Bishops have asked that our elected representatives follow a different road

Trashbat · 17-06-2010 1:18pm

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i've no love for the church but...

this isn't the point - they are entitled to lobby the government on behalf of the people they represent. they're a big club - the f'uckers - and it's precisely because we live in a democracy that they can press for the views of the people they represent. ffs though, if joe duffy can influence policy the church shouldnt have too hard a time sorting this out

The Church doesn't operate that way though. Clubs, Lobby groups, Organisations et al generally get their policies from them members. The church operates in the exact polar opposite way. And funnily enough, the majority of people who tick "Catholic" on the census form do not subscribe to all the teachings of the chuch.

Furthermore, campaign groups are generally geared towards a general target of achievement. This is why people join. People join the church because of belief in the theological idea they are preaching (ideally), not because of political issues. It is not fair for the church to assume the right to interfere in polititical matters that have NO EFFECT on their teachings or ideologies under the banner of being representatives of a group of people they have not consulted on the matter.

If the church wanted to campaign on such an issue, they should consult their members democratically, set up a very clear sub-group that only represents the people who actively choose to support it and make it clear to the media and the people of Ireland exactly how much support they have. But they won't do this, because it would show them up to be backward, unpopular and hate filled.

PeterIanStaker · 17-06-2010 1:24pm

The church is not, nor has it ever been, democratic. It does not consult its members, it dictates to them.

gent9662 · 17-06-2010 1:25pm

I'm sure every church in the state will have something to say about this at Sunday service. For those who still go to mass (and no offense intended) I think the church has absolutely no right to interfere with a civil matter. The last time the church was given authority to help children and families, they tore some families apart. Children were battered, abused, raped. Pregnant girls were thrown into laundries and their children given to the highest bidder. Parents had little say, the church told people to not use contraception and this played a major part in the spread of aids and unwanted children and large family units where children suffered as a result of poverty, hunger and disease.

As the previous poster mentioned, if a same sex couple ticks all the boxes then they should be considered like anybody else.

thebigbiffo · 17-06-2010 1:28pm

Trashbat wrote: »

The Church doesn't operate that way though. Clubs, Lobby groups, Organisations et al generally get their policies from them members. The church operates in the exact polar opposite way. And funnily enough, the majority of people who tick "Catholic" on the census form do not subscribe to all the teachings of the chuch.

Furthermore, campaign groups are generally geared towards a general target of achievement. This is why people join. People join the church because of belief in the theological idea they are preaching (ideally), not because of political issues. It is not fair for the church to assume the right to interfere in polititical matters that have NO EFFECT on their teachings or ideologies under the banner of being representatives of a group of people they have not consulted on the matter.

If the church wanted to campaign on such an issue, they should consult their members democratically, set up a very clear sub-group that only represents the people who actively choose to support it and make it clear to the media and the people of Ireland exactly how much support they have. But they won't do this, because it would show them up to be backward, unpopular and hate filled.

i agree with everything you've said but they are a group that speaks for their members regardless of who dictates policy, therefore, in a democratic society, they can lobby the government.

Galvasean · 17-06-2010 1:32pm

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i agree with everything you've said but they are a group that speaks for their members regardless of who dictates policy, therefore, in a democratic society, they can lobby the government.

This is true. Thankfully democracy works both ways. Sane people can counter lobby their BS.

dvpower · 17-06-2010 1:34pm

John Gormely is on radio1 now basically telling the church to mind their own business.

Galvasean · 17-06-2010 1:35pm

Trashbat wrote: »

And funnily enough, the majority of people who tick "Catholic" on the census form do not subscribe to all the teachings of the chuch.

None of the 'Catholics' I know (and there are lots of them) believe in transubstanciation, the immaculate conception or Papal Infalibility, y'know the 3 cornerstone rules of Catholocism. Heck, some of them arent even convinced Jesus was real. Surely you must believe in Jesus to be Christian let alone Catholic?!

Up de Barrs · 17-06-2010 1:36pm

Trashbat wrote: »

funny that alot of people are saying that they are entitled to their opinion.

This is true, but its not the issue at hand here, not by a mile. The main point is that they are trying to influence the democratic process. They are not entitled to do that.

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, but trying to influence people on a matter that they have nothing to do with is very different to simply expressing opinion.

Of course they are entitled to influence the democratic process with their argument, if it stand ups. I'm entitled to contact my TD and put my view forward. They are similarly entitled to influence the democratic outcome. If anything their intervention will heighten the debate and hopefully result in greater support for the bill. Personally I would support gay marriage and I think its only a matter of time before it happens. Thankfully the Church wont be able to stop it, but they are entitled to argue against it.

Banned Account · 17-06-2010 1:36pm

dvpower wrote: »

John Gormely is on radio1 now basically telling the church to mind their own business.

Wish he'd practice what he's preaching - cnut.

Galvasean · 17-06-2010 1:37pm

dvpower wrote: »

John Gormely is on radio1 now basically telling the church to mind their own business.

Open letter to John Gormley from the RCC:

Your business is our business and our business is none of you goddamn business!

PeterIanStaker · 17-06-2010 1:40pm

As with the bishops, I couldn't care less what John Gormless says. But at least he'll be out of office soon, we have yet to see bishops resigning.

Nodin · 17-06-2010 1:41pm

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

As with the bishops, I couldn't care less what John Gormless says. But at least he'll be out of office soon, we have yet to see bishops resigning.

Actually, theres been a few....Brady and one other are the last holdouts...

PeterIanStaker · 17-06-2010 1:42pm

A few, granted, but isn't about time the Primate fell out of his tree?

Nodin · 17-06-2010 1:45pm

O yes. He's been crapping on people from his branch for far too long.

gent9662 · 17-06-2010 1:52pm

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i agree with everything you've said but they are a group that speaks for their members regardless of who dictates policy, therefore, in a democratic society, they can lobby the government.

Very true, and also it states in the Irish constitution:

Section 2: The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

17-06-2010 2:00pm

dclane wrote: »

Very true, and also it states in the Irish constitution:

Section 2: The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.

No it doesn't that was removed in the 70s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

dvpower · 17-06-2010 2:09pm

bluewolf wrote: »

No it doesn't that was removed in the 70s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Looks like dclane's copy is out of date.

dvpower · 17-06-2010 2:11pm

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i agree with everything you've said but they are a group that speaks for their members regardless of who dictates policy, therefore, in a democratic society, they can lobby the government.

In a democratic society anyone can lobby Government. But I do find that its ironic that a call for a free vote would be coming from the RCC.

Wagon · 17-06-2010 2:12pm

thebigbiffo wrote: »

read the study above, seems ok but i still can't help being a bit conservative here - if that makes me some kind of villian, so be it

You're not a villian. If you don't have a mustache, then you aren't a villian. Only people with mustaches are evil.

I protect the citizens from Evil Cat, seen here wearing a suit http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/kitler/pics/kitler2054.jpg and the Destructive Banana, both of whom have intense mustaches.

If you see them, please, send me a PM.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-06-2010 2:36pm

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The church is not, nor has it ever been, democratic. It does not consult its members, it dictates to them.

Not unlike a political party, then?

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 3:07pm

All the party T.D.s are locked into voting enblock with how thier party whips tell them to vote, all they can do is abstain or not turn up in the chamber to vote, it is the system that is in place and they can't cross party lines to vote on issues.

While I don't agree with that system, I think that the bishops should stop trying to mandate how our government and houses of parliment works.

What next they will offer to excommunicats T.D's ?

prinz · 17-06-2010 3:25pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

While I don't agree with that system, I think that the bishops should stop trying to mandate how our government and houses of parliment works.

Lobby groups etc are a part how our government and houses of parliament works. We may as well tell IBEC to mind their own business when it comes to opinion on policy changes.

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 3:39pm

IBEC have not had a hand in running vast section of the health, education and care systems in this country or in applying pressure to stop government policies.

The church have often come out and said to politicians you cant' do that that's against catholic teachings point encase the mother and child scheme and it has only been in the last 15 years the legislators have had the balls to put in place policy which reflects socail change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

Bishops would be better off tending to their flocks weeding out those who harmed children then trying to control what people in this country can do who are not Catholics.

prinz · 17-06-2010 3:46pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Bishops would be better off tending to their flocks weeding out those who harmed children then trying to control what people in this country can do who are not Catholics.

Ah ok, so it's not the 'interfering' our political system that's the problem. it's only because it's the RCC. Gotcha! Comparing it to the M&C Scheme stretching it to the extreme.

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 3:50pm

Citing the mother and child scheme shows how long this has been going on for and and calling for a free vote means that the church will but pressure on T.D.s who say they are catholic to vote as Catholics with church teachings in mind rather then as elected representatives with what is best for the country and it's people as a whole.

If there was pressure to change the laws of this country to reflect shira law there would be uproar so why is this any different.

Manach · 17-06-2010 3:57pm

A welcome call by the leaders of a large segment of the population to halt a societaly disastrous piece of legislation.

prinz · 17-06-2010 4:00pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Citing the mother and child scheme shows how long this has been going on for and and calling for a free vote means that the church will but pressure on T.D.s who say they are catholic to vote as Catholics with church teachings in mind rather then as elected representatives with what is best for the country and it's people as a whole..

So really it's no different to various lobby groups such as employers reminding TD's of say x factory in their constituency and how many people they employ etc *hint hint*.... if it was the LGBT lobby groups calling for an open vote for precisely the same reasoning then I doubt there'd be such a fuss.

Thaedydal wrote: »

If there was pressure to change the laws of this country to reflect shira law there would be uproar so why is this any different.

Ridiculous comparison.

oppenheimer1 · 17-06-2010 4:09pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Citing the mother and child scheme shows how long this has been going on for and and calling for a free vote means that the church will but pressure on T.D.s who say they are catholic to vote as Catholics with church teachings in mind rather then as elected representatives with what is best for the country and it's people as a whole.

If there was pressure to change the laws of this country to reflect shira law there would be uproar so why is this any different.

Bullshit. The Catholic Church is calling for a free vote because it knows same sex adoption (which marriage is a stepping stone) is deeply unpopular among the general public. The last poll I can recall there was a slight majority against Same Sex Marriage, with over 80% opposing Same sex couples adopting. Ireland despite all the changes its gone through over tha past 20 or so years is still a very conservative society, whether you like it or not. While such legislation might go down unnoticed or even applauded in the pinker parts of the state, it would be highly unpopular in particularly rural areas among the older voting types.

Not until there is a clear consensus among the vast majority of the country should such changes be considered. There are enough problems dividing the country as it stands without choosing to throw a social issue into the mix as well.

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 4:11pm

prinz wrote: »

So really it's no different to various lobby groups such as employers reminding TD's of say x factory in their constituency and how many people they employ etc *hint hint*.... if it was the LGBT lobby groups calling for an open vote for precisely the same reasoning then I doubt there'd be such a fuss.

Other lobby groups do not have the power to excommunicate a T.D. which is catholic or refuse them sacraments there by ostracising them from their community and damaging their standing in it there by ending or damaging their political career.

prinz wrote: »

Ridiculous comparison.

Why?

It is just another set of laws put in place to enforce the religious standards and morals on the population of a country regardless to if a person is of that religion or not.

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 4:14pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Bullshit. The Catholic Church is calling for a free vote because it knows same sex adoption (which marriage is a stepping stone) is deeply unpopular among the general public. The last poll I can recall there was a slight majority against Same Sex Marriage, with over 80% opposing Same sex couples adopting. Ireland despite all the changes its gone through over tha past 20 or so years is still a very conservative society, whether you like it or not. While such legislation might go down unnoticed or even applauded in the pinker parts of the state, it would be highly unpopular in particularly rural areas among the older voting types.

Not until there is a clear consensus among the vast majority of the country should such changes be considered. There are enough problems dividing the country as it stands without choosing to throw a social issue into the mix as well.

The civil partnership bill does not equate to same sex marriage, if it did it would be called the marriage reform act.

Well then I look forward to 20 years time when most of those older voting types have passed on and we can have equal rights for everyone no matter the gender of the person they fall in love with and wish to marry.

moonpurple · 17-06-2010 4:15pm

john gormley sounding a dramatic note of secularism on rte lunchtime news, made sean orourke come offl like gaeltaliban when sean mentioned indirect concern that john and mary living together could get benefits of marriage without paying hundreds to the church for the sacremant oops sorry event management:pac:

prinz · 17-06-2010 4:15pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Other lobby groups do not have the power to excommunicate a T.D. which is catholic or refuse them sacraments there by ostracising them from their community and damaging their standing in it there by ending or damaging their political career..

So a TD who say votes in a certain measure that will result in a big local employer closing a factory etc isn't putting their career on the line? As for excommunicating T.D.'s.... right, I can really see that happening.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why? It is just another set of laws put in place to enforce the religious standards and morals on the population of a country regardless to if a person is of that religion or not.

What law is the RCC proposing to be put in place to enforce their standards and morals on the population?

owenc · 17-06-2010 4:17pm

Its none of their bloody business, they shouldn't be telling people who to vote for, religion has gone too far!

prinz · 17-06-2010 4:20pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well then I look forward to 20 years time when most of those older voting types have passed on and we can have equal rights for everyone no matter the gender of the person they fall in love with and wish to marry.

I look forward to the time when we can have equal rights for both genders when it comes to protecting their unborn child. We don't always get what we want.

oppenheimer1 · 17-06-2010 4:23pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The civil partnership bill does not equate to same sex marriage, if it did it would be called the marriage reform act.

Well then I look forward to 20 years time when most of those older voting types have passed on and we can have equal rights for everyone no matter the gender of the person they fall in love with and wish to marry.

Until such time shouldn't the status quo remain? This is a democracy after all, majority rules.

Blackhorse Slim · 17-06-2010 4:25pm

prinz wrote: »

I look forward to the time when we can have equal rights for both genders when it comes to protecting their unborn child. We don't always get what we want.

I'm with you! Abortions for all!

moonpurple · 17-06-2010 4:26pm

thebigbiffo wrote: »

anyone read an article today or yesterday saying bishops in the north want a meeting with senior bankers to discuss the impact they've had on society etc?

bit like a c'unt convention that meeting. they could all sit around the table discussing who f'ucked the country up the most then go fiddle some kids/accounts

fiddle some kids?

is that a folksy way of describing inappropriate touching and molesting of children?

almost makes it sound ok?

dvpower · 17-06-2010 4:30pm

The free vote is not all the bishops have asked for. They are also looking for a faith opt-out

The senior clergy called for the Bill, which stops short of full gay marriage, to have a so-called faith opt-out for registrars who refuse to carry out ceremonies.

Personally, I'm a bit conflicted on this.
Certainly, after the bill is passed, I think any future registrars should have to carry out all the functions of the office, but I have a little bit of sympathy for any existing registrar who had some kind of religious objection to officiating at a same sex partnership.

I wouldn't go as far as an opt out, but they might put some processes in place where another registrar would officiate (so long as it was practicable and it didn't discommode the couple in any way).

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 4:31pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

[/B]

Until such time shouldn't the status quo remain? This is a democracy after all, majority rules.

It's not going to take that long, more of those in their 20s are a lot more political then they were 20 years ago and those who are in their 30s are a lot more 'liberal' and less incliner to head the church then 20 years ago.

Overheal · 17-06-2010 4:39pm

peasant wrote: »

While I have no time for the catholic church on this particular issue, I have always thought that TD's should have a free vote on any issue instead of having to vote along the party line.

PArdon my ignorance but please tell me thats not actually the case.

dvpower · 17-06-2010 4:42pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Bullshit. The Catholic Church is calling for a free vote because it knows same sex adoption (which marriage is a stepping stone) is deeply unpopular among the general public. The last poll I can recall there was a slight majority against Same Sex Marriage, with over 80% opposing Same sex couples adopting.

Do you have a link to that poll (was it commissioned by the Iona Institute?)?
I haven't been able to find it, but, when the bill was first published, the equality authority made this statement:

"Today's legislation is a ground-breaking move for Ireland and a major step in the right direction towards full equality for gay and lesbian couples. Numerous opinion polls have shown that the majority of us are in favour of allowing same-sex couples to marry or form civil partnerships, and the recognition of same-sex partnerships also enjoys cross party support in both houses of the Oireachtas.

Sulmac · 17-06-2010 4:43pm

dvpower wrote: »

The free vote is not all the bishops have asked for. They are also looking for a faith opt-out

Personally, I'm a bit conflicted on this.
Certainly, after the bill is passed, I think any future registrars should have to carry out all the functions of the office, but I have a little bit of sympathy for any existing registrar who had some kind of religious objection to officiating at a same sex partnership.

I wouldn't go as far as an opt out, but they might put some processes in place where another registrar would officiate (so long as it was practicable and it didn't discommode the couple in any way).

The "freedom of conscience" clause would just enshrine bigotry on the statute books, and open the floodgates for all kinds of dangerous "exclusions" based on religion. If you're a state employee, you represent the state - not a religion. Don't like it? Tough.

I have to say I was impressed by Dermot Ahern's response to this demand:

Ahern warned about the ‘‘unintended consequences’’ that could follow such an amendment to the bill, such as a registrar refusing to register the marriage of a person who had been divorced.

‘‘Other possible consequences could include a court clerk refusing to issue divorce orders; a science teacher refusing to teach about evolution; a fundamentalist Christian Garda refusing to arrest a husband who is breaching a safety order on the basis that he is entitled to chastise his wife; a judge refusing to register a power of attorney in favour of a person’s civil partner; a Muslim or Mormon accident and emergency doctor refusing to treat someone presenting with alcohol poisoning; an official of the Department of Social and Family Affairs refusing to pay carer’s allowance to a person’s civil partner; or a probate officer refusing to issue a grant of administration to a deceased person’s civil partner," the minister said.

dvpower · 17-06-2010 4:45pm

Overheal wrote: »

PArdon my ignorance but please tell me thats not actually the case.

It is the case. On the vast majority of issues, if you don't vote with the party, you risk losing the whip

PeterIanStaker · 17-06-2010 4:45pm

It wouldn't suprise me if the poll was conducted by the Iona Institute.

Wait till you see, that bigot David Quinn will write some crap about this that could have come straight out of Westboro.

oppenheimer1 · 17-06-2010 4:47pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's not going to take that long, more of those in their 20s are a lot more political then they were 20 years ago and those who are in their 30s are a lot more 'liberal' and less incliner to head the church then 20 years ago.

Really? Falling turnout at elections seems to show otherwise. Anyway thats missing the point. What it seems you want it to change the current system which the majority is happy with, against their wishes? Not very democratic is it? Tyranny of the majority you might say but its better than a dictatorship of the minority.

The rules should change when there is a clear sustained majority in favour of change, be that tomorrow, 5, 10 or 50 years time.

dvpower · 17-06-2010 4:49pm

Sulmac wrote: »

The "freedom of conscience" clause would just enshrine bigotry on the statute books, and open the floodgates for all kinds of dangerous "exclusions" based on religion. If you're a state employee, you represent the state - not a religion. Don't like it? Tough.

I wouldn't be in favour of putting anything into the legislation, just getting the registrars to put some procedures in place, I guess to smooth over some of the 'bigotry' that already exists.
After all, who would want to get married partnershipised by someone who was clearly not happy to be officiating.

thebigbiffo · 17-06-2010 4:50pm

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It wouldn't suprise me if the poll was conducted by the Iona Institute.

Wait till you see, that bigot David Quinn will write some crap about this that could have come straight out of Westboro.

i want to smash david quinns face in...he's a smug git

PeterIanStaker · 17-06-2010 4:53pm

I'd classify the likes of Brendan O'Connor (urgh!) as a smug git.

Quinn on the other hand, I'd call a reactionary homophobic bigot who would be happy in the company of Fred Phelps, John Charles McQuaid and Iris Robinson.

Nevyn · 17-06-2010 5:00pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Really? Falling turnout at elections seems to show otherwise. Anyway thats missing the point. What it seems you want it to change the current system which the majority is happy with, against their wishes? Not very democratic is it? Tyranny of the majority you might say but its better than a dictatorship of the minority.

The rules should change when there is a clear sustained majority in favour of change, be that tomorrow, 5, 10 or 50 years time.

So you are prefect fine with denying the human and equal rights of a section of people?

prinz · 17-06-2010 5:01pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

So you are prefect fine with denying the human and equal rights of a section of people?

Stones and glass houses springs to mind.

Bishops have asked that our elected representatives follow a different road

Comments