Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 8 °C Monday 21 May, 2012

Column: Cardinal Rules – On January boot camp for the boys

Image: AP Photo/Simon Dawson/PA Images

THIS WEEK I accompanied Bishop Brophy to Maynooth on his now annual visit to the new seminarians. Both Bishop Brophy and I see it as a morale boost after the Christmas period when irrational doubts tend to creep in, or people are feeling a little bit homesick.

I see him as my gentle enforcer, swaying back to their vocation those who have strayed from the path, or indeed cajoling them from atop the seminary belfry. But enough about the wildly misrepresented events of Christmas 1996. Usually a quick pep talk can put paid to anyone scaling a wall, and the occasional intemperate wail of “But I want to see my mammy!”

Sunday

Bishop Brophy gathers all ten of the new seminarians in the gym. He walks up and down the line asking them their names, and smiling in a grandfatherly way. My job consists of standing nearby, steepling my fingers, and saying an earnest “Mmm,” every few minutes.

Bishop Brophy then faces them head on and starts his traditional motivational speech.

“Do you have any family history that has seen you take this as a career choice? Did you grow up on an isolated farm? Perhaps you were brought up by an overbearing pious father prone to sudden inexplicable outbursts of violent rage? Were you also brought up by a saintly suffering mother? Did your father have occasion maybe perhaps to drown, shoot, or sell a cherished family pet, while making you watch as he drowned, shot, or sold said cherished family pet? Have you taken this pain and sublimated it into a directionless impulse to do good, and to reach out to people in some vague shape or form? Well, if you’ve had none of these experiences then leave now. There’s the door.”

There is silence. Nobody moves. Bishop Brophy smiles at me.

“Which one of you has a stutter?” he bellows.

He turns back to me “There’s always one with a stutter,” he winks.

“Don’t worry whoever you are,” he tells them cheerily, “we’ll beat that out of you.”

He turns back to me. “Not literally of course, there are laws against that now,” he sighs.

Monday

The day is spent saying prayers, talking about the Bible, and having a surprise ten-mile run. Bishop Brophy is particularly encouraged by the proliferation of Christmas and V-necked jumpers. Indeed none of the seminarians seems to have any idea about the current fashion trends. A late blooming seminarian is even wearing flecked trousers. This is of course a very encouraging sign.

Later he tells me he has taken note of each and every one of them. “As always we must work on their weak points and vulnerabilities and take advantage of them. I’m particularly optimistic about the fat one with the wonky eye.”

“You mean the one that constantly smells of cheese and onion crisps?”

“That’s the one,” he replies energetically.

Tuesday

Bishop Brophy tells the seminarians that they must be slightly more open to the outside world. Just slightly.

“It enlarges your vision, and helps you, if not to feel empathy for people, at least to create a decent approximation of it.”

Bishop Brophy informs everyone that one of the best ways to understand what’s going on in people’s lives is to look at what is trending on the Twitter. We go down the trending list. After about five minutes we notice that #joysofhavingapenis is trending. Nobody knows what to say for ages. Somebody stifles a sob.

“Okay, maybe this wasn’t such a good idea,” says Bishop Brady slamming the lid down on the laptop.

Wednesday

The day starts with a five-mile run for the seminarians, followed by an assault course. Everything is punctuated by Bishop Brophy shouting orders.

“I feel just like Lee Marvin in The Dirty Dozen,” he grins.

I politely inform him that I should be Lee Marvin and he should be Richard Jaeckel. He doesn’t seem too happy with the idea. Then we spend the rest of the day trying to figure which of the seminarians is John Cassavetes. We settle on the nervy talkative one from Roscommon.

Thursday

Bishop Brophy is advising the seminarians on how best to deal with parishioners. “You need to be able to project both a certain degree of paternalism, with a sense of  patrician superiority,” he says.

As an example he shows us Dr James Reilly being interviewed on the Six-One News.

“See how he manages to be both subtly patronising while also utilising a faint, despairing belligerence?”

The seminarians nod. Some of them start taking notes. Later he teaches them how to project an air of confidence, even while all available evidence points towards disaster. He uses a Phil Hogan interview as an example.

Friday

We are down to eight seminarians. We console ourselves with the fact that the percentage is down on previous years, and that according to the law of averages we should be able to at least track one down and coax him back with a few well placed threats.

“The future is looking bright,” smiles Bishop Brophy as we drive away.

And I find myself hoping that he’s not channelling Phil Hogan.

Read previous Cardinal Rules columns>

Read Next:

Comments (16 Comments)

  • AlMar 06/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Imagine if this weekly column was about Jews. Or Muslims. Or gays. Imagine if we had lame satire about African immigrants week after week…

    I could understand the occasional column, especially if others were also lampooned. But no, it’s only ever the Catholic Church.

    Why is this bigotry acceptable to The Journal?

    Reply
  • jumpthecat 06/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    The most consistently dreadful column on the journal.
    Absolute dross of no merit.
    Unoriginal, unfunny and seemingly unstoppable…

    Reply
  • Ralph Hos 07/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    I like it. Man… you guys are grumpy. It’s just a bit of fun. When I read your articles and find them funnier I will agree with you but until then leave us people who like the occasional laugh alone. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

    Reply
    • AlMar 07/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      I presume you would be ok then with a weekly satire column which targeted blacks, implying that they are ignorant and weak minded???

    • Ralph Hos 07/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      If a black person wrote it as a satirical look at his own culture… Yes I would. Or a Jew, or homosexual or muslim or anyone else. It’s called comedy. The function of it is to make you laugh. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. In between the reports of missing people, new taxes and death some of us like some comic relief. If you don’t, piss off and leave us alone.

    • AlMar 07/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      I should piss off if I disagree with you?
      Wonderful tolerance there. You have a lot in common with the stereotypical cleric of the 1950′s.

    • Ralph Hos 07/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      New rule everybody: Anyone looking to creatively write or perform a satirical piece of work has to also submit a satirical point of view from every other group in the world so as not to offend nanny staters like ALmar. Thanks.

    • AlMar 07/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Eh, not quite.
      How about this: if you publish approx 60-70 columns satirising one group and NONE (afaik) satirising any other group, then maybe you should find a new target group, just for the sake of fairness…
      And it has nothing to do with the nanny state as I do not seek any ban on anything – just fairness and a recognition that there is a massive double standard at work here.

  • BustingMyAss 07/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    This is awful, after reading the first few I now avoid it. However I clicked on this article by accident so I just want the Journal to know that.

    Reply
  • Celly O'Brien 07/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Do the Journal have to insult the readers by publishing such drivel I have read many a pointless article on this page but this beats Banagher : p

    Reply
  • Martin Spillane 07/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    I have to say I enjoy this column and see it very much in the same vein as Father Ted. Father Ted is another series that could be selected for criticism for poking fun at religion and especially Roman Catholicism but is instead widely recognised as brilliant writing and performances from some of the cream of irish and british comics. Catholicism is very big part of our Irish culture and experience and that’s why we can recognise and laugh at all the comedic stereotypes in this column. We don’t have the same long background in Muslim, African or gay culture so comedic stereotypes of these cultures wouldn’t have the same impact on us surely? and like most things in life we all have as different a taste in what makes us laugh as in anything else and the key is to accept and tolerate that others will enjoy things that may not be to our own personal taste but are to the taste of others.

    Reply
    • AlMar 07/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      I understand that some people may find this column funny, and that’s fine. My problem is that as far as I can tell, this is the ONLY satirical column, and it is run week after week. As far as i can tell, Catholics are the ONLY group lampooned in this way.
      You say Catholicism is a big part of our experience? Really? How big a part does Catholicism play in the life of the writer of this column? Is the writer a practicing Catholic? I’d submit that it absolutely isn’t relevant to his/her life at all other than in a very general, cultural sense (if it was relevant to his/her life I can tell you this column would be funnier and sharper…). It seems to me that this is just another way of belittling those who are different or who have different beliefs than those in the mainstream. And you know, I could kind of live with that if only other groups were also the subject of this type of satire. But they’re not.
      In relation to Muslim and African and gay culture, I don’t really accept your point at all. What about a satire which negatively stereotyped blacks in the Deep South in America 50-60 years ago? Would the fact that some people find it funny be a justification? Gay culture is quite prominent now in the media, sitcoms etc. How would people at The Journal feel about a weekly column by (not) Senator Norris which would regularly hint at the stereotypical attraction older gay men are reputed to have for adolescent boys/young men? Even if people found it funny, would such a WEEKLY column be acceptable to the staff and readers of The Journal?
      As far as I can see, the singling out of Catholics in this way, week after week, if nothing more than bigotry.

  • Liam Hanrahan 07/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Boo down with this sort of thing.

    Reply
  • Seamus McDermott 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    The writer is what we call a “one-trick pony”.

    Reply

Add New Comment