catholic churches position in ireland?

the clansman

the roman catholic church still have a special position in our government. do people think they deserve it?

i dont. not evry one is roman catholic so why should evryone have to live by what they say. i know theyre influence is sliping but the oficial position must be abolished.

we are ment to be a democracy. evryone gets a say..all different religions cultures, races ect so why should some have more of a say than others?

Pocari Sweat

Wait a few years, use the church for weddings, funerals and christenings, and when the time is right, implement a thought out spiritualist, humanist, democratic structure, that is not dripping of the filthy rich donations the vatican operates on and make it better.

Introduce an non-secretive, new religion to runs things, and stop the madness of the catholic church.

pbsuxok1znja4r

the clansman wrote:

we are ment to be a democracy. evryone gets a say..all different religions cultures, races ect so why should some have more of a say than others?

Because there are more of them than others. Simple as.
That's how democracy works. It's called a majority, etc.
Good questions FTW

declan_lgs

Kill 'em all

Nevyn

We live in a republic and there is no state religion.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm

Now the reamble to the constitution does have a christian slant but that is not one of the legal articles of the constitution.

Religion

Article 44

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.

6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

As it has happened the the majority religion of the country has been that of christainityand people have had thier weddings, funerals and have educated thier children via the services provided for them in their religious communities,
be they christian, jewish or islamic.

There is also the provision to be buried and to get married civily and legally with out involving any religious body and we are seeing the move to wards more and more schools that do not have a religious patron.

There is a seperation of church and state and up until recently the catholic church has only had 'power' as it were due to it's members giving it to the church.

Irish Wolf

Thaedydal wrote:

We live in a republic and there is no state religion.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm

Now the reamble to the constitution does have a christian slant but that is not one of the legal articles of the constitution.



As it has happened the the majority religion of the country has been that of christainity and people have had thier weddings, funerals and have educated thier children via the services provided for them in their religious communities,
be they christian, jewish or islamic.

There is also the provision to be buried and to get married civily and legally with out involving any religious body and we are seeing the move to wards more and more schools that do not have a religious patron.

There is a seperation of church and state and up until recently the catholic church has only had 'power' as it were due to it's members giving it to the church.

I'm guessing noone wants Bertie to comeout with this....

"

I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."
--George W. Bush commenting to Texas evangelist James Robinson in the run-up to his presidential campaign

but, for sure, if you're looking for where discrimination/sectariaism starts out, then look to the fact that school and religion are tied far too tightly - when I was in school Protestants in my class were forced to say the Angelus on a rotating basis... that ain't too long ago... Is this still this case in "rural" schools?

I'd be interested to know what religion is discussed in the JC/LC paper.

Is there any such thing in this country as a non-denominational school, open to everyone?

Nevyn

Irish Wolf wrote:

but, for sure, if you're looking for where discrimination/sectariaism starts out, then look to the fact that school and religion are tied far too tightly - when I was in school Protestants in my class were forced to say the Angelus on a rotating basis... that ain't too long ago... Is this still this case in "rural" schools?

Anyone ( group of parents) is free to step a school with what ever ethos.
Thus far in the history of the state the majority have been set up by what ever religious parish or community, this is changing with the most of the new primary school parents are opting for Educate Together schools.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/

Irish Wolf wrote:

Is there any such thing in this country as a non-denominational school, open to everyone?

There are no non-denominational schools there are multi denominational schools ( again Educate Together) that teach a bit about all religions and all children of any or no faith are welcome. That is at primary level there are no Educate Together secondary schools to date, but some of the private fee paying secondard schools would be multi denominational.

Lunoma

Well said Theadydal,

I had a big issue with the school I attended. I attended a community school which was are apparently supposed to be open to everyone of all denominations. We had Muslims, atheists and one Jew, me!

At our graduation ceremony in leaving the school, there was a Catholic Mass! They got some priest to come in and we had to endure an hour and a half of boredom! I found it very irritating and disrespectful to my religion. Why did my school hold a Catholic mass, when they proclaim themselves to be multi-denominational? Two fellas who were atheists were annoyed also.

If I had attended a Catholic school, then it wouldn't have bothered me. And even the Jewish school I used to attend, used to be very open to all religions and any Jewish ceremonies would to optional. For example, Hebrew class was held at the very end of the day when most people would be gone home!

GoldieBear

Anyway if people are not happy with the religious instruction received in a school, they can legally opt out of RE. (i didn't know this unti i started to train as a teacher). I taught in a community school for a while and i found the priest very stand offish (i'm protestant) and i taught the syllabus according to the guidelines. I tried to be as objective as possible when planning prayer services/meditations, i even did a Jewish Seder meal.

Everyone has the freedom to choose which religion they adhere to (if any).

ArthurDent

GoldieBear wrote:

Anyway if people are not happy with the religious instruction received in a school, they can legally opt out of RE. (i didn't know this unti i started to train as a teacher). I taught in a community school for a while and i found the priest very stand offish (i'm protestant) and i taught the syllabus according to the guidelines. I tried to be as objective as possible when planning prayer services/meditations, i even did a Jewish Seder meal.

Everyone has the freedom to choose which religion they adhere to (if any).

True GoldieBear - but all schools have a particular ethos and are constitutionally allowed protect this ethos. On the ground how this is handled is very dependent on individual Boards of Management. If you have a very conservative BOM you can find that you are very restricted in what you can do outside the strict teachings of the denomination whose school it is - for example - in discussions on RSE /SPHE (Relationship/sexuality education) you might find quite narrow descriptions of what is accetable to be taught ie no info on contraception, sex outside marriage wrong, homsexuality wrong etc or you could find a more liberal approach taken.

Although I don't think the above is a major issue for most people here, I would imagine that the ethos of the vast majority of hospitals in this country might be - as was highlighted by the outcry a while back about clinical trials on a drug for lung cancer not being allowed because it would have required women on the trial to use contraception (other than natural). Interesting article in todays Irish Times about ethos in hospitals and the implications (particularly in the case of Tallaght).

ArthurDent

Lunoma wrote:

Well said Theadydal,

I had a big issue with the school I attended. I attended a community school which was are apparently supposed to be open to everyone of all denominations. We had Muslims, atheists and one Jew, me!

At our graduation ceremony in leaving the school, there was a Catholic Mass! They got some priest to come in and we had to endure an hour and a half of boredom! I found it very irritating and disrespectful to my religion. Why did my school hold a Catholic mass, when they proclaim themselves to be multi-denominational? Two fellas who were atheists were annoyed also.

If I had attended a Catholic school, then it wouldn't have bothered me. And even the Jewish school I used to attend, used to be very open to all religions and any Jewish ceremonies would to optional. For example, Hebrew class was held at the very end of the day when most people would be gone home!

Lunoma was your school a designated or non-designated comunity school - if designated it is open to all but of a particular denominational ethos, if non-designated it must be multi-denominational in its approach.

lostexpectation

Thaedydal wrote:

There is a seperation of church and state and up until recently the catholic church has only had 'power' as it were due to it's members giving it to the church.

this may be true in alot of ways but its entirely the problem.

robindch

> but all schools have a particular ethos and are constitutionally
> allowed protect this ethos.

There's that bl**dy word "ethos" again being used to shortcircuit any debate about what kids are being taught! It's useful to try to rephrase the sentence above without using the words 'ethos', 'moral' or 'ethical'...

Mind you, it's not only the churches in Ireland that want to protect their ancient right to inject prejudice into kids. Over in the UK, the Church of England has asked to be made exempt from laws which make it illegal to discrimiinate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation:

http://www.tes.co.uk/2247484

ArthurDent

robindch wrote:

> but all schools have a particular ethos and are constitutionally
> allowed protect this ethos.

There's that bl**dy word "ethos" again being used to shortcircuit any debate about what kids are being taught! It's useful to try to rephrase the sentence above without using the words 'ethos', 'moral' or 'ethical'...

Mind you, it's not only the churches in Ireland that want to protect their ancient right to inject prejudice into kids. Over in the UK, the Church of England has asked to be made exempt from laws which make it illegal to discrimiinate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation:

http://www.tes.co.uk/2247484

Actually Robindch - it ain't just churches that have an ethos - I'm involved in an Educate Together school and very happy to have an ethos associated with it - one - which, by the way doesn't "shortcut any debate about what the kids are being taught"

www.educatetogether.ie

robindch

> very happy to have an ethos associated with it - one - which, by the
> way doesn't "shortcut any debate [...]

Apologies -- I wasn't criticizing you or educatetogether, but rather the word 'ethos'. If you're encouraging debate, then you're not using the word as religious institutions do, and more power for you for doing this (I'd also recommend you to pick another word, like philosophy, or character, or something like that). My point is that "ethos" together with the other words I mentioned aren't meant to clarify anything, but instead, are used to obscure debate and hopefully stifle it, all the words being designed to lend verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

btw, my neice is going to an educate together school on the northside and she loves it. Though I do think, in the presence of so many schools designed (at least initially) to indoctrinate kids with one religion or another, that it's wincingly pathetic that the educate together even has to exist as a concept, let alone a reality.

How's ET going in the North of Ireland?

Cantab.

Let's be very clear about what we're talking about here: the issue at hand is an attempt by liberals to impose a version of their own morals on religous and educational institutions - since when are liberals the umbrella body for all matters regarding morals? I've heard all the cliched, popular arguments about religous institutions 'attempting to stifle debate', 'discriminating against homosexual persons', blah, blah, blah before.

The reality of education in Ireland is this: parents have the right to choose (a concept that liberals should be all too familiar with). The fact that there are few aethist schools or educatetogether schools etc., is not the fault of the religous institutions, but the fault of your own government that you elected. If you feel so strongly about the schools provided for you, lobby your local politician, bring a case to court or pay for private education (as many Catholic parents do because the public schools in their area are not up to scratch).

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a morally neutral school - nobody has yet to explain to me how a morally neutral school would operate. Ultimately someone decides (often based on popular vote at an instant in time) what 'is right' and what 'is wrong'. There is a middle ground between right and wrong that is 'agreed upon', the result being moralistic compromise which is unacceptable.

So if there is no such thing as a morally neutral school (and I'm convinced of this), the solution is for the Department of Education to recognise and respect the individual boards of management and let the parents decide what school their children will go to. As it stands, this is essentially the system we operate in this country and long may it continue.

Any attempt by liberals to stamp out religous and moral instruction that doesn't fit in with their agenda will be fought very strongly indeed (and I'm involved in many such organisations).

ArthurDent

Cantab. wrote:

Let's be very clear about what we're talking about here: the issue at hand is an attempt by liberals to impose a version of their own morals on religous and educational institutions - since when are liberals the umbrella body for all matters regarding morals? I've heard all the cliched, popular arguments about religous institutions 'attempting to stifle debate', 'discriminating against homosexual persons', blah, blah, blah before.

The reality of education in Ireland is this: parents have the right to choose (a concept that liberals should be all too familiar with). The fact that there are few aethist schools or educatetogether schools etc., is not the fault of the religous institutions, but the fault of your own government that you elected. If you feel so strongly about the schools provided for you, lobby your local politician, bring a case to court or pay for private education (as many Catholic parents do because the public schools in their area are not up to scratch).


As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a morally neutral school - nobody has yet to explain to me how a morally neutral school would operate. Ultimately someone decides (often based on popular vote at an instant in time) what 'is right' and what 'is wrong'. There is a middle ground between right and wrong that is 'agreed upon', the result being moralistic compromise which is unacceptable.

So if there is no such thing as a morally neutral school (and I'm convinced of this), the solution is for the Department of Education to recognise and respect the individual boards of management and let the parents decide what school their children will go to. As it stands, this is essentially the system we operate in this country and long may it continue.

Any attempt by liberals to stamp out religous and moral instruction that doesn't fit in with their agenda will be fought very strongly indeed (and I'm involved in many such organisations).

98% of primary schools denominational in this country - where is the parental choice in that?

Who said anything about a morally neutral school? Just because a school doesn't share the ethos of a particular faith how does that mean that it's "morally neutral".

And for the record Cantab last time the Irish people were surveyed on the type of school model they would prefer a majority said schools should be non-denominational (60.5%) (DES survey YES 2004 http://www.erc.ie/pdf/views_of_irish_public_on_education_2004_survey.pdf )

robindch

Assuming that you're not trolling...

> the issue at hand is an attempt by liberals to impose a version of their
> own morals on religous and educational institutions

I think the issue is perhaps rather that your religion is losing control of schools left right and center -- the Christian Brothers a fortnight ago, for example -- and like any good political institution, your church can't accept the loss of so much as a microwatt of power.

> There is a middle ground between right and wrong that is 'agreed upon',
> the result being moralistic compromise which is unacceptable.

From this, I assume that you also have problems with democracy and the idea that people can sit down and decide amongst themselves how they'd like their society to be? You'd prefer to come along with your own moralistic non-compromise and insist on that for everybody?

> Any attempt by liberals to stamp out religous and moral instruction
> that doesn't fit in with their agenda will be fought very strongly indeed

Can I suggest you move to Iran, Saudi Arabia or some other place out in the Middle East, or Africa or Asia where you can take part in some of this very strong fighting that you approve of? You may (or you may not) enjoy the kind of sadistic "moral instruction" mandated by the local police, mullahs and the wonderfully Orwellian Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice!

Here's a quote from "Reading Lolita in Tehran". In it Negar, the daughter of the writer, comes back from school in tears:

That day in the middle of her class - science - the principal and the morality teacher had barged in and told the girls to put their hands on their desks. The entire class had been escorted out of the classroom, without any explanation, their schoolbags searched for weapons and contraband: tapes, novels, friendship bracelets. Their bodies were searched, their nails inspected. One student, a girl who had returned from the United States the previous year with her family, was taken to the principal's office: her nails were too long. There, the principal herself had cut the girl's nail so close that she had drawn blood. Negar had seen her classmate after they were dismissed, in the school yard, waiting to go home, nursing the guilty finger. The morality teacher stood beside her, discouraging other students from approaching. [...] Everyone tried to distract Negar by telling her stories of their own, how once Nassrin had been sent to the disciplinary committee to her eyelashes checked. Her lashes were long and she was suspected of using mascara. [...] During lunch, three of the girls were in the yard eating apples. They were reprimanded by the guards: they were biting the apples in a seductive way.

No selling out to liberal moral degenerates there, sirree!

.

lostexpectation

Cantab. wrote:

Let's be very clear about what we're talking about here: the issue at hand is an attempt by liberals to impose a version of their own morals on religous and educational institutions - since when are liberals the umbrella body for all matters regarding morals? I've heard all the cliched, popular arguments about religous institutions 'attempting to stifle debate', 'discriminating against homosexual persons', blah, blah, blah before.

The reality of education in Ireland is this: parents have the right to choose (a concept that liberals should be all too familiar with). The fact that there are few aethist schools or educatetogether schools etc., is not the fault of the religous institutions, but the fault of your own government that you elected. If you feel so strongly about the schools provided for you, lobby your local politician, bring a case to court or pay for private education (as many Catholic parents do because the public schools in their area are not up to scratch).

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a morally neutral school - nobody has yet to explain to me how a morally neutral school would operate. Ultimately someone decides (often based on popular vote at an instant in time) what 'is right' and what 'is wrong'. There is a middle ground between right and wrong that is 'agreed upon', the result being moralistic compromise which is unacceptable.

So if there is no such thing as a morally neutral school (and I'm convinced of this), the solution is for the Department of Education to recognise and respect the individual boards of management and let the parents decide what school their children will go to. As it stands, this is essentially the system we operate in this country and long may it continue.

Any attempt by liberals to stamp out religous and moral instruction that doesn't fit in with their agenda will be fought very strongly indeed (and I'm involved in many such organisations).

cantab what age are you I suggest you go talk to someone old about their youth in Ireland

Lunoma

Cantab. is obviously a religious fundamentalist. It's so obvious. And from reading past posts by him, he seems to be a very right-winged.

Cantab. wrote:

Any attempt by liberals to stamp out religous and moral instruction that doesn't fit in with their agenda will be fought very strongly indeed (and I'm involved in many such organisations).

Well, you're in for a battle, sirree, as there are more liberals on this island than silly annoying conservatives. What organisations? The NFs?

Cantab.

ArthurDent wrote:

98% of primary schools denominational in this country - where is the parental choice in that?

Blame lies with the Dept. of Education for failing to provide aethists with schools of aethist ethos - it's not the fault of the religious institutions.

ArthurDent wrote:

Who said anything about a morally neutral school?

I did.

ArthurDent wrote:

Just because a school doesn't share the ethos of a particular faith how does that mean that it's "morally neutral".

So what does it mean then? You've really hit a point though, becuase there is no such thing as a morally neutral school! I.e. the boards of management should be given freedom to decide.

ArthurDent wrote:

And for the record Cantab last time the Irish people were surveyed on the type of school model they would prefer a majority said schools should be non-denominational (60.5%) (DES survey YES 2004 http://www.erc.ie/pdf/views_of_irish_public_on_education_2004_survey.pdf )

So? Are you trying to suggest that because most parents prefer non-denominational schooling, that religous and moral instruction in all other schools should be outlawed?!

Cantab.

Oh dear... Your imagination is running away with you my dear friend...

robindch wrote:

Assuming that you're not trolling...

You'd love if I were a 'troll'. You see, branding people with labels in attempt to stifle logical reasoning shows your unwillingness to engage in a civilised and rational debate. It is you though, who has resorted to the diversionary tactics of name-calling and branding - the last bastion of the weak.

robindch wrote:

I think the issue is perhaps rather that your religion is losing control of schools left right and center -- the Christian Brothers a fortnight ago, for example -- and like any good political institution, your church can't accept the loss of so much as a microwatt of power.

You remind me of a runaway locomotive coming down a steep hill. Firstly, I would be glad to see the mass disposal of many of the Catholic-by-name schools in favour of proper schools that cater for Catholic families' needs. The Church would be far stronger and healthier were this the case. Mind you there are already several elite Catholc schools in Ireland that do fantastic work in promoting the faith and the aims of the Church.

robindch wrote:

From this, I assume that you also have problems with democracy and the idea that people can sit down and decide amongst themselves how they'd like their society to be? You'd prefer to come along with your own moralistic non-compromise and insist on that for everybody?

Lol. Yet, you would prefer to impose liberal morals on religous institutions regardless of what article 44 of the constitution says. Sigh. You say that I 'come along with [my] own moralistic non-compromise and insist on that for everybody' - you are quite wrong when you say this and I don't know how you conclude that I want to impose my morals on everybody. You should perhaps read the DECLARATION ON RELIGOUS FREEDOM which was issued in 1965 - over 40 years ago - by the Catholic church and is a far cry from all your stupid little false ideas about Catholicism that you seem to have in your brain (probably emanating from a massive chip on your shoulder).

Can I suggest you move to Iran, Saudi Arabia or some other place out in the Middle East, or Africa or Asia where you can take part in some of this very strong fighting that you approve of?

Again, your ignorance astounds me and what I have written above deals with the many figments of your misinformed imagination. You are a fool - Catholicism does not seek to impose its morals upon people by violence (as you are suggesting).

You may (or you may not) enjoy the kind of sadistic "moral instruction" mandated by the local police, mullahs and the wonderfully Orwellian Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice!

Don't give up the day job. I'm finding your rhetoric quite insulting to be quite honest.

Here's a quote from "Reading Lolita in Tehran". In it Negar, the daughter of the writer, comes back from school in tears:

No selling out to liberal moral degenerates there, sirree!

You're a very confused little man - Sharia law is not analagous to Catholicism. Come back to me when you want to engage in a constructive debate. I'm quite happy to be on boards though, even if it means I'm only here to cut through the myths and fantasies that debonair nihilists (like you) have about Catholicism.

Cantab.

lostexpectation wrote:

cantab what age are you I suggest you go talk to someone old about their youth in Ireland

25. What specifically are you implying?

Pocari Sweat

The problem with having any church as a position within a state or involved with schools, is the brain washing of people young and old and monopolising the population's time with endless faith based ideas that bear no relation to fact.

The end result is that lives that could be spent more productively are instead drawn into some ancient circus of spin, self regulated and focussed on self perpetuating myths more akin to the thinking of the middle ages.

5uspect

Cantab. wrote:

Catholicism does not seek to impose its morals upon people by violence

I'm sorry I wasn't paying attention, when did they stop?

robindch

> all your stupid little false ideas [...] You are a fool [...] You're a
> very confused little man [...] I'm finding your rhetoric quite insulting

While you may find my rhetoric insulting, I suspect that this may be because you might simply be unfamiliar with being asked to justify yourself. I also note that not only are you're not above slinging the odd barb or two yourself, but, in the indignant heat of your reply, that you've also forgotten to answer any of the questions I asked. And, btw, I'm not a little man, nor am I confused, nor am I a fool.

> Catholicism does not seek to impose its morals upon people by
> violence (as you are suggesting).

I didn't suggest that you engage in any violence, I simply couched my reply in the same terms as you used when making your original point:

Any attempt by liberals to stamp out religous and moral instruction that doesn't fit in with their agenda will be fought very strongly indeed (and I'm involved in many such organisations).

I don't know whether or not you intended actual violence in using the word "fight", but I see that it certainly seems to be the primary meaning in your mind. By any chance, are Christian Voice or New Oxford Review (webshop here) amongst the organizations you're involved with?

Anyhow, as we only seem to be engaged in an unproductive slagging match which I'm sure you're finding as tedious as I am, let's return to the topic: could you list, please, some of the "moral instruction" which you believe that "liberals" are (or would be) supressing in order to further their own "agenda"? Ten specific items would be a useful start.

Mrs. MacGyver

Well said Lunoma, well Cantab, ever think of accomodating our agenda once in a while or seeing things from a different point of view? There is more than one religious denomination in Ireland you know (just in case that fact has escaped you attention) You could try to meet people middle way.

Lunoma

Thank you Mrs. McGyver!

The only problem with extremists is that they fail to ever see middle ground. From their perspective, they are the only ones who are right. Unfortunately for Cantab., he seems rather singled out. He also went onto the Gay/Lesbian forum before and started insulting us which many found very offensive.

But it is almost improbable to take the mental out of fundamental!!!

Mrs. MacGyver

Cantab. wrote:

You say that I 'come along with [my] own moralistic non-compromise and insist on that for everybody' - you are quite wrong when you say this and I don't know how you conclude that I want to impose my morals on everybody. You should perhaps read the DECLARATION ON RELIGOUS FREEDOM which was issued in 1965 - over 40 years ago - by the Catholic church and is a far cry from all your stupid little false ideas about Catholicism that you seem to have in your brain

..... You are a fool - Catholicism does not seek to impose its morals upon people by violence (as you are suggesting).

QUOTE]


Well what about the ne temere decree then Cantab???
Please see quote from Wilkipedia on the subject

"The result made official civil marriages difficult for lapsed Catholics in some Church-dominated nations. It also made mixed marriages between Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics conditional on the approval of the Church (or for the Catholic to face excommunication), and thus allowed the Church to impose conditions such as an obligation for any children to be baptised and brought up as Catholics, and for the non-Catholic partners to submit to religious education with the aim of converting them to Catholicism. The decree proved particularly divisive in Ireland, which has a large Protestant minority, and contributed indirectly to the subsequent political conflict there." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_Temere

After the Ne Temere decree all children of mixed religion marriages had to be brought up as Catholic by decree of the Catholic Church and was eforcable under the law of the Irish Republic which gives the Roman Catholic Church a special position in the Irish constitution. This law was enforced many times...children were even removed from their families to ensure that they were brought up as Catholics.

My family was subject to this decree and it was very devisive (i'm currently researching my family history as you can see from the history/ heritage forum). I am not against Catholicism as i feel people are free to believe what they wish. but there are flaws in the position you have outlined above, regarding the Catholic church's declaration on religious freedom!

Cantab.

Lunoma wrote:

Thank you Mrs. McGyver!

The only problem with extremists is that they fail to ever see middle ground.

There you go again with your branding iron. And for your information, there's nothing 'extremist' about Catholic faith and morals. And I if I'm an 'extremist', what word would you use to brand the Pope? He's highly regarded throughout the world and is certainly far from an 'extremist'. Or maybe you mean he's just too Catholic for you, and you disagree with Catholic teaching? Now that would be a far more politically-correct response for a liberally-thinking, rational person, wouldn't it?

Lunoma wrote:

From their perspective, they are the only ones who are right.

Well yes actually (surprised?!), Catholicism believes it holds the Truth. Can I conclude from your reasoning that any person who is religous (Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Protestant, etc.) and believes that their faith is Truth, is therefore an 'extremist' aswell? Maybe you should consider looking at yourself in the mirror and think again about the kind of relativist ideology you're spouting on here. You live in a world where there are no objective truths of faith and morals, so all religious beliefs, values and practices are subject to continual change, based on human experience and opinion: Catholicism is a million miles away from this flawed philosophy.

From a fundamental theological perspective, I disagree with you. This does not mean that you are not entitled to respect as a citizen of this country and by virtue of your humanity (Catholicism is all for religous freedom and respect for fellow humans - see previous link to Vatican II document). Yes, Catholics belive they are right, and that you are wrong (on matters of faith and morals), but you think the same of us: it's called tolerance. But we must be very careful indeed when using politically correct language such as 'tolerance' because it can be misread - Catholics will not stand for moral relativism nor compromise on their firmly held beliefs for the sake of some popularist lobbying or opinion (the irony being that such lobbying is usually from people outside of the faith itself!)

Lunoma wrote:

Unfortunately for Cantab., he seems rather singled out. He also went onto the Gay/Lesbian forum before and started insulting us which many found very offensive.

Well unfortunately for you, you seem to live in a world where there is no objective truth and the universe is but a cosmic joke. I really feel sorry for people like you and I pray that you will one day find happiness (like I do for all people who choose to ignore God). I'd like to see evidence of how I insulted you? Your claim is unfounded. Or is it perhaps, that some homosexual persons just have an appetite for anti-Catholic bashing given half a chance?

Lunoma wrote:

But it is almost improbable to take the mental out of fundamental!!!

As I said, don't give up the day job. You really ought to have more respect for the wonderful religous institutions in this country who are doing trojan work both here in Ireland and all over the world. I sense you are quite bitter towards the Catholic Church, but your emotions are being directed in the wrong direction. My advice to you would be to consider redirecting some of that negative energy of yours inwards, rather than trying to make life difficult for the 1 billion good Catholics who want to make the world a better place. You might find happiness in your homosexuality, and we're not going to forcebly stop you from engaging in these kinds of acts (we've got better things to do - like help the poor), but don't try to force your individualistic, consumerist, self-gratutious, relativist, pleasure-seeking ideology upon religous institutions via stealth liberal education policies.

Mrs. MacGyver

I think that his orientation has nothing to do with his views. He just disagrees with your strong idealogy.

No one is denying that Catholics do excellent work here and abroad (like FR Petere Mc Verry and Sister Stan) and i'm sure some people here are involved with Catholic institutions either on a volunteer basis or otherwise. It's not a religion bashing contest by any means. I honestly think that it helps one to step back from their particular situation and try to look on matters objectively if possible. I'm not perfect and sometimes (more often or not) i cna be fairly right wing in certain views and there are certain parts of my religion that i'm not willing to compromise but i always try to see where the other person is coming from.

Cantab.

Mrs. MacGyver wrote:

Well what about the ne temere decree then Cantab???
Please see quote from Wilkipedia on the subject

Meh, you obviously don't have a clue about marriage in the Catholic Church. You are also in a free-fall of confusion about what you think constitutes religious freedom - religous freedom does not facilitate relativism which is, in itself, a threat to true freedom of belief.

I suggest: 'Catholicism for Dummies' by Rev. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD. Go to chapter 7 and you'll find out all about marriage (not civil marriage, because Catholic marriage is between husband and wife and God which a lot of people are ignorant to). Therefore, Catholic marriage can only take place between a Catholic and his/her baptised partner. The baptism must be from a recognised Christian Church.

After having done even the most basic of research, you will understand that Catholic marriage is a vocation and a sacrament which imparts special grace that gives the recipients the strength and ability to assume and fulfill all the duties and responsibilites of Christian marriage. It just doesn't make sense to want to have a Catholic wedding if you signify your disregard for the teachings of the Church by being a lapsed 'catholic': either mend your ways by attending Mass, going to confession, praying regularly, bearing witness to God in your day-to-day actions and support the Church: otherwise, the registry office makes far more sense. Equally, it just doesn't make sense for a husband and wife to get married in a Catholic Church (before God) and not raise their children as Catholics. If they truly believed, they'd do everything to ensure the best for their child.

UU

Well, Cantab., I'd have to say that you ought not to be so hot-tempered and rash.

The thing is, you really do portray yourself as quite an extremist even if you can't see it yourself and don't mean to be. Sorry.

Also, nobody has said that the Catholic Church don't do any good work. For God's sake, look at all the places for homeless people, disabled and elderly that is run by the Catholic Church. You seem to think that the Church has no flaws and yes, the Pope is quite an extremist compared to the last Pope. I liked Pope John Paul, even not being Catholic. Pope Benedict isn't even close to being as highly regarded as John Paul who was admired by both liberals and conservatives. This Pope just has it in for homosexuals, etc. which he ought to lay off and focus more on spirituality.

Like many others, I'm a liberal and rationial person. Perhaps, conservatives and liberals just don't mix? Look, we don't want to be fighting. I don't like fighting, it's not very nice. Catholicism is a really nice religion but everything has its flaws and all religions have their fundamentalists.

Cantab., be nice and smile!!!

Mrs. MacGyver

Cantab. wrote:

Meh, you obviously don't have a clue about marriage in the Catholic Church. You are also in a free-fall of confusion about what you think constitutes religious freedom - religous freedom does not facilitate relativism which is, in itself, a threat to true freedom of belief.

I suggest: 'Catholicism for Dummies' by Rev. John Trigilio, PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD. Go to chapter 7 and you'll find out all about marriage (not civil marriage, because Catholic marriage is between husband and wife and God which a lot of people are ignorant to). Therefore, Catholic marriage can only take place between a Catholic and his/her baptised partner. The baptism must be from a recognised Christian Church.

After having done even the most basic of research, you will understand that Catholic marriage is a vocation and a sacrament which imparts special grace that gives the recipients the strength and ability to assume and fulfill all the duties and responsibilites of Christian marriage. It just doesn't make sense to want to have a Catholic wedding if you signify your disregard for the teachings of the Church by being a lapsed 'catholic': either mend your ways by attending Mass, going to confession, praying regularly, bearing witness to God in your day-to-day actions and support the Church: otherwise, the registry office makes far more sense. Equally, it just doesn't make sense for a husband and wife to get married in a Catholic Church (before God) and not raise their children as Catholics. If they truly believed, they'd do everything to ensure the best for their child.

Actually i do eventhough i'm not Catholic, i did theology in college (in a Catholic institution). So yes after studting dogmatic theology and moral theology for 4 years i think that qualifies me to have some sort of informed 'clue' on catholic marraige. After all the majority of my family are Catholic, so don't get too agressive about it. Have to log off now as work becons. I agree with the statement made by UU also.

PS i'm not Catholic, but i was a regular attendee at one stage.

mountainyman

This quote has been edited to remove a gratuitous and cruel insult to the parents of children in Educate Together schools.

MM

UU

Mrs. MacGyver wrote:

Actually i do eventhough i'm not Catholic, i did theology in college (in a Catholic institution). So yes after studting dogmatic theology and moral theology for 4 years i think that qualifies me to have some sort of informed 'clue' on catholic marraige. After all the majority of my family are Catholic, so don't get too agressive about it. Have to log off now as work becons. I agree with the statement made by UU also.

PS i'm not Catholic, but i was a regular attendee at one stage.

Hi Mrs. MacGyver!

Thanks! So you did theology in college? I bet that was highly interesting. I knew a man who studied philosophy and theology in Milltown Institute in Dublin. He had the right view on religion, was tolerant and understood what he was talking about. Some of my extended family are Catholic and I was raised as an "à la carte" Catholic. Now, being Unitarian, I'm rather informed about various religions of the world and have an obligation to show sort sort of respect and tolerance for each. What religion are you now then, if not Catholic? Just wondering. If can be so nosey sometimes.

UU

5uspect wrote:

Whats wrong with this statement? The demographics of the country show that most people may be catholic but that in no way shows the trust or respect the organisation that is the catholic church in ireland commands. It is clear that the influence of the church on the government and indeed the public is disappearing. This is due mainly to the many scandals that have shown that many of the holier than thou management of the church are nothing more than liars and crinimals. This has tarnished the view of the entire church here and around the world. It is a fair point to call the church petty when expressing an opinion in refering to the moral high ground teachings of an organisation that has shown it doesn't practise what it preaches.

I'd agree with Lunoma's statement and your statement also but the fact is we're on the Christianity forum so there are certain rules which one must abide by even if one doesn't agree with them. It is true though that the RC church's voice is rather "petty" and "little" in comparison to the past. Even Cantab. would agree with me on that I'm sure. I should dare say that it "isn't listened to by many" also which is reflected by the majority of today's society. Sure, if it was listened to then there would be no divorce, contraception and homosexuality would be illegal but thankfully we don't live in the 1920s anymore.

The truth of the matter is, in relation to looking at any religious organisation, one must see the pros and cons. The RC Church does help a lot of people from the disabled, to the homeless and to the sick. I know many Catholics who really reflect the true spirit of Christian morality. There are many priests and nuns out there who give their whole life to helping others which I highly respect.

Of course, the higher powers of the Church can often abuse their position and are the masterminds behind most of the Church's stances on matters such as homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, other religions, contraception, celibacy, women priests, etc. Some abuse does exist in the upper ranks of the church who are sort of the keepers of the truth. I know my local Catholic priest who doesn't agree with a lot of what the Vatican teaches and preaches. And he's not the only one out there. One must remember that religions are run by people for people and well, people aren't perfect so religions are always perfect.

The key to achieving something near perfect is communication, understanding and tolerance. Peace and happiness is the only true way forward. Sorta my utopia which will never be!

Mrs. MacGyver

UU wrote:

Hi Mrs. MacGyver!

Thanks! So you did theology in college? I bet that was highly interesting. I knew a man who studied philosophy and theology in Milltown Institute in Dublin. He had the right view on religion, was tolerant and understood what he was talking about. Some of my extended family are Catholic and I was raised as an "à la carte" Catholic. Now, being Unitarian, I'm rather informed about various religions of the world and have an obligation to show sort sort of respect and tolerance for each. What religion are you now then, if not Catholic? Just wondering. If can be so nosey sometimes.

It's ok to be nosey UU. I'm C of I as is my dad, mother is Catholic so was raised with a balanced view of both traditions. My first cousins are Hindu. So there's a strange mix for you! (well yuo did enquire) I think thats why i studied theology. Fierce interesting indeedy! It pays to reads up on other world religions to get a better view of where they are coming from asregards, morals, ethics and approach as to how life is to be lived. It creates a balanced tolerant approach to life.

ArthurDent

mountainyman wrote:

What is that ethos ArthurDent:

'Please God keep my precious little darlings (fruit of my 40 year old womb) away from normal kids.'

That's the only ethos I pick up from Educate Apart.

MM

Mountainy man - you've already had this argument with me on other threads - you don't like ET, you won't accept that open to all means just that - so kindly take your attitude elsewhere - I ain't biting.

lostexpectation

Mrs. MacGyver wrote:

It's ok to be nosey UU. I'm C of I as is my dad, mother is Catholic so was raised with a balanced view of both traditions. My first cousins are Hindu. So there's a strange mix for you! (well yuo did enquire) I think thats why i studied theology. Fierce interesting indeedy! It pays to reads up on other world religions to get a better view of where they are coming from asregards, morals, ethics and approach as to how life is to be lived. It creates a balanced tolerant approach to life.

and what was the range of people/viewpoints of those studying theogology there?

Mrs. MacGyver

Losty(sorry for shortening your id) you can flick through the threads/posts here go get an idea of where i stand if you wish .

mountainyman

ArthurDent wrote:

you don't like ET, you won't accept that open to all means just that

You're right AD that remark was totally out of order and over the top. I certainly don't doubt your personal sincerity and I apologise unreservedly.

MM

UU

In my opinion, I think all religions contribute greatly to Irish society and therefore each should have an equal status. None should be given suppiority over another unless it was voted that way. I think it would be nice if our schools and hospitals would be more aimed at promoting an equally of different relgions. Especially today with so many foreign people, it would cause many problems retaining a Catholic status in most of the state schools when there are half a dozen Muslims attending. Like in 'Our Lady's Grove' in Dublin where it is a Catholic state school but there are many Muslim girls attending it as there is limited choice is multi-denominational and non-denominational schools.

I can definately see it changing in years to come as there is a demand for more inter-faith schools.

Pocari Sweat

Just ban all religions in Ireland and get all the crap out of peoples heads so they can live proper productive lives.

mountainyman

UU wrote:

In my opinion, I think all religions contribute greatly to Irish society

More accurate to say none do. All religions are now minority religions. The common faith of the Irish is consumerism.

What is really needed is the abolition of state funding to all schools and the creation of a state system. If we are going to have immigration from non Christian countries those people must assimilate. The power of the Catholic church over religion retards that. For that reason we must create a secular state school system. It would have no impact on me as a believing Catholic.

it would also allow us to cut off all funding to Blackrock, Sandford etc. which would also be a good thing.

MM

mountainyman

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Just ban all religions in Ireland and get all the crap out of peoples heads so they can live proper productive lives.

Posting on the Internet at 25 to 11. You are a real role model PS. Just like IceKube.

MM

UU

Geesh, mountainyman, why don't we all just set up a Communist state while we're at it? ......

mountainyman

As long as it didn't have Gulags it would be closer to Jesus' teachings than our current society.
'He that will not work neither will he eat.'
'He Has filled the hungry with good things and sent away the rich'
'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'


MM

ArthurDent

mountainyman wrote:

More accurate to say none do. All religions are now minority religions. The common faith of the Irish is consumerism.

What is really needed is the abolition of state funding to all schools and the creation of a state system. If we are going to have immigration from non Christian countries those people must assimilate. The power of the Catholic church over religion retards that. For that reason we must create a secular state school system. It would have no impact on me as a believing Catholic.

it would also allow us to cut off all funding to Blackrock, Sandford etc. which would also be a good thing.

MM

Finally we agree on something - a secular state school system. Faith based schools for those that want them, but funded by those faiths.
But i don't get waht you are saying here "If we are going to have immigration from non Christian countries those people must assimilate. The power of the Catholic church over religion retards that."

aidan24326

The original question asked:

'the roman catholic church still have a special position in our government. do people think they deserve it?'

-Well I say no, absolutely not. Thankfully their influence isn't as strong as it used to be, but they still have more influence and hold far more sway than what they should, often on matters they are ill-equipped to comment on (though lack of any real knowledge on a particular subject has never stopped them). IMO it's good to see their position in Irish life waning considerably from what it once was, a sure sign that we must be doing something right. The day they cease to have any influence at all will be a great day, and it will happen though probably not in our lifetime. We cannot claim to be a non-religious state while our majority religion still holds such power and influence. Complete separation of church and state is the only way. Religions have their place and although I am not a follower of any religion myself I respect the rights of others to do so as they wish. However, religious organisations like the Catholic Church (and others) are rarely (make that never) content to operate within the moral and spiritual framework that should be their natural (and only) domain. They always always extend their influence, or at least try to, well beyond the scope of what a religion is supposed to be about. So keep them out of governmental affairs.