Any practising catholics here? (and do you follow the rules?)

Earthhorse

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the case that in some places you would have to raise your child as a Catholic in order to gain access to the best schools? I can understand people "being" Catholic for the sake of their child's future even if I don't like it.

Turkilton wrote:

I told them we shouldn't give women the vote

Yeah! What?

Hm I was at a wedding today, very traditional, and wondering if all the people taking part really believed in everything going on, or just wanted the big fancy wedding
In any case, it's been about 10 years since I've been a catholic. Went down a different path instead
I don't hate catholicism, it just seems like a primitive set of rituals and beliefs.
Various other religions... *shrug*

I do agree with OP that it seems to be rather lazy - person wants a spiritual side, person just picks the main cultural thing instead of doing genuine research into their beliefs

Naikon

estebancambias wrote:

People who say there is no God, are under the impression they are insightful and deep thinking but in truth they are too shallow to even comtemplate the existence of something higher out there.

The NEW western world hates Christianity....FACT!!! It's blind hatred, and I will be making a vid on youtube about this soon.

I think you just want to believe in Christianity/other religion because it offers some form of comfort which you would lose as an Atheist/Agnostic.
Just because I want something to be true........doesn't mean it is.
Science may just be a modeling system for the universe, but it's more believable than a guy with a beard creating "the earth" in six day's etc.

I wish I was gullabal to believe in the likes of the catholic church/jesus our "savior" etc , but with the "holes" present in their view of the creation of the universe, "lack of definition of a soul" etc, and the fact that somehow "subordinate" beings have no souls leads me to believe otherwise.
I am Agnostic, and until the church or "god" proves otherwise, I won't blindly follow something I really don't "get" If you know what I believe.
The lack of evidence really pisses me off with the church and their somewhat "blind" faith.

Dudess

David Michael wrote:

Welcome to getting older.

Deal with it.

Rrrrrright. I suppose posting my view on Boards is a method of "dealing with it" so I guess I have that box ticked. Thanks for an extremely valuable contribution anyway.

Terry

I wouldn't worry about him.
Posts like that are his forte.
In fact, I don't believe he has ever made a valuable contribution anywhere.

Dudess

Wow, he (and the countless others like him on Boards) are such interesting, original people. They post a line that swims against the tide of logic and common sense, don't back it up, then log off - talk about thinking outside the box! They should all apply for jobs with Independent Newspapers or the Daily Mail.

Sangre

the level of ignorance that most people have about their own religion is hilarious.

estebancambias

But Sangre, I have yet to witness any facts that anyone has stated which are refutable. Everything so far has been based on opinion, and there is nothing wrong with that.

indough

Tha Gopher wrote:

Enough of this. Im converting to Islam (an offshoot of Islam that several Wu Tang members are into, it allows for drinking, smoking weed and random women, as long as you change your name to a half ghetto half Arab name like Shakwon Allah Supreme or something )

The 5%ers lol

Sam Vimes

estebancambias wrote:

People who say there is no God, are under the impression they are insightful and deep thinking but in truth they are too shallow to even comtemplate the existence of something higher out there.

The NEW western world hates Christianity....FACT!!! It's blind hatred, and I will be making a vid on youtube about this soon.

People who say there is no god have looked for evidence of god, found zero and determined that there is no god based on that. The finest example i know of not to believe in god is this:

during ww2 there were outposts put on remote islands with natives who had never seen white people. The outposts had radio towers and trucks and an airfield etc. And they had supplies dropped by parachute

years after the war people went back and they found the natives had built mock radio towers from palm trees, using coconuts as headphones and made wooden trucks etc. They thought the spirits had dropped the supplies and were mimicing the soldiers in the hopes it would happen again

i'm glad we're not as stupid as them because we worship a carpenter who lived 2 thousand years ago.

My point is its always been human nature to, when something unexplainable happens, say "i don't understand that so it must be god". And every society has had its gods but they've always been drastically different. Surely if there was one god the religions would all be the same?

And i know you like to think that anyone who disagrees with you or mocks your obsession with mc veigh is hateful and devious etc but thats an example of the problem with religion. People see their own beliefs as 100% correct and refuse to listen to anyone else's point of view. They have their holy book that says x, y and z so anyone who disagrees must be either a liar or evil. Its just arrogance really and has been the cause of countless wars

an example of such arrogance: david hume said of the virgin birth: "which is more likely, that the whole of natural order be suspended or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"

exactly the same logic could be applied to all the "miracles" performed by jesus but he believes in jesus so he only uses the logic to rubbish the other sides beliefs

estebancambias wrote:

Ceidefeilds good points, however your point that the Catholic religion has the inability to be self-critical can be applied to any religion or non-believers for that matter.

it can be applied to any religion but absolutely cannot be applied to non-believers as a group. In the whole religious debate, they are the only ones who have a shred of evidence for their case. Atheists would love to have a big beard in the sky protecting us all but its just incredibly unlikely. Please prove me wrong. I want you to. It would be better for everyone if i was

religions can't be self critical in that their books are supposedly written by perfect beings and therefore unquestionable. Science books are written by people who get excited at the idea that someone has proved their whole theory wrong because they've advanced human knowledge further

rusalka wrote:

Emmmmm....why not, then? Would you say an employee who pilfers stationery or takes 10 minutes longer than he should at lunchtime is any less an employee?

you can't be a catholic if you don't believe in jesus. Equally, you can't be a catholic if you agree with abortion or homosexuality. Its a holy doctrine, therefore its either 100% right or 100% wrong. You can't pick and choose the bits you like.

Spyral

I'm in my late 20s and I've noticed in the past couple of years that a number of people in my age group have started to attend mass again - seemingly having gotten over the rebelling against religion phase so integral to their teens/early twenties.
The reason - generally they've decided to reconnect with their spiritual side. People my age group are also getting married, and all the ones I know tend to opt for a church wedding. Those who have kids are choosing to have them baptised as catholics (I know two girls who married men who are members of the Church of Ireland, yet their children were still baptised as catholic).

If you get married in a Catholic Church (ie one of the 2 is a Catholic) then you must promise to raise the children as Catholic and get a dispensation before marriage

So... I guess this means loads more kids, shunning their friends who are gay, maybe protesting against divorce and abortion and, in the event that they can't have kids, refusing to go down the IVF route.
And as for those who are not married - no more sex til their wedding night.

Firstly you by no more kids you mean "no contraception" which is innacurate as Catholics can use NFP
Secondly they can use Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) type IVF as it does not create excess lives which will be discarded (ie murdered) and takes place within the body

Why this hypocrisy? Sure, reconnect with your spiritual side - that's great. Embrace the teachings of christianity - even better. But opting for the catholic faith and attending catholic mass - isn't this just laziness? What about attending ecumenical services, unitarian services. Aren't there non-denominational christian services that focus on Christ's teachings rather than being petty sects?

the church isn't a petty sect and it is ignorance (no fault of your own as religous education is rubbish in this country) to suggest that it is. The Roman Catholic Church has been the same since the beginning and it was only with Luthor that this whole idea of "do what you want" really took off

I find it pretty repugnant that people who use contraception, have sex before marriage and have gay friends (surely they should be even more supportive of their gay friends by not having anything to do with an organisation that condemns homosexuality as evil) are re-embracing religion by opting for catholicism. Rules are rules.

I have gay freinds. I recall something about not condoning the activity but nothing about rejecting them. We are all sinners after all and its a case of hate the sin love the sinner.

Irish Catholicism has long been a pick'n'mix religion. You've just noticed your friends reaching an age where they have to make grown-up decisions, and they have chosen the old, easy route - it's lipservice. It is nothing new.

Possibly but there are those who attempt to understand it and do it for reasons other than "I've always done it"

In fairness, unless you have good personal reason hating the church is one of the most conformist, saddest things I can think of.

lol Amen !

I've yet to meet a genuine catholic. Most of these D.I.Y. catholics I know wouldn't know too much about their own religion, or any religion for that matter and just have a vague sense of belonging to this club, whether through nationality or because they want to believe in a God and catholics believe in God so therefore they must be catholic.

you just said it yourself "DIY catholic" but what is a genuine catholic ? Its rather judgemental to categorise people. I recall in the bible a saying about not telling your brother he has a splinter in his eye while you have a plank in yours. So you become the pope first then tell us what to do !
Besides its why there is a sacrament of reconciliation - because people dont always follow the rules.

I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of young people with access to education are not atheists or at least wolly agnostics, if they just thought about it for a few minutes. Like Mr Tayto says, there's always one but really, how many "catholics" are aware of their religions teachings and actually believe it? I've always had a soft spot for buddists but I see that as more of a personal lifestyle choice for the person rathar than a religion. Regarding Catholism, I just can't understand if genuine new recruits are getting involved.

Are you a catholic, you seem to be angry that there are no 'genuine catholics' is it that you practice and are irked or just irked generally at what you perceive to be hypocracy ?

The one thing I find very sad about the Catholic religion is the inability to be self-critical. There's only one holy church, it's our way or the highway sort of thing. No room for internal dialog or debate at all.

And honestly, what experiences do any priests have that are relevant to life today?

Its the truth. If you dont like the fact that 2+2=4 do you have a debate? No you can either accept it or not. There is no room for debate.

The whole religion just seems destined for the dustbin to me.

well it's survived 2000 years so its well so far..

There's being a Catholic, and then there's following rules laid out by people who think its ok to **** a child.

you tell me where in the church doctrines it says its ok to sodomise a child and I will convert to the religion of your choice

the level of ignorance that most people have about their own religion is hilarious.

I concur entirely

My point is its always been human nature to, when something unexplainable happens, say "i don't understand that so it must be god". And every society has had its gods but they've always been drastically different. Surely if there was one god the religions would all be the same?

actually Catholicism teaches that 'other religions' eg paganism, the Egyptian gods etc are demons

HammerHeadGym

Whatever about kids who don'tknow any better, I can't beleive that there are adults who still buy into this bullsh!t. Is it really that scary to get on with your life without an invisible omnipotent dictater holding your hand? Muppets.

Terry

Commander Vimes wrote:

an example of such arrogance: david hume said of the virgin birth: "which is more likely, that the whole of natural order be suspended or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"

Doron Nof is no stranger to controversy. When you're applying modern scientific methods to stories from the Old and New Testaments, it just goes with the territory.

In 1992, Nof attempted to provide an oceanographic explanation for the biblical story of the Red Sea crossing by the ancient Israelites. More recently, the Florida State University oceanographer co-published a paper (click for PDF) that offered a paleolimnological explanation for walking on water in the Sea of Galilee.

Press reports reduced the substance of his research finding to a hot headline that triggered passionate responses--including a fair share of hate mail. But Nof was careful to avoid drawing any conclusion about the New Testament account that Jesus walked on water in Lake Kinneret (known outside of Israel as the Sea of Galilee). CNET News.com recently caught up with Nof to learn more about his findings.

Continued here.

Spyral wrote:

the church isn't a petty sect and it is ignorance (no fault of your own as religous education is rubbish in this country) to suggest that it is. The Roman Catholic Church has been the same since the beginning and it was only with Luthor that this whole idea of "do what you want" really took off

The catholic church has not been the same since the beginning.
Divorce used to be allowed and priests were allowed to marry.
Also, it's "Luther" and not "Luthor". Although, I'm beginning to see something here.
Superman is supposedly Jewish. Martin Luther was German. Hmm.

Tar.Aldarion

No, I'm not stupid(with regards to other humans).

Glowing

This thread is making me angry.

Am I right in saying that the catholic church won't condone the use of condoms for the prevention of the spreading of HIV in developing countries?

How can you justify that?

Tar.Aldarion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29404-2005Jan22.html

ROME, Jan. 22 -- After several days of unusual public debate among senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II on Saturday reaffirmed church teaching that urges abstinence and marital fidelity to stop the spread of AIDS and forbids condoms.

"The Holy See . . . considers that it is necessary above all to combat this disease in a responsible way by increasing prevention, notably through education about respect of the sacred value of life and formation of the correct practice of sexuality, which presupposes chastity and fidelity."

In the Vatican's teaching, phrases such as "sacred value of life" and "correct practice of sexuality" generally preclude contraception.

His words followed a week in which a high official of Spain's Bishops Conference said there was "a place" for condoms in AIDS prevention, but then was overruled by the full Bishops Conference, and other leaders weighed in to suggest publicly that a policy change might be appropriate.

In recent days, the pope has also stressed the role of Catholic health workers in tending to the AIDS-stricken. "At my request, the church has mobilized in favor of the victims and especially in order to assure access to help and the necessary medical care through a number of treatment centers," he said. He was referring to the Holy See's Good Samaritan Foundation, established last year to coordinate funds and organizations to help AIDS victims.

The Vatican has depicted contraception as part of an attack on the "culture of life" because it blocks the creation of children. On Saturday, John Paul II also repeated the Vatican's condemnation of euthanasia, which the Netherlands has legalized and which in the pontiff's view is an example of the "culture of death."

"The Holy See has made known its clear position and invites Catholics in the Netherlands always to show their absolute respect for human life, from conception to natural death," the pope said in the statement.

Pope Paul VI banned the use of contraception 37 years ago, and at that time the issue was almost entirely birth control. Ever since, high church officials have considered the question largely to be closed. But the AIDS pandemic has led to calls from some corners of the global church for authorizing at least one form of contraception -- condoms -- as a means of preventing HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, from spreading.

Two cardinals in Europe this week separately spoke of a hypothetical situation in which use of a condom might be justified: when a woman must have sex with someone who is infected with HIV and therefore must protect herself.

And in Mexico City, a bishop said at a news conference Friday that condom use could be a "lesser evil" if employed to prevent AIDS. "If someone is incapable of controlling their instincts . . . then they should do whatever is necessary in order not to infect others," said Felipe Arizmendi, bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas, in far southern Mexico.

The comments followed months of ferment in the church over how to approach AIDS prevention. Last year, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) published a paper urging a range of methods to fight AIDS.

"For many in Africa and Asia, sex is often the only commodity people have to exchange for food, school fees, exam results, employment or survival itself in situations of violence," the paper said. "Any strategy that enables a person to move from a higher-risk towards the lower end of the continuum, CAFOD believes, is a valid risk reduction strategy."

Vatican officials have said that in the field some individual priests or health care workers might see fit to counsel use of condoms in particular cases. But the officials emphasized that such instances did not represent a change in teaching.

"The problem is that anytime we try to give a nuanced response, we see headlines that say, 'Vatican approves condoms.' The issue is more complicated than that," Monsignor Angel Rodriguez Luno, a professor of moral theology at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, said on Friday. "From a moral point of view, we cannot condone contraception. We cannot tell a classroom of 16-year-olds they should use condoms.

"But if we are dealing with someone or a situation in which clearly persons are going to act in harmful ways, say, a prostitute who is going to continue her activities, then one might say, 'Stop. But if you are not going to, at least do this,' " said Luno, who is an adviser to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican department charged with safeguarding orthodoxy.

One possible avenue for a new condom policy would be a "lesser-of-two-evils" approach. In this regard, condoms could be approved as a means of reducing the instance of danger or sin in cases where someone is bent on having extramarital sex or sex with a spouse while infected with HIV.

Rodriguez Luno -- without endorsing a new policy -- placed the issue in the context of the Ten Commandments. Sex outside of marriage already breaks the Sixth Commandment, which forbids adultery, he said. "Infecting someone with AIDS would also mean sinning against the Fifth Commandment -- you shall not kill," he said. "Condoms would diminish that danger."

rusalka

Commander Vimes wrote:

you can't be a catholic if you don't believe in jesus. Equally, you can't be a catholic if you agree with abortion or homosexuality. Its a holy doctrine, therefore its either 100% right or 100% wrong. You can't pick and choose the bits you like.

I think you've missed my point. I agree 100% with what you've said above, but my point was rather that just because a Catholic may agree 100% with the doctrines of the church, it doesn't mean they won't occasionally break the rules - the big stuff, or the small stuff, and in doing that, it doesn't make them any less a "true" Catholic (to use Dudess' term) than anyone else.

Even while excommunicated from the R.C. church (either by the imposed, or the immediate/automatic forms), a person is still considered both Christian and R.C. - it is purely a "medicinal penalty" to encourage someone to change their ways until they can repent and basically re-profess their obedience to the law of the church. The R.C. church will never let you go! You may be denied access to the sacraments, and from taking part in the liturgy, but they still consider you one of their sheeples, and whether you like it or not, still Catholic in their eyes!

Sangre

estebancambias wrote:

But Sangre, I have yet to witness any facts that anyone has stated which are refutable. Everything so far has been based on opinion, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm not really sure the point you are trying to make or how it relates to mine.

I was pointing out that many who claim to have faith know very little about the dogma and teachings of their own faith.

bohsman

Glowing wrote:

This thread is making me angry.

Am I right in saying that the catholic church won't condone the use of condoms for the prevention of the spreading of HIV in developing countries?

How can you justify that?

True, but there have been cases of the church giving out condoms - there was one incident of condoms being stapled to leaflets and handed out.

bohsman

bohsman wrote:

there was one incident of condoms being stapled to leaflets and handed out.

Great! :eek:

Terry

Further to my post regarding inconsistencies in catholicism throughout history, there is the question of Limbo (not the dancers).

The Roman Catholic Church is preparing to abolish limbo, the place between heaven and hell reserved for the souls of children who die before they have been baptised.

The Church's 30-member International Theological Commission yesterday began a week-long meeting to draw up a text for Pope Benedict XVI, which is expected to recommend dropping the concept from Church doctrine.

Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century and is depicted in paintings by artists such as Giotto and in literary works such as Dante's Divine Comedy.
advertisement

The commission was first asked to study the after-life fate of the non-baptised by the late Pope John Paul II.

Pope Benedict is expected to approve the findings. In 1984, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the head of the Vatican's doctrinal department, he called limbo "a theological hypothesis".

"It is linked to the cause of original sin, but many babies die because they are victims," he said.

Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, Theologian of the Pontifical Household, yesterday told La Stampa: "We need to consider it and take into account the fact that many children die victims of modern evils - hunger in the world, for example, and many ills coming from huge social disorder and misery, let alone the fruits of abortion and such things."

More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow.

It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.

The Church is aware that Muslims, for example, believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any test.

The most decisive modern Catholic text on the issue dates back to 1905 when Pope Pius X stated: "Children who die without being baptised go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either, because whilst carrying the original sin... they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory."

Catholics also believe that because fertilised ovum and aborted foetuses have human souls they, too, go to limbo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/30/wchurch130.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/30/ixworld.html

In the end, they kept it as is, but it just goes to show that they are making the rules up as they go along.

Duggy747

How did a relgious thread sleek it's way into AH?

Anywho, religion was never a big thing in my life. When I was a kid I never really cared, church was just a building I had to go to on Sunday mornings or Saturday nights *shudder* and I couldn't ryhme a prayer off. When I was about 14 I realised the God-thing wasn't for me and naturally I went through that ridiculious rebellious stage against it. Fortunately that stage didn't last very long and nowadays as an atheist I don't care what anybody believes, there's more to life than hammering away on the same ol' topic. While we're at it, why don't we nail into each other about which is the best type of music genre? (Though I think we can all agree on how shít Emo is )

estebancambias wrote:

People who say there is no God, are under the impression they are insightful and deep thinking but in truth they are too shallow to even comtemplate the existence of something higher out there.

Don't know where you base this from, I'm as about as smart and stupid as the next person. I'm not shallow to comtemplate the existence of a God, I just use the values of scientific deduction and logic. I'm more interested in enjoying life with people I love rather than squabble on the same ol' record!

It's not like any post here on this thread (or anywhere else) is gonna make anyone go "Gee whizz, maybe I'm wrong after all!!". Whatever makes you feel good and gets you through your day is what matters more rather than spitting acid at each other. That's the great thing about the Western World, we can have the freedom of choice during our own lives and not get the shít kicked out of us for thinking otherwise! (though obviously there's that wee situation with the Catholics and Protestants up north and all that!)

EDIT: I knew this thread would descend into a Catholics Vs. Atheists one!

CathyMoran

I would consider myself a practicing catholic but I do not follow all the rules, I disagree intrinsically with the church's views on gays, contraception,IVF, sex before marriage and women priests.. I think that it is better to be within a group and object to some of the things that you see are wrong with it rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most of these rules are imposed by flawed humans, it is not God's fault that the church is not as compassionate or realistic as it should be.

Tar.Aldarion

Their rules come from the bible, there is no arguing with it, you can not change their views. You are not a Catholic if you think Christ was 'lying'.

Stephen

estebancambias wrote:

You can doubt, you can say Religion is merely a fabrication by man to feel good for themselves, but there should be laws which prohibit people from saying comments like ''this guy jesus supposably', 'allah is a dick' and stuff along those lines.

So you want to force your religious views on others? Lucky for us you're not in charge.

CathyMoran

It is an interpretation of the bible.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

mmm, I'm a practising atheist but I still sometimes believe in god, and angels.

Tar.Aldarion

Some things are an interpretation. Most of their hard and fast rules that you disagree with can not be argued with. Things like priests not marrying etc can, since the church made them up.

Dudess

Cathy, why not attend unitarian service so? Especially if you disagree with the catholic church's stance on so many things.

By the way, this thread is going the wrong way - I'm focusing specifically on catholicism, not whether you believe in God.

Duggy747

Stephen wrote:

So you want to force your religious views on others? Lucky for us you're not in charge.

I think we established that with the whole "Tim McVeigh" thing!