The Hazards of Belief

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

mixing her personal activities with her political profile.

She's far from alone, e.g. "God makes the weather", or Bertie making a big show of turning up at a mass for something or other. They all* do it. It plays well with the more ignorant segment of the population.


* well Ruth Coppinger, Claire Daly etc. probably don't

expectationlost

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but you are complaining that she is voicing a private opinion. why is she not allowed do that?

if she wants to use her minister profile to fight for equality on national radio she can fight for equality in regard to state/public institutions

ohnonotgmail

expectationlost wrote: »

if she wants to use her minister profile to fight for equality on national radio she can fight for equality in regard to state/public institutions

I think she can fight for whatever she likes. State/public institutions are already governed by legislation on equality. She is trying to change an organisation she is a member. For some reason you think she shouldn't be doing that.



I wonder would the outcry be the same if she was a man? Probably not.

expectationlost

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think she can fight for whatever she likes. State/public institutions are already governed by legislation on equality. She is trying to change an organisation she is a member. For some reason you think she shouldn't be doing that.

she wouldn't get on radio to talk about if she werent' a Minister

btw even my god fearing Mum thought the Bishops statements was a bit OTT

Leo echoed her thoughts on women ordinations so we'll see what the bishops have anything to say about that

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Leo echoed her thoughts on women ordinations so we'll see what the bishops have anything to say about that

The separation of church and state cuts both ways IMO. As govt. ministers/TDs these people have no business advising in church affairs.
But in a private capacity I understand she has a quasi-official position in the church known as "Minister of The Word" which entitles her to read stuff out. But it does not allow her to give sermons, especially sermons contrary to church doctrine.

I also hear she headed up the FG Repeal the 8th campaign. It seems hypocritical that she holds a position in a church whose doctrines she disagrees with. She should have resigned from being an officeholder in the church.

I'm guessing Diarmuid Martin got a belt of some holy piece of furniture himself, from higher up the chain of command, and quite rightly too.

minikin

She'd say Mass!

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I also hear she headed up the FG Repeal the 8th campaign.

^ The real reason the archbishop attacked her.

It seems hypocritical that she holds a position in a church whose doctrines she disagrees with. She should have resigned from being an officeholder in the church.

No dissent or independent thought allowed? That'd be the RCC, alright.

I'm guessing Diarmuid Martin got a belt of some holy piece of furniture himself, from higher up the chain of command, and quite rightly too.

He made himself look like a right arse tbh.
What's amazing is how favourably he's been portrayed in the media up until now, despite coming out with some right whoppers, and being entirely disingenuous over divestment and the baptism barrier - the latter of which he could end in his diocese in the morning at a stroke of his gold pen.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No dissent or independent thought allowed? That'd be the RCC, alright.

That's actually Rec's position you're criticising there, not the RCC's.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's actually Rec's position you're criticising there, not the RCC's.

but it does match that of the RCC

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's amazing is how favourably he's been portrayed in the media up until now, despite coming out with some right whoppers, and being entirely disingenuous over divestment and the baptism barrier - the latter of which he could end in his diocese in the morning at a stroke of his gold pen.

The man is caught between two stools himself. He wants to be a RC Archbishop and he also wants to be a liberal. The media loved him because he appeared to be a refreshing change from his predecessors.
What we are seeing here mirrors political events in some eurozone countries such as Austria and Italy; a liberal regime with "feel good" policies lasts for a few years, but as the anarchy gets worse the pendulum must inevitably swing the other way, because eventually order must be restored.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

The man is caught between two stools himself. He wants to be a RC Archbishop and he also wants to be a liberal. The media loved him because he appeared to be a refreshing change from his predecessors.
What we are seeing here mirrors political events in some eurozone countries such as Austria and Italy; a liberal regime with "feel good" policies lasts for a few years, but as the anarchy gets worse the pendulum must inevitably swing the other way, because eventually order must be restored.

you mean restore the status quo.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but it does match that of the RCC

Apparently not. Martin has not suggested that Madigan is a hypocrite, or that she should resign. Only Rec has expressed this view.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Apparently not. Martin has not suggested that Madigan is a hypocrite, or that she should resign. Only Rec has expressed this view.

it was

No dissent or independent thought allowed? That'd be the RCC, alright

i was referring to.

Peregrinus

Yes, but that's actually Hotblack's summary of what Rec said, plus Hotblack's own gloss on it - namely, that he, Hotblack, thinks that what Rec says characterises the RCC.

My point is that the RCC hasn't expressed this view - only Rec has. And Hotblacks's - and your - belief that Rec's view is characteristic of the RCC is not supported by the evidence.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but that's actually Hotblack's summary of what Rec said, plus Hotblack's own gloss on it - namely, that he, Hotblack, thinks that what Rec says characterises the RCC.

My point is that the RCC hasn't expressed this view - only Rec has. And Hotblacks's - and your - belief that Rec's view is characteristic of the RCC is not supported by the evidence.

Well for me it quite clear that the RCC intensely dislike dissent and independent thought from the statement from the archbishop. Not only that but the statement from the archbishop was delusional in that he claimed that there was no shortage of priests. the dogs on the street know that this is not true.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well for me it quite clear that the RCC intensely dislike dissent and independent thought from the statement from the archbishop.

You're obviously not aware then of the origin of the term 'devils advocate'. The RCC has always had dissent and conflict within Her.

Not only that but the statement from the archbishop was delusional in that he claimed that there was no shortage of priests. the dogs on the street know that this is not true.

That's not exactly what he said though. He maintained that there was no shortage of priests in the archdiosces:

He added that there are “no shortage of priests” in the Archdiocese, explaining that the situation on Saturday evening arose “due to a misunderstanding”.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're obviously not aware then of the origin of the term 'devils advocate'. The RCC has always had dissent and conflict within Her.





That's not exactly what he said though. He maintained that there was no shortage of priests in the archdiosces:

It may have been the case that the incident at the weekend was due to a misunderstanding but to claim that a shortage of priests does not exist is nonsense.



https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/lack-of-priests-in-irish-catholic-church-the-problem-is-becoming-more-acute-1.2327089

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It may have been the case that the incident at the weekend was due to a misunderstanding but to claim that a short of priests does not exist is nonsense.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/lack-of-priests-in-irish-catholic-church-the-problem-is-becoming-more-acute-1.2327089

But he didn't make any such claim?

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But he didn't make any such claim?

he did. you even quoted it yourself in the post i responded to.

from the article:

He added that there are “no shortage of priests” in the Archdiocese, explaining that the situation on Saturday evening arose “due to a misunderstanding”.

this is patently false.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he did. you even quoted it yourself in the post i responded to.

from the article:

this is patently false.

You keep missing the qualifier - in the Archdiosces. He's not making any comment on the availability of priests anywhere outside the Archdiosces.

Peregrinus

One eyed Jack is correct. What Martin said was "There is no shortage of priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin for the celebration of Sunday Mass". It had, SFAIK, been suggested that the reason no priest turned up at Mount Merrion to celebrate the scheduled mass was because of a shortage, and Martin said no, it was because of a misunderstanding over who was to say it. But on the wider question of whether there is s shortage generally, Martin has acknowledged this several times, and has spoken publicly about the problems it causes and the ways it might be addressed.

On the wider question of the church's attitude to dissent, Martin's statement bears careful reading. As already pointed out, he does not accuse Madigan of hypocrisy or call on her to resign her ministry in the church. He doesn't even say that she shouldn't hold or express the views that she did. What he says is that her comments in the media have caused upset in her own parish and further afield, that people have contacted his office to express their upset, and that Madigan "might consider listening to the voices of those people who disagree with her public comments" and "might consider the hurt she has caused to parishioners".

You can shoehorn that into a preconceived narrative of "Church always stamps on dissent and independent thought", if that's what you want. But what it actually is is an argument that Madigan needs to express her views with more sensitivity, and she needs to be more ready to listen to those who don't share her view, and be mindful of both their feeling and their opinions.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep missing the qualifier - in the Archdiosces. He's not making any comment on the availability of priests anywhere outside the Archdiosces.

I'm not missing the qualifier at all. Did you read the irish times article?

within the next five years the largest diocese on the island, the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin, will struggle to have one priest for each of its 199 parishes. The Catholic Church must choose. It is celibacy or a future.

the article is from 2015. I remember when every parish had 2 priests at a minimum, usually 3. now they are struggling to find 1.


Or this article straight from the horses mouth


https://www.catholicireland.net/reports-projections-dublin-diocese-stark/

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

One eyed Jack is correct. What Martin said was "There is no shortage of priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin for the celebration of Sunday Mass". It had, SFAIK, been suggested that the reason no priest turned up at Mount Merrion to celebrate the scheduled mass was because of a shortage, and Martin said no, it was because of a misunderstanding over who was to say it. But on the wider question of whether there is s shortage generally, Martin has acknowledged this several times, and has spoken publicly about the problems it causes and the ways it might be addressed.

On the wider question of the church's attitude to dissent, Martin's statement bears careful reading. As already pointed out, he does not accuse Madigan of hypocrisy or call on her to resign her ministry in the church. He doesn't even say that she shouldn't hold or express the views that she did. What he says is that her comments in the media have caused upset in her own parish and further afield, that people have contacted his office to express their upset, and that Madigan "might consider listening to the voices of those people who disagree with her public comments" and "might consider the hurt she has caused to parishioners".

You can shoehorn that into a preconceived narrative of "Church always stamps on dissent and independent thought", if that's what you want. But what it actually is is an argument that Madigan needs to express her views with more sensitivity, and she needs to be more ready to listen to those who don't share her view, and be mindful of both their feeling and their opinions.

He is quoted as saying

He added that there are “no shortage of priests” in the Archdiocese, explaining that the situation on Saturday evening arose “due to a misunderstanding”.

I have quoted the important part because both you and OEJ both seem to have missed. what he said is patently false.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not missing the qualifier at all. Did you read the irish times article?

the article is from 2015. I remember when every parish had 2 priests at a minimum, usually 3. now they are struggling to find 1.

I read the article, it still didn't contradict what the Archbishop actually said.

Or this article straight from the horses mouth

https://www.catholicireland.net/reports-projections-dublin-diocese-stark/

Unless there's been some form of transubstantiation involved, that article is not straight from the horses mouth, it is a commentary by a Father Byrne, not Archbishop Martin.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I read the article, it still didn't contradict what the Archbishop actually said.





Unless there's been some form of transubstantiation involved, that article is not straight from the horses mouth, it is a commentary by a Father Byrne, not Archbishop Martin.

I've heard about blind faith but this is ridiculous.

Peregrinus

No, this isn't blind faith; it's evidence-driven. You're relying on a newspaper report (thus placing your faith in the newspaper!) but the report quotes only a snippet of what Martin said. If instead you looked for the best evidence - Martin's complete statement, available on the diocesan website to all those blessed with functioning fingers and a knowledge of how Google works - you'd see that what he actually said on this point was:

"There is no shortage of priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin for the celebration of Sunday Mass. Due to a misunderstanding, the priest assigned to Mass in the parish of Mount Merrion on Saturday evening, failed to turn up."

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

"There is no shortage of priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin for the celebration of Sunday Mass. Due to a misunderstanding, the priest assigned to Mass in the parish of Mount Merrion on Saturday evening, failed to turn up."

And this is plainly untrue.

No shortage of priests was what they used to have when I was a kid - so many that sometimes two of them would celebrate a given mass together just because. So many that each parish had its own dedicated group of priests and handled its own masses 365 days a year without needing to co-ordinate with other parishes.

They are now stretched so thin, barely 1 priest per parish, that any glitch may mean the designated priest does not show and there are no other priests in the parish to cover for him.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And this is plainly untrue.

No shortage of priests was what they used to have when I was a kid - so many that sometimes two of them would celebrate a given mass together just because. So many that each parish had its own dedicated group of priests and handled its own masses 365 days a year without needing to co-ordinate with other parishes.

They are now stretched so thin, barely 1 priest per parish, that any glitch may mean the designated priest does not show and there are no other priests in the parish to cover for him.

No, it's not untrue. If no priest were avaiable to be rostered to say the mass, then you could say that the fact that the lack of amass was attributable to the shortage of priests. But if a priest was rostered but "due to a misunderstanding" didn't show, that's not due to any shortage; that's due to the misunderstanding. There could have been a hundred idle priests, but the problem would have arisen anyway, because the hundred idle priests, not having been rostered to say the mass, wouldn't have been there to say it.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Apparently not. Martin has not suggested that Madigan is a hypocrite, or that she should resign. Only Rec has expressed this view.

This is true. But also he has lashed out at her for doing what he allowed her to do.
This is akin to leaving your cat in the kitchen all morning with your chicken dinner on the table. Then complaining when you come back at lunchtime and the chicken is gone. Cat will do what cats will do when they are given free rein.


I think its significant that he says "caused upset in her own parish and further afield". By "further afield" I'm guessing he is hinting that he has been reprimanded himself. And rightly so.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

This is true. But also he has lashed out at her for doing what he allowed her to do.

He allowed her to talk to the media? I think you overestimate the power of an archbishop, Rec.

He hasn't criticised her for stepping up to lead prayers on the occasion. It's her comments about it afterwards, as reported in the media, that he has spoken about.