Mary Kenny“Even though the official Catholic Church disapproved of rebellion, it was a profoundly Catholic event”
So how are we going to mark the centenary of 1916? There will be plenty of public debate and discussion all this year, and the more there is, the better. For it should be a genuinely national discussion on as wide a canvas as possible.
I hope it won’t be forgotten, or overlooked, that the truth about Easter 1916 was that it was a deeply spiritual event. Indeed, even though the official Catholic Church disapproved of rebellion, it was a profoundly Catholic event well chronicled in Fearghal McGarry’s magisterial study The Rising – Easter 1916.
Participants
As Dr McGarry demonstrates, most of the participants in the 1916 Rising had a spiritual attitude to what they were doing, and many, like Pearse himself, approached it as a deliberately sacrificial event.
Mass and Holy Communion sustained the insurgents, and in the GPO itself, the Rosary was said every hour.
Dr McGarry, an academic at Queen’s University Belfast, has brought a truthful and radical insight into the events of 1916, and we shouldn’t brush aside the values which sustained the men and women of 1916, if we want to see history accurately. Nor should we forget the role of the Capuchin priests and Vincentian nuns who tended the wounded, maimed and dying in the streets of Dublin.
(The artist Muriel Brandt did some wonderful paintings of these nuns, who at that time wore unmistakeable butterfly wimples, caring for street victims: the pictures can be seen at the Crawford Gallery in Cork.)
Generations
So I hope the Catholic Church will affirm, on behalf of the dead generations, indeed, the entitlement to have a spiritual presence in the 1916-2016 commemorations. We speak a lot about “inclusiveness” today – an inclusiveness which may even mean inviting a member of the British Royal Family to the commemorative events (and it shouldn’t necessarily be ruled out). But let us be inclusive to the spirit and spirituality of those who wrote that Proclamation of the Republic, which has become the founding mission statement of the Irish State.
Arguments against mixed education
Separating boys and girls in school is regarded as a rather outdated idea, and increasingly, young girls and boys, as well as adolescents are educated together in mixed-sex schools. A good thing?
I think it’s always difficult to generalise about education, because different schools and different forms of education suit different children. There are many memoirs written by those who suffered misery at boarding school; but there are also children who plead to be sent to boarding school, and even love it when they get there.
A British educationalist, Alun Jones, president of the Girls’ School Association, has come to the view that girls and boys should be educated separately from the ages of 11 to 16 – for the sake of boys, who are now badly falling behind girls in school achievement. Mr Jones, an experienced school principal, has said that boys are “intimidated” by these high-achieving girls – “very bright, very driven, very focused, very articulate” – and lads resort to bad behaviour, larking about with deliberate immaturity.
Education pattern
He suggests a “diamond-shaped” education pattern, whereby boys and girls are together up to the age of 11, then separated, then brought together again for their final school years. It makes sense. It’s well-observed that girls mature, emotionally and psychologically, much earlier than boys and when girls are already poised young women, boys can be still silly clowns acting the amadán.
It’s worth considering not just for the sake of boys, but perhaps of girls, too, who are known to do better at maths and the sciences if males aren’t present and competing. Maybe it could also reduce the bullying that goes with the obsession over female appearance and grooming.
As the French novelist Andre Maurois once wrote, most ideas eventually get revived and recycled!
Nollaig na mBan tradition becoming more popular
Growing up in Dublin, I must honestly admit that we didn’t know anything about January 6 being Nollaig na mBan. I think it was a country tradition, and a very commendable one too, and I’d like to know more about its roots. (Also, I’d like some Gaelic scholar to explain to me why it isn’t Nollaig na Mna – an explanation accessible to a grammatical dunce, please.)
January 6 was sometimes known in Dublin as Little Christmas, and I do remember it being a special day, with the enchanting story of the Three Kings on their camels. I think we were also aware that the Epiphany was a feast we shared with a wider Christendom: it’s important in France and Italy, and it often coincides with the Orthodox Christmas. The Church of England (and the Church of Ireland) also traditionally considered it significant. Awareness of Nollaig na mBan has grown in recent times and that’s lovely.