Could it just be a case of a slow news period? The footie season has ended. The election is over. By now we all know that listening to Oakshott speak is worse than root canal. The Commonwealth Games was a bust. The Australian cricketers have not covered themselves in glory. What other feelgood Australian stories were there these past few weeks?

In case you hadn't noticed, Mr White, we Australians become over-excited by the most unimportant events.

It has a lot to do with the fact that our lives are generally so humdrum and mundane.

To relieve the monotony, some people put coins into a glittering machine, watch some pictures whirl around for 2.4 seconds, and get agitated when they stop.

Some watch TV programs that confect drama from opening briefcases with numbers in them.

Others throw two coins in the air, and express high emotion when they land on the ground.

In this environment, it is totally unremarkable that we make a substantial news item from the tale of a nun who cured cancer after having been dead for decades.

On balance, a relatively newsworthy achievement, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile, in other news:

http://www.paranormalmagazine.co.uk/2010/09/

"...governments are spraying the air with poisonous chemicals in order to combat overpopulation and/or climate change"

I just love that "and/or", don't you?

I'm not sure the enthusiasm went beyond the quarter of Australains who are Catholic, nor it was shared by all Catholics.

Why honour a woman who, under the influence of an organisation which fosters a story purloined from ancient Egyptian myths, gave up the pleasures of a normal family life to promote the indoctrination of children in the myth of that particular religion? Sure, she did some other more beneficial tasks, but did that outweigh the other?
I know plenty of people who willing, sometimes in paid work, sometimes as volunteers, help others improve their own lives and the lives of future generations without the dubious benefit of any religious myths.
Those, and VC winners, and people like Weary Dunlop, are the people I admire.

I am always confused about by what authority an organisation or persons claims the ability of speaking on behalf of God. Catholics are not the only ones guilty of this. I can accept that an organisation can give awards to members who give exceptional service but If there is such a thing as a saint isn't it up to God to decide?
This what I object to with religion. How can anyone claim to to speak on behalf of God?

Of course this entire circus event comes straight out of the modern now dominant tradition of Barnum and Bailey and massive media hype/propaganda.

P T Barnum was of course wrong - their are thousands of gullible suckers born every minute.

The event was also very much about applied power politics, as was the recent papal circus that visited the UK, and the associated beatification of Newman.

Part of the "religion" versus science/secularism culture wars, and the fight for market share of the "religion" market between the various christian sects, and between christianity and all the non-christian religions.

Of course right-wing "catholics" are also quite fond of cannons too.

Hi,
thanks for reading the article. I'm pleasantly surprised at the number of people who have. If I might respond to the posts in order of appearance?
Steven, I think it was more than a slow news period. In part it might be that any news about a big organisation and our country is big news, but the coverage I could find went beyond reportage and became a kind of moderate evangelism for the virtues of Mary MacKillop. I think she was virtuous, but the idea that we had to wait for the Catholic church to elevate her to a certain level of virtue before we (insofar as our Politicians, NewsLtd, the ABC, and SBS, among others can be said to represent us) strikes me as odd. It seems symptomatic of our at once fervent and diffident patriotism. A patriotism that seems to seek a clear expression but is shy of affirming it too robustly. Australian nationalism is real and sincere, but also somewhat tortured - our most cherished national day celebrates a military defeat, after all and we seem to lack an agreed upon canon of heroes of a kind possessed by other nations. So the way Mary was seized on by commentators and politicians seemed like a way of filling this gap, as though they could only affirm a national hero on someone else's authority, namely the catholic church.

miserable gits...just enjoy some jolly good news for a change

Pericles, prince of Tyre,
Given your reputation, I must say I was expecting something more eloquent. I'm no great fan of nationalism myself, but I do think it can be healthy if moderate, inclusive and respectful of other cultures while proud of that which it claims to embody. I'm kind of glad we have no pantheon because it's the kind of thing that could only be excused these days as the continuation of a tradition begun long ago. Barring some radical social upheaval that resulted in a frighteningly zealous commitment to civic virtue - like the French Revolution, it would seem plastic and contrived in the contemporary culture. And yet I reaaly do think that the way the MacKillop story was handled implies some vague yearning for an official set of Australian heroes - that's my observation, not my wish. The frivolity of 2-up and Deal or no Deal are not particular to Australia and, like every nation, we do have a vague moral seriousness to our national character - perhaps we're just more anxious about what it is than some other countries, especially those with histories of political and social upheaval. Geoffrey Elington once said that central Europe has too much history, America too little, and England somewhere in between. Leaving aside the ignorance of non-european history this shows, Australia would have an even sparser past than the USA, lacking as we do their claim to democratic innovation.
P.S. I wouldn't worry about the gases.

McReal,
I tried to find poll data on public opinion about the canonization, but couldn't find any. I'm sure not everyone was all that excited, but the media and political classes were all trying to cast the event as something of significance for every Australian. I'm aware this doesn't mean it was significant for every Australian - just as Anzac day and Australia day aren't. But it seemed significant that those with the most power to shape ideas of national identity were enlisting the elevation of an Australian by a non-Australian authority in the service of building a stronger and more cohesive national identity that I found interesting. It implied that on some level they were too timid to do so on their own,despite obviously enjoying the opportunity to celebrate the eternal fame of 'one of us.'
Foyle, I agree with you about the strangeness of relying first on the church's ideas of virtue to give Australians permission to celebrate someone in terms of - broadly speaking - our ideas of virtue. I hope that came through in the article.

Daviy,
I'm not certain, but I think those religions that claim to speak for God work on the assumption that God has ceased to speak directly to man, but when last doing so left instructions as to who can best speak on his behalf. I think that's what the putative apostolic lineage of the Catholic church is all about: that they can trace their organisation back to the apostle Peter who laid down rules for interpreting the Bible, for conducting communion with the lord, and for interpreting the events of the day w/r/t God's will. I don't agree with this either, but some people find it persuasive - assuming what I just wrote if accurate. Like I said, I THINK that's how it works.
Ho Hum,
maybe the media coverage is modern, but the rite of canonisation is quite old. Centuries I would guess, but I'm not up to speed with Vatican procedures. Of course pageantry has been a part of political and religious propaganda since well before the advent of PT Barnum. Elizabeth I used it extensively, as did the Romans. The aestheticization of politics arguably predates Walter Benjamin's study of it. Pretty things cam be very useful. I admit to admiring the splendour of the canonisation, however little emotion or spiritual belief I invested in it.

KSW wrote:

>>But it seemed significant that those with the most power to shape ideas of national identity were enlisting the elevation of an Australian by a non-Australian authority in the service of building a stronger and more cohesive national identity...It implied that on some level they were too timid to do so on their own>>

Interesting thought.

It raises the question of what type of national identity the political class is interested in building. Suppose an Australian Muslim scholar was granted an honorary doctorate by Al Azhar "University" - supposedly the most prestigious Muslim "university" in the world. Would that also be a cause for national celebration?

Or what would the reaction be if an Australian born Muslim scholar were appointed to the Saudi Arabian Ulema? I know it's unlikely but suppose it were to happen?

Don't get carried away, KSW.

>>Pericles, prince of Tyre, Given your reputation, I must say I was expecting something more eloquent.<<

I'm not actually that Pericles, you know. Easy mistake to make, of course, but it's best to set you straight.

>>...yet I reaaly do think that the way the MacKillop story was handled implies some vague yearning for an official set of Australian heroes - that's my observation, not my wish<<

Not mine, though. I don't detect any "yearning" in the Australian psyche - even a vague one - for characters to look up to. In fact, I'd suggest precisely the opposite. The natural posture is one of aggressive egalitarianism. We compete for the honour of being the most egalitarian in our group. And the very idea of looking up to another human being is as foreign to yer actual Aussie as Andouillette de Troyes.

Equally "on the nose", in fact.

>>...we do have a vague moral seriousness to our national character<<

More vagueness. Well, I suppose if you qualify everything with "vague", it is difficult to refute categorically. Perhaps I should vaguely disagree with you, would that be ok?

No, I have to stand firm.

If there is indeed a moral seriousness present in the Australian character, it completely escapes me. If we scratch the surface of "she'll be right", what do we find?

"She'll be right. Mate."

>>...perhaps we're just more anxious about what it is than some other countries, especially those with histories of political and social upheaval.<<

Or, perhaps, our anxiety concerns its patent absence. With no substantial history of our own, everything we do have has been borrowed, one way or another.

Ned Kelly was a thug. Gallipoli was a defeat. The Melbourne Cup is a horse race.

In short;
-Slow-news time (despite a LOT happening in the world during these)
-News groups always try to excite reader demographics with whatever
-Trying to pander to the "Oh my god, an AUSTRALIAN got recognized outside AUSTRALIA!" (the Nicole Kidman syndrome)

I don't mind there being saints around. I just don't like any one pushing their type of religion on to me.
My mother used to call me a saint, and i recon she was right when i think of it.

In your second sentence you wrote "you or I". Surely you meant "you or me".

DIS

DIS
<In your second sentence you wrote "you or I". Surely you meant "you or me".>

Presumably you are referring to Mr White’s third sentence: “She was Australian, but her sanctity was not decided in the halls of our parliament; and if she is any more divine than you or I it is only in the minds of those who believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church.”

If so, and if you seriously wanted people to respond to your comment, then please note that the relevant part of this sentence is a shortened form of “and if she is any more divine than you are or I am, it is only in the minds….” This makes “you or I” the sensible thing to say as it would not be sensible to say, “”and if she is any more divine than you are or me am ….”

If your school taught grammar, it might have decreed that the verb to be takes the same case before it as after (at least, that’s what mine taught me sixty five years ago). But don’t be too worried by rules. They don’t determine how we should speak. They only codify what good speakers find it sensible to say. “My friend and I would like you to share a taxi” is sensible but “Would you like to share a taxi with my friend and I” isn’t. To see why, just repeat the sentences without referring to your friend.

I think there is a part in our collective Australian-ness that desperately wants the approval of others. We already knew that Mary Mackillop was an alright sort of lady, but when others agree we jump for joy. Maybe not as a whole nation, but parallels can be seen elsewhere.

Consider, for example, Nicole Kidman, Kylie Minogue and Cate Blanchett. Apparently they are all pretty good at what they do (personally, I haven't seen anything that stands out as wonderful from Nicole, Kylie seems like a nice lady but her music isn't to my taste and Cate - well, I'll concede that she does well). It's only when outsiders take notice, though, that we become all patriotic about them. Until they win an Oscar or a Grammy or another flashy award, or have a smash hit overseas that we believe they have really made it. Mary Mackillop is the same. We nationalise her personal achievements (conveniently forgetting that she was stomped on by Australians and overseas Catholics alike, every step of the way) just as we nationalise the personal achievements of our sportsmen, actors and other "greats".

Another parallel I could draw is our undying need to know what others think of us. Look on this forum - we have countless discussions about whether people think we're racist, whether they think we're a bit backward, whether they laugh at us behind our backs. Talk to a South African and he will tell you what you should think of his country. Talk to an Australian and he will anxiously await your praise of his country. The marvel that was the Sydney Olympics would have been a little less joyful had Juan Antonio Samaranch (sp?) not declared them the best games ever. For some reason, we are obsessed with outside praise.

None of this is a criticism - just an observation. I am passionate about Australia. I get a bit annoyed when it is attacked or criticised, just as many others do. I think we are going through a bit of an attention-seeking phase. Bring on the attention, I say!

I don't mind people getting excited over Mary McKillop, although I can't personally find much sympathy for someone who was instrumental in creating the great state vs private divide in our education system and the class system which has largely resulted from it. After all, far more people get excited about a horse race or a football match. But it does irritate me when the NSW 'newspaper of record', with a perfectly straight face, posts articles documenting the 'miracles' achieved -- not even by McKillop herself, note, but by her immaterial soul, long after the lady herself had become worm food.

Somebody needs to grow up and get a grip.

What need have we for articles dissing religion, yet again? Like female stand up comedians who only seem to be able to resort to one-liners about 'getting p*ss*d', anti-religion articles demonstrate a similar lack of imagination. Now write about something worth reading.

Pericles thanks to you I enjoy a great laugh during your postings!

Strange, ausdag - I didn't read this as an anti-religion article at all. It simply questioned the interest from non-religious Australians in a purely religious matter.

I don't know that Mary Mackillop can be held accountable for the 'class divide' that apparently emerges from private education. How many children from rural Catholic schools go on to become upper-class toffs in our society? The schools she established were hardly GPS institutions. The very purpose of their establishment was to fill a gap left by colonial governments who had failed to establish schools of any kind in rural areas. Additionally, she was an advocate of free schooling (her own schools did not charge fees) in a time when such a thing was a novel idea indeed.

Otokonoko, it was the eventual outcome of the popularity and success of catholic education that 'led' to the current system. In Goulburn in NSW the catholic schools threatened to close and flood the public schools with their students if they didin't receive government support. They did, and state funding of private education started. I think there is still as separate funding deal for catholic schools, which are often a lot cheaper than similar non-catholic private schools. None of which is to say that Mary McKillop wasn't doing a good thing.

Otokonoko,

True...I take your point and hereby retract my previous comment. I also appologise to the author for the overly harsh tone. Must have been the late night :-)

Regards

Ausdag

I'll take up your offer.
I'll respond to your scatological meadow-muffin, and question your mojo hypothesis ! The newly sanctified Mary McKillop cannot be compared to VC winners, Weary Dunlop or even bush ranger extraordinaire Ned-the-irish-git Kelly..may he rot..! Your choice of National heroes leave much to be desired. This momentous occasion is not about how tough and mean we claim to be, but about resilience, fortitude and ambrosial charity from within.

Oz history is resplendent with statesmen, shysters, thespians, mutineers, charlatans, and under-belly crims.

Since the inauguration of the First-fleeter's disembarkation, at Sans Souci. Botany Bay, the scramble for notoriety and celebrity status has not abated one iota, in fact it has exacerbated tenfold.
From Governor Phillip, to the first week, of a public hanging for rape, lewd behavior and drunkenness. All the proponents made herculean / olympian quests, to become the first in the antediluvian Guinness Book of Records. Lawson, Wentworth, Macquarie etc strived their level best for Public acclaim and history book recognition. The quest for fame / fortune aka celeb status, was unofficially launched in Terra Australis from Day one: 18 Jan.1788.

Quixotically, " fortune ", it seems, took a back seat momentarily. It was not until it became fashionable to do a " robin hood ", and rob stage coaches when they went over the Blue Mountain Ranges, and ran out of puff. Evidently, the jejune practice didn't pay off as handsomely as some denuded micks expected, so they took up cattle rustling, and blamed it all on the full bloodied Aborigine tribes, who lived along the Hawkesbury, where the modern day Windsor Tropicana is today. This led to full scale " shock-an-awe " skirmishes and reprisals, which owe it's genesis to Governor Phillips untimely intervention. The tribes took a G-awful thrashing. Musket ball, power beats boomerangs and nulla-nulla's, hands down, any day !

cont..

I was going to start a thread about this myself.

It was going to be titled "Why Protestants don't have 'Saints'"

The reason is simple. Best exemplified by one anecdotal comment from a lay catholic person "Now I've been helped by Mary McKillop..I started praying TO her"

The reason for Christian service is not for any personal glory or name.
The only one who should be honoured thru Christian service is Christ.
There is no 'merit' in Christian service other than as it bring glory to Christ alone. So.. 'we' don't enter into it.

Paul said //"I" am crucified with Christ..it is no longer "I" who live, but Christ who lives in me// Gal 2:20