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?