Dang magna! You got burned! Lol

      Delete
    21. Where is your proof for the swords law? Under Julius Caesar the Jewish people were granted rights not enjoyed by other peoples. State your proof and back it up academically.

      Delete
    22. 10:06, you're a big boy now. Shouldn't expect to be spoon-fed all of your illiterate life. Do your own homework.

      Oh! And don't forget to be grateful: you'be had the privilege of being taught by a master.

      Delete
    23. Ah, resorting to insults. Well i accept your concession with great grave. I am merely pointing out some historical facts. As Julius said, veni vidi vici. GG EZ.

      Delete
    24. Ha ha ha 13:16, not even in your wildest dream could you 'veni; vidi; vici.' me. FTW

      Delete
    25. 00:30, you asked me: 'You do know who Tacitus is?' (Grammatical error: tense) Your question should have read: 'You do know who Tacitus WAS?'

      Delete
    26. Sofa time for me, but I don't want to fall asleep and miss the craic.!(Are we still at the cutting edge of debate here or descended into usual waffleissimo?)

      Delete
  8. Two Protestant ministers do readings and speak at Martin McGuinness funeral Mass and a former US President gives the eulogy. Who would have thought it?!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don't know why Donal mc Keown was making a nuisance
    of himself escorting people into the chapel.you would have thought he owned the place
    And Gerry Adams making a hash of himself riling people up to rebel,what a twat he is, neither the 3 of them at the graveSide fit to hold a candle
    to Martin

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well they just people like the rest of us, and they were friends of Martin
    Thank God for a civil priest saying the mass
    So we're the locals all herded outside ?
    Didn't rate some of the irish language mass songs, mostly because I never heard them b4...... Just a tad boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about the singing in the funeral. It may just have been where the microphones were placed, but the voices came across as a bit strident and publike. Derry has some amazingly good choirs who could have sung but the family probably preferred the kind of folk - style music we heard who were possibly singing some of his known favourites.
      I love the speeches though. Bill Clinton didn't speak over long but was very sincere and had plenty of humour! Such a turnout of crowds, most of whom had no seats but heard the sound relayed outside and there was a big outdoor screen at "Free Derry " corner. The congregation had so many VIPs--past and present heads of state but the day very much belonged to Martin's Bogside friends and neighbours too who were all welcomed, as well as his family of course. What a day and how fitting!

      Delete
  11. Magna Carta to the fore yet again! I was hoping for change on here, alas it wasn't to be found today, more fool me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well now you'd have to say +Pat that he got a better send of than most of any Bishops from Diddle Daly to Casey ever got. Is it something to do with honesty I believe it may well be.
    I read what Peter Robinson said and eventually Arlene after much pressure to attend I'd say and I hope that the exists the political will as Clinton said to FINISH THE JOB.
    I believe we all lost in the troubles I was shot and lost my childhood aswell as relatives, but never have I have I been shying away from seeking peace.
    We might not our neighbours be they Nationalist, Unionist, Foriegn National or other it doesn't mean that I cannot forgive the wrongs and live in peace.

    Sent you a face book link there Ive never heard Jesus called that before but hay who am I to ctricise lololol

    ReplyDelete
  13. Magna Carta, congratulations. The blog has received so few contributions in the last few days because of you. Well done, pat yourself on the back. Great achievement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Magna is a troll. Or a cunt. Not sure. Or both.

      Delete
    2. Well, at least I've gained YOUR attention. Some achievement that!

      Delete
  14. It seems ages since we had an update on the woofery at Gaynooth; they’ll be having a high old time without your constant vigilance and superintendence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a beaten docket, dearie.
      Maynooth is quietly getting on with its academic year....

      Delete
    2. The quiet ones are always the worst.

      Delete
    3. They are untouchable! Too many homos protecting them!

      Delete
  15. Donal McKeown spoke really well tonight on the view BBC1. Hes one of the last few good ones left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The question I want to know about Donal? Did he wash? Dirty carn, doesn't even wash his teeth! Try standing next to him! Personal hygiene is far from him, just look at his hair.

      Delete
  16. Magna has taken over this blog with his bile and crudeness. Enough said. I pity the blog, lessons haven't been learnt. Shame!

    ReplyDelete
  17. MourneManMichael24 March 2017 at 08:42

    Having read so much negativity about bishop McKeown on these blogs I watched his contribution to BBC News last night with interest. I'd never heard him speak before.I actually thought he spoke very well and sensibly.
    Obviously I have no direct knowledge of his actions in other matters, but I would just hope that his future actions might mirror his words on this occasion.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
  18. The blog is virtually unreadable since that queen Magna Carta/Paul/Magna Carta (sic)/Maggie Carta took over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it hasn't stopped your reading it. I'm clearly attracting interest.

      Go on. Admit it. You enjoy my contributions, don't you? You and the other deviants in your cabal?

      Delete
  19. MMM yes he did pass himself ok last nite....but that in itself won't excuse him for his and his colleagues misdeeds and cover ups

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MourneManMichael26 March 2017 at 02:37

      I cannot comment from lack of knowledge of his past. I can only hope for his future actions, and that they are guided by the spirit of his comments on the News prog.
      MMM

      Delete
  20. It seems like weeks since there has been some scandal reported on this blog. Viewing figures must have dropped off significantly. Surely there has been some unworthyness at Gaynooth, or unnecessaryness at parish level. I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I said before - - the tiger doesn't lose sleep worrying about what the sheep are thinking!

    ReplyDelete
  22. There was a Paul from a prominent northern diocese asked to leave Maynooth in the 80s. Is that he? If I remember, he had a moustache then?

    ReplyDelete
  23. MourneManMichael26 March 2017 at 02:32

    For anyone so inclined. there is an interesting blog on Martin McGuiness to read on the English fishing website maggotdrowning.com
    There are currently five pages on the blogsite, and while the first few pages are quite negative and hostile in relation to Martin, it then moderates to quite an interesting measured series of comments putting a historical perspective on his background and reasons for becoming involved in the IRA.
    It is very instructive to read some of the comments by ex British army servicemen who were sent to N. Ire. with very little understanding of their role, and some of whom were injured in the conflict, yet nonwithstanding, now in later years reveal considerable empathy and understanding for the multi dimensional dilemmas of those sucked involuntarily into the conflicts of the tribal quasi religious/political scenario then existing.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete