The future of the catholic church in Ireland

djk1000

I'm not off on an abuse rant here, nothing of the sort. I used to be catholic but would now call myself a humanist I suppose. My dad died a few years ago and as a mark of respect for my mother more than anything else, I go to mass once a year which is said for my dad, today was my annual trip!

I think that going just once a year gives me an unusual perspective, in that I can see the changes taking place with a bit of objectivity. I see that the Christian forum here is a lively place and I applaud you all for that, but the mass I was at today was a very sad experience, the church was far from full, most of the congregation were in their 70's, the priest was old and alone on the alter until the communion, no alter boys/girls, no music, the eucaristic ministers were all very old too, no one seemed to know when they were supposed to stand, sit or kneel. There used to be flowers around the church but not anymore, the pews were wearing away and in disrepair.

When I go to the mass each year, I just can't help thinking of decay and how each time it seems just a little bit sad. This is a church in South Dublin with a big catchment area. It used to be packed to the rafters for three masses on a St Patricks day with young and old, now it's not a shadow of its former self.

Is this just in my local church, or is it something more? I know that the church has had its issues of late, but I never really thought that it had gotten that bad in terms of the day to day in a parish, are there any young catholics anymore? Is it inevitable that the catholic church will continue to fade away with old priests and ever declining numbers of old parishioners trying to maintain impossibly large churches? Will the churches ever be full again?

Outrage

It will take at least a generation or two for the Irish to shake of their reputation as being a nation of perverts.

Until then, it's a question of consolidating assets (not to mention lots of prayer). They will be needed again in 20 to 50 years' time. Unlike the popular press, the Church plays the long game, not the short one.

Tropheus

The "long game" doesn't even look good for the Catholic church. If they spent as much time trying to stop child abuse as they did covering it up things would be a lot better for them.

The fact is that the majority of young people are turning their backs.

Outrage

ksimpson wrote: »

The "long game" doesn't even look good for the Catholic church. If they spent as much time trying to stop child abuse as they did covering it up things would be a lot better for them.

The fact is that the majority of young people are turning their backs.

I seriously doubt that whatever's going on inside your head will still be relevant in another 2000 years' time.

Fanny Cradock

Given that these types of post don't generally have a good track record for civility, I'm pre-empting any nastiness by suggesting that people stick by the charter and stick by it.

Stephentlig

Hi Op, I hear what your saying:

It was once said by a mystic ( dont know who it was at this exact time but I'll find out) that the Church would reach an all time low.

Therefore as long as we view the Church as a secular organisation (rather than a spiritual one) that counts heads like a nightclub who when the owner isnt getting the crowd he needs he shuts its doors.... then we'll never be a part of the Church.

(2Timothy:2:13 )''we may be unfaithful, but he will always be faithful, for he cannot disown his own self.''

let us not be like the disciples who in the garden of Gethsemene scattered when the heat became to much for them, but let us stand by truth and ''endure to the end'' with him.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time.

Matt. 13:47-50 - God's plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members.

Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church.

Matt. 23:2-3 - the Jewish people would have always understood the difference between a person's sinfulness and his teaching authority. We see that the sinfulness of the Pharisees does not minimize their teaching authority. They occupy the "cathedra" of Moses.

Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly.

Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church.

Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus' apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church.

John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India.

Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Eph. 5:25-27 - just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members.

1 Tim. 5:19 - Paul acknowledges Church elders might be unfaithful. The Church, not rebellion and schism, deals with these matters.

2 Tim. 2:13 - if we remain faithless, God remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself.

2 Tim. 2:20 - a great house has not only gold and silver, but also wood and earthenware, some for noble use, some for ignoble use.

Jer. 24:1-10 - God's plan includes both good and bad figs. The good figs will be rewarded, and the bad figs will be discarded.

1 Kings 6,7,8 - the Lord commands us to build elaborate places of worship. Some non-Catholics think that this is controversial and the money should be given to the poor, even though no organization does more for the poor of the world that the Catholic Church. We create our churches with beauty because Christ our King lives in the churches in the blessed Eucharist.

Matt. 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5; John 12:5 - negative comments concerning the beauty of the Church are like the disciples complaining about the woman anointing Jesus' head with costly oil. Jesus desires that we honor Him with our best gifts, not for Him, but for us, so that we realize He is God and we are His creatures.

Matt. 26:10-11 - Jesus says we have both a duty to honor God and give to the poor - a balanced life of reverence and charity.

hinault

As a RC, it is my view that the IRCC is in a very precarious situation.

I think that there has to be structural change involving the replacement of those Bishops who have had allegations made against them.
If the allegations prove to be unfounded they should be allowed to regain their position of authority.

Similarly, I think any clergy against whom there are allegations, they too should stand aside until the veracity of those allegations can be tested and resolved.


The IRCC has to try to regain the trust of both the RCC flock and the wider public.
Trust is earned - and the only way trust is earned is through transparency.

My father has a great saying : the shortest distance between two points is a straight line ie. be 100% honest at all times.
Simple but sound advice.

grizzly

They'll be back. As the country descends into poverty people will look for somewhere to turn to.

Outrage

hinault wrote: »

I think that there has to be structural change involving the replacement of those Bishops who have had allegations made against them.

Allegations or findings? Seeing as you feel so strongly about implementing "structural change" (whatever that means), perhaps you should go spend 7 years in the seminary and see how far your opinions rise?

hinault

Outrage wrote: »

Allegations or findings? Seeing as you feel so strongly about implementing "structural change" (whatever that means), perhaps you should go spend 7 years in the seminary and see how far your opinions rise?

If there is an allegation of wrongdoing concerning sexual abuse, the accused must stand aside until the allegations can be investigated fully.

Structural change involves the suspension/firing of Bishops against whom allegations of wrongdoing/ignoring allegations/transferring known abusers, are made until the accused Bishops actions can be fully investigated.

if the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated the Bishop can be restored to his role.
if the allegation is found to be true - then the Bishop needs to be dismissed and replaced by someone who has "clean hands".

Outrage

hinault wrote: »

If there is an allegation of wrongdoing concerning sexual abuse, the accused must stand aside until the allegations can be investigated fully.

Structural change involves the suspension/firing of Bishops against whom allegations of wrongdoing/ignoring allegations/transferring known abusers, are made until the accused Bishops actions can be fully investigated.

if the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated the Bishop can be restored to his role.
if the allegation is found to be true - then the Bishop needs to be dismissed and replaced by someone who has "clean hands".

In other words: guilty until proven innocent.

hinault

Outrage wrote: »

In other words: guilty until proven innocent.

Far from it.

Transparent investigation of allegations of sexual abuse.

Demonstrable proactive steps to root out the personnel and systems that, in the past, allowed criminal acts of sexual abuse to be commissioned.

Outrage

hinault wrote: »

Far from it.

Transparent investigation of allegations of sexual abuse.

Demonstrable proactive steps to root out the personnel and systems that, in the past, allowed criminal acts of sexual abuse to be commissioned.

I see you're adamant about your guilty until proven innocent ideology.

Go live in China or the UAE if you want to have someone booted out of office on the basis of a personal grudge. What's to stop a satanist writing a letter to the bishop claiming his child was fiddled by a priest with a flawless record? What's to stop me writing a letter to your boss saying you're an incompetent fool and incapable of doing your job and should be summarily dismissed pending an investigation? I think it's time you went to bed you silly, silly man.

hinault

Outrage wrote: »

I see you're adamant about your guilty until proven innocent ideology.

I uphold the principles of transparency and accountability.

Unlike your kind.

Outrage wrote: »

Go live in China or the UAE if you want to have someone booted out of office on the basis of a personal grudge..

You're trying to shout the odds again, I see.

Outrage wrote: »

What's to stop a satanist writing a letter to the bishop claiming his child was fiddled by a priest with a flawless record? What's to stop me writing a letter to your boss saying you're an incompetent fool and incapable of doing your job and should be summarily dismissed pending an investigation? I think it's time you went to bed you silly, silly man.

If the allegation is false, then there is nothing to be afraid of is there?

If a satanist did make a false allegation, then there is nothing to be scared of - unless of course, there is something being covered up, eh???

That's the problem with people like you.
When accountability and transperancy is called for, you seem to have a problem with it.
Full glare of accountability ought to be welcomed - unless people have something to hide.

Do you have something that you wish to confess?

Pot Noodle =

I think of end times now
trouble in the church monetary system failing and general turbulence i hope i am not right

Outrage

You really haven't thought through your new Utopian model for the judiciary to adhere to, have you?

Back to the drawing board for you dear boy...

Stephentlig

Outrage wrote: »

You really haven't thought through your new Utopian model for the judiciary to adhere to, have you?

Back to the drawing board for you dear boy...

Outrage, you must correct people with a spirit of gentleness, not in a confrontational manner, read your Bible

( Peter:3: 15 -)But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

your heart Outrage is in the right place, just not your behaviour

Pax Christi
Stephen

Xluna

They need to assume full responsibility, so far I've heard them allude to gays,athiests and Satan as being tacitly responsible. This will not wash and will just make people even more outraged. They've lost their moral authority.

1; Assume position of mea cupla
2;Complete restructure of the church
3; Cull the culpable
4; Next Pope needs to be popular and less socially conservative

If this does not happen then within two generation's time I can see the Cat' church being in the same position as the Irish language.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

They need to assume full responsibility, so far I've heard them allude to gays,athiests and Satan as being tacitly responsible. This will not wash and will just make people even more outraged. They've lost their moral authority.

To be honest, I think there's some selective hearing going on. I am not a Catholic, and I have little sympathy for a mess that is of their own making, but I have heard repeated apologies and assuming of responsibility by numerous members of the hierarchy.

I haven't actually heard any church figures blame atheists for the child abuse - but maybe you can provide a link for that one?

Neither have I heard gays in general being blamed, but obviously some have blamed those particular clergy who chose to commit their atrocities against other males.

As for Satan, that's a bit unfair since Satan is viewed within Catholicism (and Christianity) as ultimately responsible for all evil, including the holocaust, 9/11, and every instance of rape or child abuse irrespective of who commits it. Therefore any discussion of evil from a theological stance will always include Satan - even though that is not seen as in any way lessening any human responsibility.

The fact is that there are thousands of priests and religious and, contrary to popular mythology, the Catholic hierarchy does not control every utterance by every priest. Therefore, out of the thousands of statements that are being made, someone somewhere can always pull out a quote that is crass, self-serving, or insensitive. But to present these as the norm, while ignoring the many genuine admissions on behalf of the Church of guilt and responsibility, does not reflect what I hear from the Church's spokesmen in the general media.

1; Assume position of mea cupla

I think they have, but obviously the offences committed are so horrendous that no amount of apologies will suffice for those who have been deeply hurt or offended.

2;Complete restructure of the church

If you mean the Irish Church, I agree.

3; Cull the culpable

Fair enough.

4; Next Pope needs to be popular and less socially conservative

If this does not happen then within two generation's time I can see the Cat' church being in the same position as the Irish language.

Mypoic view there tbh. The Catholic Church is actually growing worldwide, and most of the growth is where Catholicism is most conservative theologically (Africa and Asia). Making it more liberal will not arrest the decline in the West, but would alienate the vast majority of practicing Catholics worldwide.

Ireland might seem important to you and me, but in terms of world Catholicism it is a blip that doesn't even register as one percent of their total constituency.

Outrage

Xluna wrote: »

They need to assume full responsibility, so far I've heard them allude to gays,athiests and Satan as being tacitly responsible.

Don't know about blaming atheists for abuse, but certainly homosexuals and Satan had a role to play.

Xluna wrote: »

This will not wash and will just make people even more outraged. They've lost their moral authority.

Are you outraged? I suppose the society that you subscribe to and pay taxes towards is squeaky clean huh?

Xluna wrote: »

1; Assume position of mea cupla

They've already assumed the position of mea maxima culpa. To say otherwise is a distortion of the truth. They are up-front about offering generous compensation payments and have no problem giving written/verbal/public apologies to victims of abuse. All this is of course done in the most sensitive manner possible.

Xluna wrote: »

2;Complete restructure of the church

And what would you know about "restructuring the church"? The Church has been around for 2000 years for a reason. If you don't like the Roman hierarchy, then don't join up.

Xluna wrote: »

3; Cull the culpable

If by "cull" you mean "kill", then that is off the cards.

Xluna wrote: »

4; Next Pope needs to be popular and less socially conservative

Oh so the Pope is now "socially conservative" for preaching the truth? If anything, he is quite a liberal Pope in that he has brought together many of the Christian denominations and the Jews. He is engaging in wonderful dialogue and is role-model for the Gospel. Only last week, he had a meeting with a hall full of Lutherans: a denomination that he would be intimately familiar with given his German background and the great tradition of Lutherism in his country. The Pope loves the language of the Church: Latin and he loves fine art and fine music. These high level human endeavours serve to inspire and motivate people with the beauty of their work. The Pope has been very active in promoting high culture in the church as opposed to trying to facilitate everyone by providing the least common denominator a la a badly misinterpreted Vatican II and the resulting happy-clappiness that emereged in the 1960s (not to mention the "wreckovating" of churches all over the world). Thank God for great men like Pope Benedict.

Xluna wrote: »

If this does not happen then within two generation's time I can see the Cat' church being in the same position as the Irish language.

Wishful thinking my friend. The Church has been through tough times before. Ireland was once a nation of pagans. Imagine trying to convert a nation of pagans - a daunting task. The Catholic Church has achieved many great things (against all odds) and will do so again.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

If you mean the Irish Church, I agree.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't just mean the Irish Church PDN. The whole thing is far from a problem that was isolated to Ireland. I'm not going to go linking to the situation in the USA, Germany, Italy ect ect because I trust there is no need to.

PDN

strobe wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he doesn't just mean the Irish Church PDN. The whole thing is far from a problem that was isolated to Ireland. I'm not going to go linking to the situation in the USA, Germany, Italy ect ect because I trust there is no need to.

Unfortunately his post is somewhat confused in that he lumps the child abuse scandals in with a separate issue (being socially conservative).

My understanding is that the RCC has already set in place the structures to prevent any similar cover ups happening again.

However, in terms of being socially or theologically conservative, any restructuring is only likely to increase the number of people heading out through the exit door as has happened with some other denominations. Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterian Churches in the West that have tried to become more liberal are losing members at a rate that eclipses any decline in Catholicism - while evangelical churches that are socially and theologically conservative are growing. Also, in the US, the biggest growth area in Catholicism is amongst Hispanic immigrants, who tend to be socially and theologically conservative.

lmaopml

Speaking as a Catholic, I agree with PDN's post...... Actually, I will add; that it is perhaps the most well thought out, honest, unbiased or opportunistic post I've read by a person from another denomination...

..well done!

I totally cringe sometimes when I hear the rantings of some of the hierarchy...The normal people within the ranks never seem to get any decent air time. To be fair to Sean Brady, I don't think he is the worst of them....but perhaps his head will roll too, it seems to be on the media menu at the moment; even though it's been public knowledge for the last decade....it's just been regurgitated...

I think the Church needs reformation in Ireland big time. I understand why things are the way they are, but am looking forward to the day when state and church are separate entirely and the system is more fair and representative....

I think it will happen - I just hope that people don't blame Catholics who are practicing their faith today! I've seen a lot of lashing out around the boards at everyday faithful who dare to go to mass...I think that's actually unfair...

hinault

lmaopml wrote: »

I totally cringe sometimes when I hear the rantings of some of the hierarchy...The normal people within the ranks never seem to get any decent air time. To be fair to Sean Brady, I don't think he is the worst of them....but perhaps his head will roll too, it seems to be on the media menu at the moment; even though it's been public knowledge for the last decade....it's just been regurgitated...

I think the Church needs reformation in Ireland big time. I understand why things are the way they are, but am looking forward to the day when state and church are separate entirely and the system is more fair and representative....

I think it will happen - I just hope that people don't blame Catholics who are practicing their faith today! I've seen a lot of lashing out around the boards at everyday faithful who dare to go to mass...I think that's actually unfair...

As a practising RC, I agree with practically everything you say here.

I would add that the nature of secrecy and transferring clergy who were accused not only occured in the IRCC, it occured throughout the entire RCC.

I'd love to know who in the RCC divined the idea that transferring accused clergy was the appropriate response to allegations of abuse?
It would appear to have been a policy because we know that clergy who were facing allegations of abuse, were not only transferred here, they were transferred in the US RCC, the Australian RCC etc.

Did someone in the Vatican formulate this policy?
All of which is in direct contradiction of moral/ethical response that should have been made by the RCC, both here and abroad.



I also echo your call for the complete and total demarcation between Church in this country.

Ultravid

Smaller, purer, poorer, ever more faithful. Even if we were to be crushed, there would remain a faithful remnant, the little flock purchased with the Blood of the Lamb.

Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom.
Luke 12:32

In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.
John 16:33

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Ultravid

ksimpson wrote: »

The "long game" doesn't even look good for the Catholic church. If they spent as much time trying to stop child abuse as they did covering it up things would be a lot better for them.

The fact is that the majority of young people are turning their backs.

If you think the Church is dead, check out the Clonmacnoise Youth 2000 festival each summer - lots of young adults coming to the faith they never knew. I'm a young Catholic and I am filled with hope despite everything that has happened.

lmaopml wrote: »

I totally cringe sometimes when I hear the rantings of some of the hierarchy...The normal people within the ranks never seem to get any decent air time. To be fair to Sean Brady, I don't think he is the worst of them....but perhaps his head will roll too, it seems to be on the media menu at the moment; even though it's been public knowledge for the last decade....it's just been regurgitated...

I think the Church needs reformation in Ireland big time. I understand why things are the way they are, but am looking forward to the day when state and church are separate entirely and the system is more fair and representative....

I think it will happen - I just hope that people don't blame Catholics who are practicing their faith today! I've seen a lot of lashing out around the boards at everyday faithful who dare to go to mass...I think that's actually unfair...

You can bet your boots the media have trawled the land looking for clerics to respond, then the pick the single WORST and give him airtime. This is a game that is being played by the media. His comments were described as nonsense by the head of child protection in the RCC.

The future?
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342531?eng=y

Plowman wrote: »

I agree that the structure of the Catholic Church in Ireland needs reform. As a Catholic, it can be very frustrating to see how allegations and cover-ups are leaking out here and there, and how clumsily the hierarchy is handling it, while the laity look on rather helplessly.

What really sends me over the edge about the most recent one is that the children were made to swear an oath of secrecy. Whatever way I think about it, that is a highly inappropriate expectation for a child.

PDN, while individual priests and bishops have apologised, I understand that the Pope has only personally apologised while on his trip to the US a few years ago - but that was for the scandals in the US Catholic Church. I really do feel that he needs to make a similar unequivocal apology in the case of the Irish RCC. After all, the buck stops with him in matters RCC, and he is the current holder of the highest spiritual and temporal office in the Church.

The hierarchy is an inherent part of the Church. Lay people are now overseeing child protection, with the RCC's policies the most robust in Eire. All we need then is very holy and devout bishops and priests. Then we can take it from there.

Xluna wrote: »

4; Next Pope needs to be popular and less socially conservative

Was Jesus popular? As far as I recall, He was crucified with only a small remnant who stood by Him.

Sounds like the Catholic Church of the future. A small remnant accompanying the successor of St. Peter, hated by the world, but staying true to its Founder.

Xluna

Outrage wrote: »

Don't know about blaming atheists for abuse, but certainly homosexuals and Satan had a role to play.

That's an incrediably ignorant,cowardly and slimy comment to make. Please explain how homosexuals were responsible for priests raping children and Bishops,and even the Pope himself, covering it up.

Outrage wrote: »

Are you outraged? I suppose the society that you subscribe to and pay taxes towards is squeaky clean huh?

You should'nt suppose things without evidence...oh wait...anyway, I find the corruption and greed of Irish society appaling but to me this and the Catholic church,in Ireland at least, are two cheeks of the same arse.

Outrage wrote: »

They've already assumed the position of mea maxima culpa. To say otherwise is a distortion of the truth. They are up-front about offering generous compensation payments and have no problem giving written/verbal/public apologies to victims of abuse. All this is of course done in the most sensitive manner possible.

You think blaming gays for their cover up paedophile priests and asking their flock to pay half the bill is sensitive and generous?

Outrage wrote: »

And what would you know about "restructuring the church"? The Church has been around for 2000 years for a reason. If you don't like the Roman hierarchy, then don't join up.

Considering kids in Ireland are indoctrinated into it from birth it does'nt give one much of a chance to decline the join up phase.

Outrage wrote: »

If by "cull" you mean "kill", then that is off the cards..

Either this is a disingenuis comment or you have severe autism syndrome.

Outrage wrote: »

Oh so the Pope is now "socially conservative" for preaching the truth? If anything, he is quite a liberal Pope in that he has brought together many of the Christian denominations and the Jews. He is engaging in wonderful dialogue and is role-model for the Gospel. Only last week, he had a meeting with a hall full of Lutherans: a denomination that he would be intimately familiar with given his German background and the great tradition of Lutherism in his country. The Pope loves the language of the Church: Latin and he loves fine art and fine music. These high level human endeavours serve to inspire and motivate people with the beauty of their work. The Pope has been very active in promoting high culture in the church as opposed to trying to facilitate everyone by providing the least common denominator a la a badly misinterpreted Vatican II and the resulting happy-clappiness that emereged in the 1960s (not to mention the "wreckovating" of churches all over the world). Thank God for great men like Pope Benedict.

Ah the joys of Papal infallibility. Sure did'nt the church think the world was flat at one stage. You believe it to be the truth,any evidence? Do you realise there are hundreds of faiths which also believe their faith is true?(Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of faiths in past eras. All have at least on thing in common-non of them contain a shread of evidence. Oh yeah the Pope is awesome "Condoms causes aids people".

Outrage wrote: »

Wishful thinking my friend. The Church has been through tough times before. Ireland was once a nation of pagans. Imagine trying to convert a nation of pagans - a daunting task. The Catholic Church has achieved many great things (against all odds) and will do so again.

The irony...it's too much.

prinz

Xluna wrote: »

Ah the joys of Papal infallibility. Sure did'nt the church think the world was flat at one stage. You believe it to be the truth,any evidence?..

What has one got to do with the other?

Either showing remarkable ignorance of the concept of Papal Infallibility or just wishfully being sarcastic and unconstructive.

Xluna wrote: »

Oh yeah the Pope is awesome "Condoms causes aids people"..

That's not what he said and we both know that. So I take it that you're indulging in the second then.

Xluna

prinz wrote: »

What has one got to do with the other?

Either showing remarkable ignorance of the concept of Papal Infallibility or just wishfully being sarcastic and unconstructive.

If the Pope is infallible then he can never be incorrect.

To me papal infallibility is essentially the Pope is always right as he is supposedly guided by the holy spirit. Am I incorrect?

prinz wrote: »

That's not what he said and we both know that. So I take it that you're indulging in the second then.

He discourages the use of condoms in Africa as he argues it's more of a contributer to aids rather than a preventative measure. So to me he's saying the use of condoms is a causal factor which contributes to the high rates of aids in Africa. Again,please correct me if I am wrong.

prinz

Xluna wrote: »

If the Pope is infallible then he can never be incorrect.To me papal infallibility is essentially the Pope is always right as he is supposedly guided by the holy spirit. Am I incorrect?

Yes you are. Please go and look into the concept of infallibility. It was only defined in 1870 centuries after the world was believed to be flat, and is a power that has been exercised only once since 1870. So no, the Pope is not always right.

"The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know. Therefore, I share with you these questions, these problems. I also suffer," he (Pope Benedict) said in his address, transcribed and published by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.

http://www.zenit.org/article-13698?l=english

Xluna wrote: »

He discourages the use of condoms in Africa as he argues it's more of a contributer to aids rather than a preventative measure. So to me he's saying the use of condoms is a causal factor which contributes to the high rates of aids in Africa. Again,please correct me if I am wrong.

Contributing to the spead of AIDS as the sole promoted means to combat it and causing AIDS are two very different claims.

Xluna

prinz wrote: »

Yes you are. Please go and look into the concept of infallibility. It was only defined in 1870 centuries after the world was believed to be flat, and is a power that has been exercised only once since 1870. So no, the Pope is not always right.



http://www.zenit.org/article-13698?l=english



Contributing to the spead of AIDS as the sole promoted means to combat it and causing AIDS are two very different claims.

The whole concept of Papal infallibility seems very convoluted to me. Even if it was only defined in the 1870s I assume they regard it as existing prior to that period,right? I don't understand how it can be excercised arbitarily. I would have thought the Pope is either infallible or he is'nt. Is it case of the holy spirit makes him infallible on certain occasions? What did the one incidence pertain to exactly?

As for the contraceptive issue;are you saying that the Pope believes a combination of education,self discipline and condoms is the best measure? I think that would be best but I also believe that using condoms soley is better than none of the above.

prinz

Xluna wrote: »

The whole concept of Papal infallibility seems very convoluted to me. Even if it was only defined in the 1870s I assume they regard it as existing prior to that period,right? I don't understand how it can be excercised arbitarily. I would have thought the Pope is either infallible or he is'nt. Is it case of the holy spirit makes him infallible on certain occasions? What did the one incidence pertain to exactly?.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

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

Knock yourself out.

Xluna wrote: »

As for the contraceptive issue;are you saying that the Pope believes a combination of education,self discipline and condoms is the best measure? I think that would be best but I also believe that using condoms soley is better than none of the above.

The Pope believes that what the Catholic Church teaches is the best measure, just like the CEO of Durex is not interested in promoting abstinence, the Pope is not going to promote condom usage, however the best results in the fight against AIDS has occured when behavioural and moral changes have occured alongside increased education and condom use. Unfortunately there are people out these who want to remove the teachings of people such as the Catholic Church and rely solely on condom distribution. In the eyes of the Pope he said such a course of action may aggravate the problem of AIDS and not stop/contain it's spread. He was indeed correct. Without the accompanying changes in sexual behaviour and education flooding a market with condoms will not have the desired effect.

Xluna

prinz wrote: »

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

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

Knock yourself out.



The Pope believes that what the Catholic Church teaches is the best measure, just like the CEO of Durex is not interested in promoting abstinence, the Pope is not going to promote condom usage, however the best results in the fight against AIDS has occured when behavioural and moral changes have occured alongside increased education and condom use. Unfortunately there are people out these who want to remove the teachings of people such as the Catholic Church and rely solely on condom distribution. In the eyes of the Pope he said such a course of action may aggravate the problem of AIDS and not stop/contain it's spread. He was indeed correct. Without the accompanying changes in sexual behaviour and education flooding a market with condoms will not have the desired effect.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")3. "he defines"4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

• a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
• an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

Now this is what I considered papal infallibility to be. But the church only recently apologised to Gallileo for br his scientific discoveries and branded him a heretic,so would'nt that Popes persecution of such scientists and incorrect scientific opinions have satisfied the above criteria? Such views were proved false. So would that not contradict Papal infallibility?

Contraception: Again I agree that a combination of preventative measures are the best prevention,but as the Pope discourages the use of condoms is he not discouraging the best prevention,and again contradicting Papal infallibility?

prinz

Xluna wrote: »

....so would'nt that Popes persecution of such scientists and incorrect scientific opinions have satisfied the above criteria? Such views were proved false. So would that not contradict Papal infallibility?

No, since doing so has nothing to do with a doctrine of the faith. The Pope could turn around tomorrow and declare that grass is in fact orange. Is that infallible? No, it is not a doctrine of the Catholic faith. You don't here people declaring in mass their belief that the world is still flat do you? Was it ever a doctrine in Catholic faith?

Xluna wrote: »

Contraception: Again I agree that a combination of preventative measures are the best prevention,but as the Pope discourages the use of condoms is he not discouraging the best prevention,and again contradicting Papal infallibility?

No.

PDN

Xluna wrote: »

Now this is what I considered papal infallibility to be. But the church only recently apologised to Gallileo for br his scientific discoveries and branded him a heretic,so would'nt that Popes persecution of such scientists and incorrect scientific opinions have satisfied the above criteria? Such views were proved false. So would that not contradict Papal infallibility?

No, papal infallibility (which I don't believe in btw) only applies to ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils. None of these are relevant to the Galileo case.

Contraception: Again I agree that a combination of preventative measures are the best prevention,but as the Pope discourages the use of condoms is he not discouraging the best prevention,and again contradicting Papal infallibility?

Again, there have been no ex cathedra statements or ecumenical councils that have addressed the issue of AIDS or HIV - so papal infallibility has nothing to do with it.

I forget which Pope it was, but one was reputed to have said something along the lines of: "I believe in papal infallibility - but you won't catch this Pope making any infallible statements."

Btw, the Pope's position on condoms and HIV is a sociological one, not a scientific one. He is arguing that increased availability of condoms can promote a culture of increased promiscuity and infidelity, thereby creating societal conditions where more people also engage in unprotected sex, thereby increasing rates of HIV infection. You might not agree with him, but it would be ignorant to claim that he is therefore making a scientific error, and more ignorant again to argue that in any way affects papal infalllibility.

hinault

With regard to papal infallibility and the Earth being flat, it was never a case that belief in the Earth being flat was a central tenet of the RC faith, aside from the fact that infallibility was only invoked since the late 19th century.

Infallibility is rarely invoked.

Ultravid

All you want to know about infallibility:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp