Catholicism in modern Ireland

Vangelis

I know nothing about this myself so, I'm curious to know Irish people's experience of how Catholicism has influenced modern Ireland.

Sleepy

Personally I've found it to have next to no influence on my life since I left secondary school education (aside from being a minor irritant). The church's influence in the education system is quite far-reaching however, the school I attended would have force-fed us all quite a heavy anti-abortion stance.

If historical influence is taken into account it's influences are quite clearer in terms of the numbers of abuse victims coming to light and government spending in relation to that. While not begrudging the victims their compensation, I'm sure those millions could have been quite useful in other areas of government spending.

Crucifix

Sleepy wrote:

Personally I've found it to have next to no influence on my life since I left secondary school education (aside from being a minor irritant). The church's influence in the education system is quite far-reaching however

Same here. Although I suppose in the broader sense you could say there are numerous ways in which it has influenced the way our society is today.

Vangelis

Thanks for sharing! It's interesting.
More comments, more comments, come along, come along!

simu

It's held Ireland back imo. I think people are finally starting to see through the facade though.

Vangelis

simu, what kind of facade is that?

Dave!

I agree, it's held Ireland back, made it the bastion of conservatism it is today. But with regards schools, the priests were probably invaluable.

The country is evolving now, though, and shaking off the Church.

SparkyLarks

In recent years people have started to disregard the church in Ireland, and it might not have any influence on the lives of many young people today, but our society was shaped by the church, some of it was bad but some of it was good.

The church did contribute enormously to Irish society. yes there were abuses,and those should be condemmed and whatever help can be given to victims given as well as whatever steps needed toensure it never happens again should be taken.

The church also did a lot of good.
They have been involved in education since the hedge shcools. Irish peole place a high importance on education, that is because of the influence of the church. Because we place a high importance oneducation we now have a highly educated workforce and a thriving economy bacaue se of it( I'm not saying that the church caused the celtic tiger )

Nun's used to run the hospitals, and we used to have clean hospitals then. They performed an enormous service to the state in regards to health.

People are very quickto say the church did this the church that. The people are the church. The views of the people were reflected by the church and the views of the church reflected by the people.

Sleepy

SparkyLarks wrote:

yes there were abuses,and those should be condemmed and whatever help can be given to victims given as well as whatever steps needed toensure it never happens again should be taken.

All fine and dandy but expecting the general public to pay for it when the Catholic church is one of richest organisations in the world is a bit much imho.

The church also did a lot of good. They have been involved in education since the hedge shcools. Irish peole place a high importance on education, that is because of the influence of the church. Because we place a high importance oneducation we now have a highly educated workforce and a thriving economy bacaue se of it( I'm not saying that the church caused the celtic tiger )

How do you reckon that it's "because of the influence of the church" that Irish peole place a high importance on education? And if you genuinely see it this way do you see the irony in the fact that a better educated Ireland is rejecting the church en masse?

Sure, the church has had some positive influences in Ireland but thankfully we don't need their particular brand of help anymore.

Vangelis

Would you guys say that Ireland is becoming a secular country?

ratboy

slowly but surely we are becoming alot more secular, i don't think the church have much moral feet to stand on after the horrors told in the ferns report.

Vangelis

Can the church annulate a marriage in which the husband is impotent or they do not want to or cannot have children?

Dave!

Vangelis wrote:

Would you guys say that Ireland is becoming a secular country?

Oh yeah I'd definitely say that Ireland is moving further and further away from the Church. Each generation gets less and less religious (or at least, Christian).

simu

Vangelis wrote:

simu, what kind of facade is that?

Hmmm... the Church seems far more interested in maintaining power over people than spreading Jesus' message and providing spiritual guidance imo.

Nevyn

Vangelis wrote:

Can the church annulate a marriage in which the husband is impotent or they do not want to or cannot have children?

http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/grounds_annul.htm
Many and varied the the reasons for anullment.

After the tragedies of the Magdelane Laundries, the treatment of unmarried
pregant women, the sale of thos babies for adoption in america, the abuse of children both in parishes and in care and on work farms; these examples alone are enough reason for the complete seperation of church and state.

The idea of sex and sexuality being so dirty and taboo and the lack of a health
based sexual eduction stem from catholisim; which results in teen pregancies and stis. We need a system that teaches sexuality, dignity and resposibilty
like the one in sweden. I remember the archbishop's letter denoucing condom machines that were put up in colleges and the fact they were being sold in the virgin mega store in dublin city centre.

If Catholics are not ment to use then fair and fine enough but what right to
they or the catholic church have to tell anyone else what to do.

The modren catholic church needs it imho tend to it's flock, those who atend
mass on a sunday and are willing to follow all the rules as laid down as how to
live your life as a catholic, and draw a clear line as to those who are of that
sort and those who are cultural catholics and never darken the door of the church between the time of thier child's baptism and then the child's communion.

And then when it has been sorted out who really is a catholic we can all see what the true numbers are.

I don't expect the catholic church to changes it's hardlines on anything but they can no longer expect legislature to do thier job for them.
If they want to guide and guard the souls that are entrusted to them fair enough but they will just have to accept they can't have them all and can't
force what they see as a sin and wrong on the rest of the population.

Vangelis

Thank you Thaed. That was an interesting post.
The reasons for annullment are shocking though. The one that touches me most is:

"You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation."

There is no such place in the Bible where it says that marriage has one purpose and that is procreation! ! !

And God does not mean for us humans to feel ashamed at sexuality. Sexuality is important. It's a major communication tool and is important for bonding and togetherness. Now I'm not talking about one-night-stands.

However, the Catholic church is so arrogant.

Thaedydal wrote:

If they want to guide and guard the souls that are entrusted to them fair enough but they will just have to accept they can't have them all and can't force what they see as a sin and wrong on the rest of the population.

Exactly!! I myself as a Christian do not support an imposition of my faith or anything related to my faith on society. We can choose what way we desire to live and an institution should not prepare our lives for us. But then you can argue that not just the Church does this. Laws do it - all the time. And I mean secular laws. It is because of the Christian tradition that killing is prohibited for example.

What worries me is if there will be a complete downfall in the moral of society if the Church is not allowed to give guidelines and opinions that can affect legislation.

Will we lose our values? What will the Irish society be like if the Church is separated from the state authority?

What will secularism do to Ireland and people's moral?

hairyheretic

Vangelis wrote:

Exactly!! I myself as a Christian do not support an imposition of my faith or anything related to my faith on society. We can choose what way we desire to live and an institution should not prepare our lives for us. But then you can argue that not just the Church does this. Laws do it - all the time. And I mean secular laws. It is because of the Christian tradition that killing is prohibited for example.

No, it isn't.

If that were the case then you wouldn't see laws against killing in other cultures.

Every modern culture that I am familiar with has rules against killing. So did most of the historical ones (the others having killing permitted under various circumstances).

Whatever your beliefs, most people would agree that killing is a bad thing.

Vangelis wrote:

What worries me is if there will be a complete downfall in the moral of society if the Church is not allowed to give guidelines and opinions that can affect legislation.

Why should any religious institution be allowed to influence secular laws that will affect those who do not subscribe to that religion?

Vangelis wrote:

Will we lose our values?

You have your own values. These cannot be taken away from you. Only you can decide to live them, or reject them.

Vangelis wrote:

What will the Irish society be like if the Church is separated from the state authority?

I don't see it worsening, if that is what you mean.

Vangelis wrote:

What will secularism do to Ireland and people's moral?

Nothing. Morality is not defined by religion. Every person, religious, spiritual, secular, or whatever, has their own moral values. Everyones are going to be personal.

Removing the catholic churches influence from secular life will do nothing to those values.

Vangelis

You have answered your about all of your own questions there.

We have some common values, not just individual. Common values make a society stable. A disintegration of values may cause a society to disperse in my opinion.

Many people believe killing is justifiable.

What about sexual moral? Thanks to churches, we've had brothels prohibited in many countries. Will they be legalised in a secular sociey? Don't know if they are in Ireland anyway.

hairyheretic wrote:

If that were the case then you wouldn't see laws against killing in other cultures.

Which cultures?

Nevyn

That seems to be the big fear that if poeple are not christian or religous that
they have no morals at all. Morality and religion can be seperate.

Children are taught what is right and wrong and what is not socailly acceptible
long before what is and is not a sin.

By the time all children have reached finished the first 6 mnths of schooling in
junior infants they know what is allowed and what is not.
They learn that hurting the other children with fists, feet or words is not allowed.
They learn that other children have feelings like they do and compassion for others.
They learn that other children may look differnet, have differnt names, different ways of speaking and differnt famlies but they are all children like them.
They learn to respect each others space and property and the property of the school; not to take things that are not thier not do scribble pages that are not thiers.
They learn to respect thier teacher and the other adults in the school.
They learn to say please and thank you.
They learn to listen and to question.
They learn to mind each other and to help each other.
They learn to have pride in thier achievements and in themsleves.

Now if only the adults could remember these things and act and live in this way.

Many cultures have laws/costums/tradtions against killing and christianty has
it's own issues with it ah yes the crusades, convert or die.....

Personally I do find it insulting that christians presume that if you are not a christain
you are immoral and can not know right from wrong and will therefore rear your children to be monsters.

GuanYin

While I'd be slow to praise the catholic churches influence in Ireland, I do think the whole Python-esque "What have the Romans (catholics) ever done for us" skit works well here.

For starters, the general education system in Ireland is of a good standard due in large part to the efforts of the catholic church. The preservation of much of Irish culture (love it or hate it) in language, music and tradtion can be attributed to the work of parish communities, organised by the priests.

The Irish emphasis on family and community has many parallels with the emphasis placed by the catholic church on such things and can probably be, at least partly attributed to that. On this note, while all the paedophile priests grab the headlines, there are many good decent priests doinggood work in the communities, especially some of the more underprivilidged communities in Ireland.

The actions of the men in the catholic church and their corruption and drive for power, is, strictly speaking, not catholicism.

Thaedydal wrote:

The modren catholic church needs it imho tend to it's flock, those who atend
mass on a sunday and are willing to follow all the rules as laid down as how to
live your life as a catholic, and draw a clear line as to those who are of that
sort and those who are cultural catholics and never darken the door of the church between the time of thier child's baptism and then the child's communion.

They tried to do this in Kerry. One of the Bishops refused to allow any child who's parents did not attend mass, make their communion.

There was national outrage in response, citing discrimination to the poor child who didn't know any better.

The problem is that so many of the catholic churches ceremonies have long passed from religious doctrine into cultural tradition (such as first communion and baptism).

Thaedydal wrote:

I don't expect the catholic church to changes it's hardlines on anything but they can no longer expect legislature to do thier job for them.
If they want to guide and guard the souls that are entrusted to them fair enough but they will just have to accept they can't have them all and can't
force what they see as a sin and wrong on the rest of the population.

Agreed. I think they went down the wrong path when they started trying to control and restrict peoples actions by telling them what they can't do (although if you judge the 10 commandments, this is an inherent flaw in christianity), rather than guiding them towards what they should be doing.

Nevyn

Vangelis there have always been brothels in Dublin.
They ran as collectives of women and in many cases were well known and
respected and looked after by people in thier communities.
Many of the first daycare drop in places in the city were infact brothels.
Do some research on James Joyce and you will see.

There is, was, and always will be prostitution as long as there are men and women.
Better it be legalised to protect the women and men working in it tbh.
Currently prostitution is not illegal in this country, running a brothel is and so s solcitating.

Catholics and christains should be strong enough in thier faith no matter where they are living and what the laws are.
There are many other religions that manage thier people and thier communties with out the need to make what is taboo to them personally illegal.

hairyheretic

Vangelis wrote:

You have answered your about all of your own questions there.

Because morality can only be a personal thing.

Vangelis wrote:

We have some common values, not just individual.

I didn't mean to imply that we didn't. We likely do share quite a few common values.

Vangelis wrote:

Common values make a society stable. A disintegration of values may cause a society to disperse in my opinion.

I can't see that happening myself.

Vangelis wrote:

Many people believe killing is justifiable.

Yes, they do, even when specifically prohibited by religious or secular authority. I wonder what that says about human nature?

Vangelis wrote:

What about sexual moral?

What about them?

How is what consenting adults do the business of anyone but themselves?

Considering recent scandals the catholic church has exactly zero authority in trying to preach sexual morality right now.

Vangelis wrote:

Thanks to churches, we've had brothels prohibited in many countries. Will they be legalised in a secular sociey? Don't know if they are in Ireland anyway.

I'm not sure about Ireland, but prostitution and brothels are legal in several countries .. the U.S, Australia, Germany, Holland, and likely more. As none of those countries appear to have gone up in the fires of anarchy, I can't see what problem the brothels are

I've also seen plenty of ads for assorted escort services around Dublin, so prostitution is hardly an unknown here.

I believe there was a thread on prostitution not so long ago, which probably covered all the pro and con arguements on that score.

And why exactly is the church so concerned about peoples sexual activity anyway? Thats something I've never really understood.

Vangelis wrote:

Which cultures?

How about asian ones, where christianity is not a large factor. Japan, for instance.

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

How about asian ones, where christianity is not a large factor. Japan, for instance.

Yep. legal here too as long as the taxes are paid. As a matter of fact, in the Edo period, prostitution was a very influential profession, and still is today in the world of the Geisha, well not the Geisha, but her apprentice, the Maiko.
And here you are talking megabucks.

Chong

Having read the thread I thought I should share my opinions. I myself am practising catholic, it has been enstilled me ever since I was born. My mother plays major factor in my the love of my faith. My mother originates from England born to an Irish family, to be catholic in England was never hard for her as the English on the whole like to keep to themselves in a way. Back to me each week I go to mass and I for one enjoy being able to practise my faith.

I am by no means a do gooder or religious nut but I find comfort in catholicism. A few weeks ago our congregation had to listen to our Parish Priest humble himself and apologise for the wrong doings highlighted in the report about the place Carlow. Now my question is why should he have to apologise for another mans wrong doings. Worse of all was this, our PP gave a very sickening sermon that night which higlights this country's down right ignorance in regards to the church. I will tell you briefly as to what he said, Our PP had been visiting the sick in the regional hospital Limerick.

Just as he was leaving the hospital he happened to pass by a man and woman, our PP said good evening politely only to be replied with by the man " What is that you said you F@cking paedophile". This higlights the utter disrespect for the church and its gods representative's. There is now a whole generation that disrespects the religion and it has been replaced with a love of money/greed. People have turned back on their religion because they believe that they have excuse in "The launderies" , "The Christian Brothers" and because of the way some people have been treated by priests.

The majority of this country now is made up of nothing but hypocrites. It sickens me when you hear some one you know has had a baby for instance and they get their son or daughter baptised. For what especially if the parents dont attend church regularily. Worst of all is the sacrament of communion, it is the single most sickening thing seeing children taking holy communion when they never attend church coupled with the fact of the lengths ppl go to outdue each other money wise. The church in my opinion should not baptise or bestow the sacrament of holy communion on people who dont attend church because simply they have no right to receive these sacraments.

Worst of all and the most sickening part of lapsed catholics is the way they continually back mouth the church when they clearly have no right to do so. Could you imagine if the church closed its doors in the morning and no longer practised any of the sacraments, no more would we have the nouveau riish trying to out due each other at baptisms or communion or weddings. Plus with funerals all you would have is the funeral home and then buried, no prayers or blessings for the dead in question, with the body going nowhere no heaven or hell, no god, no satan, just rotting in a 6 foot hole in the ground.

Yours sincerely a very P!ssed off Catholic

Willem D

Vangelis

Thaedydal wrote:

Catholics and christains should be strong enough in thier faith no matter where they are living and what the laws are.
There are many other religions that manage thier people and thier communties with out the need to make what is taboo to them personally illegal.

There will always be disagreement. I can never get used to seeing brothels or if prostitution becomes legal. Because it doesn't suit my perspective.

And non-Christians feel the same way about laws that have been influenced by i.e the Catholic church.

The conflict seems irresoluable.

Vangelis

WDK, I respect your views and thank you for writing.

I interprete you as if you wish people who are not devoted to the church, other than for weddings and baptisms, to be locked out from the church.
Is this true?

Do you agree that people with no other relationship to the church other than in weddings and other traditions, should not be welcome?

Should they be expulsed from the church?

Do you think that a possible separation of the church and the state could solve this?

Chong

Yes I believe all people whom of which don't attend church regularily should not receive the privileges, I suppose analogy wise you could say if someone plays on football team but only turns up when they feel like it dont deserve to play in the big game. Everybody is always welcome in the church but not when they abuse it purely for their own gains. I dont think I could comment on the last question as I am not sure I am equipped to answer such a question.

patzer117

Slepy wrote:

Personally I've found it to have next to no influence on my life since I left secondary school education (aside from being a minor irritant). The church's influence in the education system is quite far-reaching however, the school I attended would have force-fed us all quite a heavy anti-abortion stance.

The Church still have a major presence all around helping the poor and vulnerable (e.g. Pete McVerry), Refugees, the Homeless etc. If they got up and quit we would have a huge problem on our hands.

Thaedydal wrote:

The modren catholic church needs it imho tend to it's flock, those who atend
mass on a sunday and are willing to follow all the rules as laid down as how to
live your life as a catholic, and draw a clear line as to those who are of that
sort and those who are cultural catholics and never darken the door of the church between the time of thier child's baptism and then the child's communion.

Great idea :rolleyes: you expect the church not to rectruit people? Hmm, that'd be smart of them...

hairyheretic wrote:

Why should any religious institution be allowed to influence secular laws that will affect those who do not subscribe to that religion?

Why shouldn't they? What have they got to loose by doing it? I think that it the church is basically another organisation who can have its say. The business community can have its say - why shouldn't the church? They have a vested interest in what happens, and the outcome will affect them? There is no reason why they shouldn't actively campaign on all the issues concerning them.

Thaedydal wrote:

That seems to be the big fear that if poeple are not christian or religous that they have no morals at all. Morality and religion can be seperate.

Personally I do find it insulting that christians presume that if you are not a christain you are immoral and can not know right from wrong and will therefore rear your children to be monsters.

Eh? I don't know any Christain that thinks either of those things. We presume that a christain society will have more morals than a completely secular one - because many things anti-Christain are legal in a secular society... I think you are putting up straw men beside the Christain faith and attacking the straw men rather than the faith - because what you are saying simply isn't true. Seriously do you know any Christains that think non-Christains are monsters?

psi wrote:

The Irish emphasis on family and community has many parallels with the emphasis placed by the catholic church on such things and can probably be, at least partly attributed to that. On this note, while all the paedophile priests grab the headlines, there are many good decent priests doinggood work in the communities, especially some of the more underprivilidged communities in Ireland.

Agreed. For instance the majority of socail and community law in the EU is taken straight out of church documents. Look it up - it's almost word for word.

As for not welcoming people into the church if they aren't practising catholics, i see this as a cop-out. Much of the reason the Catholic Church is failing in this country is because of mass itself - Priests are uninspiring, i'd go so far to see downright boring. If they can't inspire people and are only dealing with pedantics like attending Church then I think the faith is doomed.


My personal opinion is that the Church should be allowed to influence anything the same way any other organisation can. The Church had done, does and will continue to do great things for Ireland and despite all that is wrong with it, one must hope that it won't give up its struggle for the Christian Ideal of Christendom.

Patzer

Chong

Very good post mate some things very well right there.

hairyheretic

patzer117 wrote:

Why shouldn't they? What have they got to loose by doing it? I think that it the church is basically another organisation who can have its say. The business community can have its say - why shouldn't the church? They have a vested interest in what happens, and the outcome will affect them? There is no reason why they shouldn't actively campaign on all the issues concerning them.

Let me give you an example to see if I can explain things better. Take a look at contraception. Officially, this goes against church policy. For a long time in Ireland it was illegal. Those who were not catholic, and who wished to avail of this, couldn't.

If their own adherents choose not to make use of something, thats fine. No one forces them to. But preventing the choice entirely for everyone is a different matter.

patzer117 wrote:

Eh? I don't know any Christain that thinks either of those things. We presume that a christain society will have more morals than a completely secular one - because many things anti-Christain are legal in a secular society... I think you are putting up straw men beside the Christain faith and attacking the straw men rather than the faith - because what you are saying simply isn't true. Seriously do you know any Christains that think non-Christains are monsters?

Try reading a few other threads in here. I've seen one or two people who frequently identify themselves as christian all but state that non christians have no morals, or refer to non christians with a variety of inulting slurs.

patzer117 wrote:

My personal opinion is that the Church should be allowed to influence anything the same way any other organisation can.

The church can advise or order its own adherents all it wants. It has no authority over those who choose not to follow its teachings, and should not try forcing that authority on them.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

I am by no means a do gooder or religious nut but I find comfort in catholicism. A few weeks ago our congregation had to listen to our Parish Priest humble himself and apologise for the wrong doings highlighted in the report about the place Carlow. Now my question is why should he have to apologise for another mans wrong doings.

You're a catholic, right? So why er did God sacrifice his only son for our sins

In the cases of the above, the church has hid, protected and lied to protect paedophiles. The church as an institution has failed us. Whether the priest himselves had personally hid or sheltered a paedohphile he owes his parish an apology, and as a representive of the church, he owes a responsibility to the parish on behalf of the church.

Frankly I'd have prefered him and his ilk to have displayed the level of responsibility he's now proclaiming when the church hid paedophiles.

Worse of all was this, our PP gave a very sickening sermon that night which higlights this country's down right ignorance in regards to the church. I will tell you briefly as to what he said, Our PP had been visiting the sick in the regional hospital Limerick.

Just as he was leaving the hospital he happened to pass by a man and woman, our PP said good evening politely only to be replied with by the man " What is that you said you F@cking paedophile". This higlights the utter disrespect for the church and its gods representative's.

And god needs middle men why?

Also I like how this particular middle manager while offering an apology for his breathen's henious crimes, throws in an ancedote about how poorly he's being treated by the general public.

There is now a whole generation that disrespects the religion and it has been replaced with a love of money/greed.

And this sweeping generalisation is based on? Alternatively it's a generation waking up to the hyprocrisy abuse, and violence visited upon them by (to use your own words) "gods representivies". It's a bit difficult to have love and respect for a god who allows men to serve in such capacity and to commit such henious crimes, all the while pompously preach about chasity and virtue.

People have turned back on their religion because they believe that they have excuse in "The launderies" , "The Christian Brothers" and because of the way some people have been treated by priests.

You're trying to tell me that rape, abuse, violence, and paedophilia commited by a class of people who tell us "what god meant to say" isn't an acceptable reason to turn your back on a religion?

The majority of this country now is made up of nothing but hypocrites. It sickens me when you hear some one you know has had a baby for instance and they get their son or daughter baptised. For what especially if the parents dont attend church regularily.

Generally I find that a baptism is held in such a case as an appeasement to parents who still hold religion dear, and in general turn a blind eye to their childrens lapses faith, but still expect the motions to be carried out.

The ideal of a celebration of childs birth and party for friends and family attracts the new parents.

Worst of all is the sacrament of communion, it is the single most sickening thing seeing children taking holy communion when they never attend church coupled with the fact of the lengths ppl go to outdue each other money wise. The church in my opinion should not baptise or bestow the sacrament of holy communion on people who dont attend church because simply they have no right to receive these sacraments.

Now thats nice and all however, considering how many children are forced due to lack of alternatives to attend a catholic school and considering how at least when I was a child communion isn't so much a ritual but part of the ciriculum, with lessons leading up to event, reheresals, what alternative do you offer?

Worst of all and the most sickening part of lapsed catholics is the way they continually back mouth the church when they clearly have no right to do so.

Pray tell why don't they have the right?

Could you imagine if the church closed its doors in the morning and no longer practised any of the sacraments, no more would we have the nouveau riish trying to out due each other at baptisms or communion or weddings.

Leaving aside a clear case of envy on your part, we'd still have wedding since it is a civil ceremony. What is so terrible about the situation you're suggesting? It demostrates a society grateful of it's bounty and instead of sniveling and hiding away their wealth they want to share with their friends and family.

What is so awful about people showering their friends and families with gifts at the momentous moments of their lives? If the "doomsday" scenario you suggest, would occur, we'd still have civil unions, rites of passages into adulthood, and baby showers, the gifts would still come. Your ridicilous assertion that we would be berift of chances to spend money ignores how other cultures celebrate these moments, and the eagerness of capaitalism to help part us from our cash.

Plus with funerals all you would have is the funeral home and then buried, no prayers or blessings for the dead in question, with the body going nowhere no heaven or hell, no god, no satan, just rotting in a 6 foot hole in the ground.

For starts you're out of the loop the catholic faith has gotten rid of satan, secondly what are you suggesting? That god and heaven cannot exist withou the apperatus on earth? That heaven and hell exist only because the church exists?

The suggestion that we need the catholic church because that is the only concievable view of the after life is infantile.

Yours sincerely a very P!ssed off Catholic

Willem D

A very pissed off and extremely clueless would be a more accurate description.

Vangelis

Freelancer wrote:

You're a catholic, right? So why er did God sacrifice his only son for our sins

Because he loves Mankind, his Creation.

John's Gospel, 3:16 :
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Freelancer wrote:

In the cases of the above, the church has hid, protected and lied to protect paedophiles. The church as an institution has failed us. Whether the priest himselves had personally hid or sheltered a paedohphile he owes his parish an apology, and as a representive of the church, he owes a responsibility to the parish on behalf of the church.

This is true. And God grieves over the priest(s)'s actions.

Freelancer

Vangelis wrote:

Because he loves Mankind, his Creation.

John's Gospel, 3:16 :
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I am aware of the quotation however you'll notice I mentioned it in direct response to this part

WDK wrote:

Now my question is why should he have to apologise for another mans wrong doings.

me wrote:

You're a catholic, right? So why er did God sacrifice his only son for our sins

I was merely pointing out that WDK's question is rebutted by one of the central tennants of his faith. That whole guilt trip "Love God, he had his son tortured and killed for you" thing. Why should a priest apologise for another priests actions, the whole my brothers keeper thing.

But hey any excuse to take something someone else said, take a literally meaning of it, and get a chance to quote scripture, eh?

This is true. And God grieves over the priest(s)'s actions.

Gosh and being all powerful and mighty god hasn't he been lax with the smitting?

Or giving his priests the wisdom to investigate and expose these evil doers in their ranks, rather than to shield and protect them, and placing thousands more children in harms way.

Oh yeah I forgot, your God is kinda wacky that way.

StupidLikeAFox

Ok we get it, you're anti-Catholic church.

Anyway, i feel that priest shouldnt have had to apologise for the actions of others, as it really wasnt his responsibility. Unless of course he was apologising on behalf of the church as a whole.....

Im also a bit sad at how backs have been turned to the church, on both sides of the fence- People becoming priests for the power/social status that it has (or once had as the case is now). Lots and lots of mistakes have been made, but i dont see how the catholic church can be blamed instead of the individual people who carried out/covered up these acts.

Also, frequently on here you hear people saying about Islam "Condemn the extremists who are the bombers, but not the Islamic faith. I feel the same approach should be taken to the church, and am saddened that the actions of some sick and evil members should tarnish and take away from the religion itself.

Freelancer

ColHol wrote:

Ok we get it, you're anti-Catholic church.

And you're an apologist.

Anyway, i feel that priest shouldnt have had to apologise for the actions of others, as it really wasnt his responsibility. Unless of course he was apologising on behalf of the church as a whole.....

And again, I think every priest owes everyone an apology on behalf of the church. As a group.

Im also a bit sad at how backs have been turned to the church, on both sides of the fence- People becoming priests for the power/social status that it has (or once had as the case is now). Lots and lots of mistakes have been made, but i dont see how the catholic church can be blamed instead of the individual people who carried out/covered up these acts.

Because the church had an organisational policy to cover up the abuse. It ceases to be an individual act when it's organisational policy.

Also, frequently on here you hear people saying about Islam "Condemn the extremists who are the bombers, but not the Islamic faith. I feel the same approach should be taken to the church, and am saddened that the actions of some sick and evil members should tarnish and take away from the religion itself.

No it's an entirely different kettle of fish. If an Islamist church publically condemned suicide bombing, but it was later discovered to have offered pratical support to Al Qaida, your comparision would work.

These muslims groups wholly condemn suicide bombs, and wish no part in bombs, and believe them to be evil.

The fact is that not only that there was a network of paedophilia in the church, but the church went out of its way to protect, hide and cover up their acts. These pratices took place on every level of the church structure, from the pope down. To deny, to hide and to obfuscate any charges.

Now if for example I used catholic clerical abuse to condemn a different religion, for example Lutherian, your point would be valid. These are different sects of the same (general religion) which in the same way moderate muslims, can hold themselves as different from extremists.

You cannot different in this manner with the catholic church abuse, because it was systematic endemic and riddled throughout this one church.

Islam has a variety of sects and different beliefs, churchs and organisation, catholicism (and the abuse dealt out by it) has one set of beliefs, one church and one organisation.

The entire premise of your defence falls down on that basis.

Chong

Clearly freelancer is totally against Catholcism. I feel have not got the will to utter a response to your posts because you will simply see it as another opportunity to castigate catholcism.

cil_aine

ColHol wrote:

Also, frequently on here you hear people saying about Islam "Condemn the extremists who are the bombers, but not the Islamic faith. I feel the same approach should be taken to the church, and am saddened that the actions of some sick and evil members should tarnish and take away from the religion itself.

i completely agree with you there. many people i know however dont feel any animocity toward preists individually, but to the bigwigs of the catholic church in ireland for what they did (or didn't do) to people years ago. the laundries and child sex scandals COULD have been averted if there wasn't this sense of denial around the church at the time, and around the country.

WDK

WDK wrote:

Clearly freelancer is totally against Catholcism. I feel have not got the will to utter a response to your posts because you will simply see it as another opportunity to castigate catholcism.

Ad hominem. If you can't counter his arguments, accept it.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Because he loves Mankind, his Creation.

John's Gospel, 3:16 :
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Never really got this ... so God made the Jews and Romans conspire to execute Jesus? It was a good (well necessary) thing to happen, so Judas and everyone who betrayed Jesus were actually, unknowingly, were working for ultimate good?

Is that right? (I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't understand it but it does seem a bit strange to me)

To an athesist a more logical explaination would be Jesus got executed and the early Christian church had to figure out some way to explain why he was killed when he was actually the son of God. So the explaination was that he actually wanted to be executed as a trade (in the old Jewish tradition) for the sins of man kind.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

Clearly freelancer is totally against Catholcism. I feel have not got the will to utter a response to your posts because you will simply see it as another opportunity to castigate catholcism.

Deleted User wrote:

Ad hominem. If you can't counter his arguments, accept it.

Thank you saved me the hassle. WDK your argument was riddled with flaws. The church is responsible for the actions of it's priests, and the church as an organisation is responsible for the organised cover up and protected dished out to it's priests.

I suspect you didn't or couldn't have a position to defend and wanted to have a good whinge, about the bad things that they said about your priest.

Your priest, who, by your own description, interuppted his own heartfelt apology to tell you about the (verbal) abuse he endured. See an apology (to mean a damn) has to be heartfelt, it is not about making yourself feel better, it is about the feelings of the one(s) who has been wronged. Interjecting that ancedote, your priest played himself as another victim of abuse, to elicit sympathy from you. Thereby cheaping the apology and (and this is by your own description of the event) using it to garner sympathy.

I mean, what do you or he know of the man who called him names? Perhaps he was a victim of abuse? You don't know and your priest never bothered to find out. Was this person someone with a greater right to the apology your priest offered you? Thats a maybe, we don't know, what we do know is, in a that ancedote, your priest cast that man as the mob, and your priest got to play Mary Magdeline, the injustily abused victim.

Again this is going by your account of your priest's "apology".

Anyway don't post on a message board if you don't want to hear some less than pleasant opinions offered on your "pissed off catholic" views.

I'm a lapsed catholic and I'm going to be paying through my taxes to give the victims of your church some help.

Don't tell me I don't have the right to be pissed off.

lazydaisy

I agree it is sickenengly hypocritical to watch bourgie lapsed Catholics go to mass and spend 40,000 on a wedding, send their kids to 1st holy communion, etc etc, when they are clearly not into the religion and are doing it for purely superficial and non spiritual reasons.

But its also ridiculous to have a state endorsed religion. What meaning can faith have if its not a choice and its practised because the state is shoving it down your throat?

As for the clerical abuse, it is the church, the state, the vatican, the parents who are all responsible because they knew about it and CHOSE to do nothing about it. It happened because people let it happen.

And far from everyone is welcome in the church - illegitimate children, , homosexuals, cohabitating couples, divorcees are not allowed to receive the sacrament. Why is it women cant become priests?

Chong

Freelancer wrote:

Thank you saved me the hassle. WDK your argument was riddled with flaws. The church is responsible for the actions of it's priests, and the church as an organisation is responsible for the organised cover up and protected dished out to it's priests.

Tbh you have an opinion and your entitled to it. I dont know really where to go with this but you say if a priests molests a young boy in Dublin for instance , every other priest preaching the Catholic faith through the world should feel guilty for another mans transgressions. If someones brother for example rapes a woman then that persons family should be guilty for what their son or brother did hell no they shouldnt.

I suspect you didn't or couldn't have a position to defend and wanted to have a good whinge, about the bad things that they said about your priest.

Ya I did want to have a whinge because for the simple reason is no one deserved such treatment.

Your priest, who, by your own description, interuppted his own heartfelt apology to tell you about the (verbal) abuse he endured. See an apology (to mean a damn) has to be heartfelt, it is not about making yourself feel better, it is about the feelings of the one(s) who has been wronged. Interjecting that ancedote, your priest played himself as another victim of abuse, to elicit sympathy from you. Thereby cheaping the apology and (and this is by your own description of the event) using it to garner sympathy.

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes.

I'm a lapsed catholic and I'm going to be paying through my taxes to give the victims of your church some help.

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

Tbh you have an opinion and your entitled to it. I dont know really where to go with this but you say if a priests molests a young boy in Dublin for instance , every other priest preaching the Catholic faith through the world should feel guilty for another mans transgressions. If someones brother for example rapes a woman then that persons family should be guilty for what their son or brother did hell no they shouldnt.

And if the family intentially and willfully hide the crime?

This is were your logic flies out the window. Church members and leaders for decades, hid, and protected and moved paedophilias to protect the church, keeping saying that it was an isolated case, ignores the level and degree of how this scandal was hidden.

But good man yerself, ignore that side of the argument, and keep repeating that mantra

"not every priest was a kiddie fiddler"

And ignore the pressing matter, but many priest ignored or actively hid it, and it was church policy to do the same.

Frankly the decent siblings and parents of a person who's family member commits a serious crime, does feel guilt. You regret not doing more, try to figure out is there something you could have said and done before to have stopped them. Your family, your church, knew what their children where doing and went out of it's way to hid the crime. Knowing it was putting more children at risk. Your unwilliness to see this as an issue at this point is just laughable.

Ya I did want to have a whinge because for the simple reason is no one deserved such treatment.

Thats nice and ignores the thrust of my point to wit, where the hell does your priest get off demonising someone to make himself look better, while apologising for abuse

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes.

And again, what about the organised and systematic cover up?

"the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes"

thats not even english? The Magdelene sisters accept the burden of the crime? Gee wizz the last laundry closed around two decades ago. Victims of the Laundries are still alive, and you're ignoring the philosophical argument, "what kind of god would (to use your words) allow his representives to commit such abuse in his name for decades?"

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

And what the f*ck does that mean? That I begrudge spending my money helping the victims of one of the wealthiest churchs on the planet?

I don't begrudge them the help, the deserve it.

Tell me WDK what does the above mean? That I'm angry spending money of victims of abuse? I'm not. That I think your church should pay the bulk hell yes. Whats your point mate?

Chong

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes.

What I meant to say:

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters, except the people whom of commited these crimes.

As far as term Lapsed Catholic , well once u turn your back the church and faith you should be considered as nothing as in if your not Catholic well then your not. I think the term is excommunicated.

And what the f*ck does that mean? That I begrudge spending my money helping the victims of one of the wealthiest churchs on the planet?

Tell me WDK what does the above mean? That I'm angry spending money of victims of abuse? I'm not. That I think your church should pay the bulk

You are starting repeat yourself , plus I am by no means your mate so please dont refer to me as one.

I would so love to go one step further in my opinion of you but I would be banned, ah well.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

What I meant to say:

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters, except the people whom of commited these crimes.

And once again for the hard of thinking, the group who hid those crimes, have nothing to apologise for.

You're repeatadly ignoring the real thrust of my point.

As far as term Lapsed Catholic , well once u turn your back the church and faith you should be considered as nothing as in if your not Catholic well then your not. I think the term is excommunicated.

And as a catholic you knowledge of your faith isn't profound. A person can renounce their faith at any time, the church must go to lengths to excommunicate.

And as someone, who was bapisted a catholic, taught catholic faith came to a conscious decision to reject this faith, you claim to think I'm not in a position to comment on a faith, you prolcaim to hold yet I've now on two occasions on this thread that I know more about your own religion (on the subjects of excommunication and hell) yet you as practicing member of your own faith don't seem to grasp your religions shifting stance on the subject matter. Yet I'm not qualified to speak on the subject matter?

You are starting repeat yourself , plus I am by no means your mate so please dont refer to me as one.

Thats not a rebuttal, and tediously you're ignoring the central thrust of my argument. The church, as an organisation, sysmatically hid the evidence of abuse, which pokes a hole in your argument that individuals are the only people responsible for these crimes.

Furthermore it's tedious you make an implication that as a lapsed catholic I'm morally inferior, and when challenged you claim I'm repeating myself. So again, what did you mean by.

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

Now I ask you directly and specificaly [/b] what exactly did you mean by the above?

If you decline to do so I'll see it as a further example of the moral cowardice of refusing to answer the charges of my position.

I would so love to go one step further in my opinion of you but I would be banned, ah well.

Ah a threaten ad hominean attack, what we've come to expect for you.

You've ignored the thrust of my points you've declined to consider the implications for the church as whole for hiding the sins of the paedophiles and you've not even tried to grasp the hyprocritical behaviour of your priest, I've consistently addressed your main points, you've only lunged on the outskirts of my points and oozed moral outrage of dubious quality.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

you're ignoring the central thrust of my argument. The church, as an organisation, sysmatically hid the evidence of abuse, which pokes a hole in your argument that individuals are the only people responsible for these crimes.

Freelancer, I'm guessing that's the thrust of your arguement.

First of all the Church, as an organisation, never took, knowingly or unknowingly ANY policy decisions to hide the evidence of abuse here in Ireland and around the world. The responsibility lies in the hands of a large group of individuals, part of, but not the whole of, the church. To say the Church did the wrong would be correctm but to say the Church as an Organisation systematically and deliberately went out to hide the evidence would be incorrect and completely unprobable.

The fact that so many people were involved in these crimes beggars belief, however the idea that men, even holy men, are all fallible and prone to mistakes must be taken into account. Peer prussure on an extremely large scale, and covering the backs of the fellow priests was a large part of the problem but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophiles.'

The funny thing is you know that's true, but can't accept it.


Secondly, of course the church doesn't excommunicate you. It has rarely excommunicated anyone. Instead you have excommunicated yourself by stepping away from, and renouncing, the church.
It also has not done away with the idea of hell. Read the Catechism and all the updates to it - they are the official source of these doctrines.


Lastly I agree the Church has done plenty of wrong things in its lifetime, but it has apologised and continues to apologise.

To sin is Human, To forgive...


Patzer

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Freelancer, I'm guessing that's the thrust of your arguement.

First of all the Church, as an organisation, never took, knowingly or unknowingly ANY policy decisions to hide the evidence of abuse here in Ireland and around the world. The responsibility lies in the hands of a large group of individuals, part of, but not the whole of, the church. To say the Church did the wrong would be correctm but to say the Church as an Organisation systematically and deliberately went out to hide the evidence would be incorrect and completely unprobable.

The fact that so many people were involved in these crimes beggars belief, however the idea that men, even holy men, are all fallible and prone to mistakes must be taken into account. Peer prussure on an extremely large scale, and covering the backs of the fellow priests was a large part of the problem but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophiles.'

The funny thing is you know that's true, but can't accept it.

It's not funny it is in fact true
From the observer

'It was kept quiet - that's the way they felt it should be handled,' one priest, Father Vince Maffei, says now. 'That was the decision of the people in charge, and it has backfired something fierce.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,660927,00.html

Or one closer to home

As far back as the mid-1980s, the then Archbishop of Dublin sought legal advice as to the church’s liability for clerical sexual abuse. He was told that any bishop who knew there were grounds to suspect a priest of abuse and failed to withdraw him from ministry could be held legally liable for negligence. His sole response was to take out insurance cover against any resulting financial loss, and to advise every other bishop in the country to do the same. By 1990, most dioceses had this insurance in place. So they all knew this crime was prevalent enough to be a real concern, but their overriding instinct was to protect the institution from a financial hit, rather than to protect the children from the beasts who were raping and terrorising them. Prioritising money rather than people may well be a human failing, but in this case it was also a conscious, fully informed choice.

In 1988 Bishop Comiskey presided over a Confirmation ceremony in Monageer church in which he was assisted by a priest who had sexually abused some of the Confirmation girls just days before. Having specifically requested that James Grennan be absent from the ceremony, the girls’ families walked out in disgust. When first asked about it Bishop Comiskey flatly denied the walkout had happened.

Now that'd be senior clerics writing and setting out policy to hid evidence of abuse, its not funny and you refuse to see it.

Secondly, of course the church doesn't excommunicate you. It has rarely excommunicated anyone. Instead you have excommunicated yourself by stepping away from, and renouncing, the church.

So Galileo wasn't threatened with excommunication? More lies and half truths.

The church excommunicates you cannot excommunicate yourself otherwise there would be a thriving business among disgruntled teenagers.

The purpose of excommunication isn't to allow you to quit or make a political statement or pursue some other private agenda. It's to allow the church to throw you out. If you're already out--that is, if you don't partake of the sacraments or otherwise participate in Catholic activities (I assume this describes your situation)--excommunication is likely to strike church authorities as a waste of good holy water.

That's not to say you can't get excommunicated; on the contrary, canon law describes a number of situations in which excommunication is automatic. But these days formal proceedings are rare and reserved mostly for renegade clerics and such. Too bad you weren't around centuries ago, when they were bigger on this sort of thing. You could have gotten the old "book, bell, and candle" routine (more on this in a sec) or even been burned at the stake.

Strictly speaking, excommunication does not render you a non-Catholic. It merely means you're a Catholic who's been damned to hell. What's more, it isn't intended to permanently separate you from the church; rather, it's a "medicinal" procedure, meant to make you see the error of your ways. If in fact you do become reconciled later, you won't be rebaptized, just forgiven. In the eyes of the church, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Irritating, I know, but as I say, this wasn't set up to accommodate you.

There's also a practical problem. You can't have your name stricken from the Catholic membership rolls, because there aren't any such rolls. Sure, some records may be kept at the parish level, and if you're the determined type I suppose you could get your name crossed off those. But the church maintains no central registry. They figure God can keep track.

Fine, you say, but I still want to get excommunicated. OK, let me get out my--whoops, Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft. Gotta get this library organized. Ah, here we are, the Codex Juris Canonici. As revised in 1983, there are nine grounds for excommunication--physical attack on the pope, "violating the sacred species," procuring an abortion, etc.... all a little drastic. Your best bet is "apostasy, heresy, or schism," canon 1364. Probably the simplest thing is to join the Presbyterians. Voila, latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_242.html

So not only did WDK use the word incorrectly, you did as well as you cannot excommunicate yourself.

It also has not done away with the idea of hell. Read the Catechism and all the updates to it - they are the official source of these doctrines.

I forget, remind me, is this pope infallible?

Lastly I agree the Church has done plenty of wrong things in its lifetime, but it has apologised and continues to apologise.

And these apologies are eventually rung out of the church, when they're left i a position where its lies, and deceptions are finally exposed.

To sin is Human, To forgive...

And Gods representives on earth have done plenty of sinning, and now ask a tremendous amount of forgiveness from us.

Asiaprod

patzer117 wrote:

The responsibility lies in the hands of a large group of individuals, part of, but not the whole of, the church. To say the Church did the wrong would be correctm but to say the Church as an Organisation systematically and deliberately went out to hide the evidence would be incorrect and completely unprobable.
Patzer

Did you actually read the Fines report?
The the only hands the responsibility lies in is in the hands of the priests who had their hands down the pants of all the kids that got abused. I was one of those kids so please don't preach where responsibility lies. Bertie Ahern did not have his hands down my pants. It was a representitive of the Catholic clergy that had. And they can pay for what they did, period. And I KNOW how they hid the evidence.

Chong

Tbh with yourself Freelancer, I dont think I can back up anything I have said in essence because I dont believe I have the ability to go any farther with my argument. I must say the argument or opinion that you have put forward is extremely if not most certainly relevent and well put together. I unfortunately have not got the oratory abilities to continue this debate with you. You have my respect for what you have and in some instances your most certainly correct especially in regards I what said about my priest. I know I will be slated for backing down and retreating on my opinion but as I said I feel I havent to ability to debate my opinions with freelancer. The one final thing I will say I find it a bit disconcerting is your total disdain for a church you were born into.

lazydaisy

The church only apologises when its been caught. Apologies dont cut it after they've ruined people'e lives. And yes they did deliberately cover it up. The Vatican knew about it, the authorities knew about, and parents knew about it. THe Ferns report is still covering it up. It doesnt name the guards that were informed, it doesnt include dates of reports, it reports of children going to their parents with blood all over their clothes after being raped by the clergy.

The church's priority has never been the protection of children but the preservation of its own power. When it found out about a priest it just moved him to another parish to ruin the lives of other children.

Too bad the excommunication list doesnt include the raping of little boys.

Ratzinger knew about it too and was part of the cover up. The dioscese in Texas are trying to remove his diplomatic immunity so they can press charges against him. I hope they succeed. I hope there is special hell invented just for these rapists. It is of EPIDEMIC proportions. People need to wake up. It's probably still going on now.

Quite frankly I dont know how anyone can accept the eucharist when we have no idea where the priests hands have been.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

You have my respect for what you have

Then you'll damn well tell me exactly what you meant by this.

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

But hey I have your respect now, a couple of posts ago

I would so love to go one step further in my opinion of you but I would be banned, ah well.

You're frankly a bit of a joke, one post tells me you won't dignify me with a response another insinuates that because I'm a lapsed catholic, I'm morally inferior (or something you won't bother to elaborate) and another you threat to fling abuse at me. But now I have your respect. Well la te da christmas has come early I've just got my first unwanted gift.

WDK wrote:

The one final thing I will say I find it a bit disconcerting is your total disdain for a church you were born into.

*L* it's a disdain born out of awareness and understand at the depth of corruption of this church, the hyprocrisy of it's priests and it's lack of caring for it's flock.

I read, I observer, my foundings have solid basis you have dubious unsubstantiated faith to support you.

Tell me don you still deny that the church itself hid the allegations and the church as an organisation is morally responsible?