Alive! The free Catholic Newspaper

RichTea

Hello Christianity forum users!

I often receive this rag in the letterbox every month or so. It goes on about how pop music is evil, how everyone should be at mass etc etc, abortions, government is bad, liberals are endangering our Catholic lives.

I just wanted to know, do most of you agree with the stuff that this ridiculous 'newspaper' spouts?

johnfás

First, I wouldn't assume that everyone who makes use of this board is a Catholic.

Second, it is clear that the Alive! Newspaper doesn't represent the opinions of the Catholic Church. I believe it has been denounced on a number of occasions by the Primate of All Ireland, Seán Brady, who during the last Lisbon Referendum asked that local clergy be more vigilant in respect of material, not published by the Church, which is available on Church property.

On the couple of occasions I have glanced at it when it has been shoved through my letter box, I have disagreed with almost everything written in it. Nevertheless, they are quite entitled to publish it.

Just don't make the mistake that it represents the opinion of anyone but the few people who write in it and the presumably quite wealthy benefactors who provide the funds to publish a free periodical of that type.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, I agree with everything that has ever been written in that rag. The Government is evil, liberals are endangering our Catholic lives and don't get me started on the gays and foreigners...*























(*Just giving you what you wanted to hear.)

RichTea

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I agree with everything that has ever been written in that rag. The Government is evil, liberals are endangering our Catholic lives and don't get me started on the gays and foreigners...*























(*Just giving you what you wanted to hear.)

That's not what I came here to hear. I just wanted to find out if this paper was just an extremist rag which is out of touch not just with society as a whole but also the people it claims to be representing. I'm not trolling, I was legitimately interested.

johnfás wrote: »

First, I wouldn't assume that everyone who makes use of this board is a Catholic.

Second, it is clear that the Alive! Newspaper doesn't represent the opinions of the Catholic Church. I believe it has been denounced on a number of occasions by the Primate of All Ireland, Seán Brady, who during the last Lisbon Referendum asked that local clergy be more vigilant in respect of material, not published by the Church, which is available on Church property.

On the couple of occasions I have glanced at it when it has been shoved through my letter box, I have disagreed with almost everything written in it. Nevertheless, they are quite entitled to publish it.

Just don't make the mistake that it represents the opinion of anyone but the few people who write in it and the presumably quite wealthy benefactors who provide the funds to publish a free periodical of that type.

Thanks for the response. THAT is what I wanted to hear. I wasn't pidgeon-holing all members of this forum as Catholics, I did presume that a large proportion of posters here were Catholics though.

johnfás

There are nutcases in every walk of life. In most instances they will seek to create legitimacy for themselves by associating themselves with other groups of people as it will generally give them exposure. This applies equally to Catholics, other Christian denominations and also to militant atheists who are generally as bad, and lacking in their arguments, as those they oppose. The standard form of attack on each of these "sides" is generally to stereotype the main body of each as being the extreme. Christians of this brand would often have you believe that most atheists would wish to rob your children and refuse to allow you teach them your personal beliefs without their watchful eye to ensure that no 'indoctrination' takes place. Atheists of the same brand would have you believe that most Christians are raging fundamentalists who want nothing better than to spend their day wandering around like cranks, forcing all of society to conform to their ideals or conceptions of morality.

Of course the reality is that both of these groups are as bad of each other. Neither is reflective. I think you will find that most Christians, like most atheists, and most Muslims, and most whatever else, are like the people you interact with quite politely on a daily basis. They simply have a different perspective, or a different motivation in life arising from their beliefs and their relationship with God. Such perspectives are no reason to treat anybody else without respect, nor to deprive them of a plethora of rights. In fact they are every reason to ensure both.

In my opinion the Christians who wish to forcibly write into legislation that they should be allowed to avoid work based on a warped sense of conscientious objection and the atheists who wish to deny Christian parents the right to make educational choices for their child based on their own conscience, ought both to review their position in equal measure. In most instances these positions are based more on a self interested political philosophy than out of love or respect for the position of any other person. That doesn't represent the sentiments of the majority of people in our society, of whatever description. A little bit of respect on all 'sides' goes a long way. Publications like Alive! despite their being legitimately able to publish their views, do little to help making space for constructive and respectful discussion. But then again, I would argue Richard Dawkins does likewise.

prinz

johnfás wrote: »

Second, it is clear that the Alive! Newspaper doesn't represent the opinions of the Catholic Church. I believe it has been denounced on a number of occasions by the Primate of All Ireland, Seán Brady, who during the last Lisbon Referendum asked that local clergy be more vigilant in respect of material, not published by the Church, which is available on Church property. On the couple of occasions I have glanced at it when it has been shoved through my letter box, I have disagreed with almost everything written in it. Nevertheless, they are quite entitled to publish it.

Spot on. Agree with everything here.

ISAW

RichTea wrote: »

Hello Christianity forum users!

I often receive this rag in the letterbox every month or so.

Rag? How so? Can you show an example of three other "rags" ?

It goes on about how pop music is evil, how everyone should be at mass etc etc, abortions, government is bad, liberals are endangering our Catholic lives.

I rarely read it but did see it in a Supermarket last week and picked up a copy. Didnt find it shocking or raglike.

I must add though I don't like advertisements for money showing pictures of abortions.

I just wanted to know, do most of you agree with the stuff that this ridiculous 'newspaper' spouts?

What "stuff in particular"?

Here are some editorials they don't seem raglike http://www.alive.ie/editorsjottings.php

Here is a the first link I cam across on its link page:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/documents/rc_pc_cultr_doc_20040308_plenary-assembly_en.html

Now the paper itself doesn't to my knowledge have imprimatur or have a nihil obstat but the plenary assembly would have both.

Poupard in particular echoes things i have stated here and elsewhere. i hadn't heard of this assembly before. a handy reference. thanks Rich tea.

prinz

ISAW wrote: »

What "stuff in particular"?

When it tries it's hand at political commentary. Tin-foil hat hysteria peddling, as johnfás pointed out particularly in the run up to the Lisbon Referendum.

JimiTime

johnfás wrote: »

In my opinion the Christians who wish to forcibly write into legislation that they should be allowed to avoid work based on a warped sense of conscientious objection and the atheists who wish to deny Christian parents the right to make educational choices for their child based on their own conscience, ought both to review their position in equal measure.

As a matter of clarity, what is a 'warped' sense of conscientious objection as compared to simply conciencious objection?

johnfás

JimiTime wrote: »

As a matter of clarity, what is a 'warped' sense of conscientious objection as compared to simply conciencious objection?

Because there is no legitimate issue of conscience arising in the instance of simply attesting to a legal fact. There is no act or omission to which one could object. A civil registrar provides no blessing nor do they uphold any conviction. If a particular registrar has, until this point, viewed themself as a pseudo-clergyman who goes about blessing the partnership of those who choose not to get married in a church, it is they, rather than the law, which has missed the point. It is a simple box stamping exercise which ensures that certain criteria have been complied with - similar to that of an immigration officer, a policeman stamping a passport form or a commissioner for oaths attesting to a signature. The role of the Registrar has not changed, it remains simply to attest that certain parties signed certain forms on a given day without legal impediment. They are not being asked to endorse those person's relationship, no more than they are currently asked to endorse, celebrate or uphold a racially mixed marriage.

If you want to fight a battle on this point you are certainly welcome to. However, it will do you, and the cause of ensuring a legitimate place for Christianity in Irish society no good, it will rather likely do a good deal of harm. What is proposed by people such as those who wrote a letter to the Irish Times this morning is nothing more than a cranks charter which would equally enable a person who feels they cannot attest to the signature of a Christian to avoid their legal responsibility, as part of their employment, to do so.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

I rarely read it but did see it in a Supermarket last week and picked up a copy. Didnt find it shocking or raglike.

If you didn't, then I suggest you open it up and attempt to read it

ISAW

prinz wrote: »

When it tries it's hand at political commentary. Tin-foil hat hysteria peddling, as johnfás pointed out particularly in the run up to the Lisbon Referendum.

I already mentioned the depiction of abortion in my post. what other "stuff"?

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

If you didn't, then I suggest you open it up and attempt to read it

Don't know if i can now. Last time I saw it it was in the toilet.

Spread

ALIVE ....... the Church's DAILYMAIL

ISAW

johnfás wrote: »

Because there is no legitimate issue of conscience arising in the instance of simply attesting to a legal fact.

there is . If it was called "marriage" for example instead of a civil union. Marriage is to some people more than a legal arrangement.

johnfás

ISAW wrote: »

there is . If it was called "marriage" for example instead of a civil union. Marriage is to some people more than a legal arrangement.

It isn't called marriage. Therefore your issue simply does not arise.

prinz

ISAW wrote: »

I already mentioned the depiction of abortion in my post. what other "stuff"?

I usually have a flick through it any time I come across a copy for sheer entertainment reasons. The items I remember most were things concerning the Lisbon Treaty in particular, repeating downright lies and misrepresenting the Treaty in various ways, with the minimum wage argument, conscription, etc etc etc. Like I said tin-foil hat alarmism without basis in reality. The Alive magazine strikes me as the printed propaganda of an outfit like Cóir. It also goes on in an inquisatorial fashion through movies, music etc etc presenting the reader with a nice little ready-made opinion almost consistently negative.

Stick to religious matters fine with me, peddle political lies and nonsense in an effort to influence voters etc not ok with me. Particularly when it is often confused with an official RCC publication. It isn't.

ISAW

prinz wrote: »

I usually have a flick through it any time I come across a copy for sheer entertainment reasons. The items I remember most were things concerning the Lisbon Treaty in particular, repeating downright lies and misrepresenting the Treaty in various ways, with the minimum wage argument, conscription, etc etc etc.

I already mentioned the abortion objection to Lisbon as publicised by religious fundamentalists.
As regards minimum wage. Greece it seems is being allowed by the EU to change that when I am not aware if it could before Lisbon. I woud have thought Military cohesion was increased by Lisbon and I think it was one of the point I made in favour of the Treaty at the time. In other words allowing Irish troops to be controlled by foreign officers. I don't know if and when Alive said Lisbon would bring in conscription throughout Europe. Did it?

Like I said tin-foil hat alarmism without basis in reality. The Alive magazine strikes me as the printed propaganda of an outfit like Cóir. It also goes on in an inquisatorial fashion through movies, music etc etc presenting the reader with a nice little ready-made opinion almost consistently negative.

you paint broad brush strokes many of which I would not disagree with but you havent shown specific instances e.g. wher for example did alive state "Lisbon will bring in conscription"?

Stick to religious matters fine with me, peddle political lies and nonsense in an effort to influence voters etc not ok with me. Particularly when it is often confused with an official RCC publication. It isn't.

Can you cite say three examples of such "lies"?

prinz

ISAW wrote: »

As regards minimum wage. Greece it seems is being allowed by the EU to change that when I am not aware if it could before Lisbon.

The setting of minimum wages has always been a national matter.

ISAW wrote: »

Can you cite say three examples of such "lies"?

The archives online don't go back far enough to locate the issues around the time of Lisbon, but this article goes through some of the more ludicrous claims contained within the magazine http://eurolinknews.com/2009/09/10/northwest-meps-call-on-catholic-church-to-ban-%E2%80%98alive%E2%80%99-magazine-10th-sept-2009/

johnfás

ISAW wrote: »

I Greece it seems is being allowed by the EU to change that when I am not aware if it could before Lisbon.

The European Union does not have a role in setting the minimum wage.

ISAW

johnfás wrote: »

It isn't called marriage. Therefore your issue simply does not arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland
Norris Bill:
Rather than listing all the rights of a civil partner, it specified that all the rights of marriage would apply to anyone in a civil partnership.

Labour Party Bill:
Similar to the Norris bill in its provisions, this bill[74] defined a Civil Union as providing all the rights and duties as defined for marriage


not called marriage just is in every other way the same.

johnfás

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland
Norris Bill:
Rather than listing all the rights of a civil partner, it specified that all the rights of marriage would apply to anyone in a civil partnership.

Labour Party Bill:
Similar to the Norris bill in its provisions, this bill[74] defined a Civil Union as providing all the rights and duties as defined for marriage


not called marriage just is in every other way the same.

Neither the Labour Party Bill nor the Bill introduced by Senator Norris is the Bill which is progressing through the Oireachtas. Both the Bills you refer to in your post were either defeated or withdrawn from the House. Your point is entirely moot. At least if we're going to debate let us at least do so with honesty rather than bluster.

ISAW

johnfás wrote: »

The European Union does not have a role in setting the minimum wage.

Oh. thanks for informing me of that. so why didn't the British Labour Party sign the Social chapter of Maastricht?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/06/0616/chapter.shtml
Often attempts are made to link the minimum wage and the working time directive with the Social Chapter. The minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with any EU legislation. The working time directive was adopted under the health and safety clause of the Single European Act, not under the Social Chapter.

BUT
...once the UK signs up to the chapter, other European countries will be able to pass legislation on some social issues by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers

ISAW

johnfás wrote: »

Neither the Labour Party Bill nor the Bill introduced by Senator Norris is the Bill which is progressing through the Oireachtas. Both the Bills you refer to in your post were either defeated or withdrawn from the House. Your point is entirely moot. At least if we're going to debate let us at least do so with honesty rather than bluster.

You are claiming I am dishonest?

All I claimed was "marriage" did enter into it. i remember Norris when he spoke on the Bill in the House. He himself said he was against calling it marriage. But it gave the same rights as a married couple would have. the point isn't about whether that particular Bill became law but that even if you don't call it marriage and yet you award the same rights then assuming you don't believe in the sacrament of marriage ( which isn't law anyway) what is the difference?

That is not bluster or lying!

smurfhousing

I like ALIVE! It presents a lot of good information. It is not an official publication of the Church, but nor is The Irish Catholic, lest we forget.

marco_polo

ISAW wrote: »

Oh. thanks for informing me of that. so why didn't the British Labour Party sign the Social chapter of Maastricht?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/06/0616/chapter.shtml
Often attempts are made to link the minimum wage and the working time directive with the Social Chapter. The minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with any EU legislation. The working time directive was adopted under the health and safety clause of the Single European Act, not under the Social Chapter.

BUT
...once the UK signs up to the chapter, other European countries will be able to pass legislation on some social issues by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers

It probably had something to do with John Major being Prime Minister at the time.

They did sign up quite quickly after coming to power in 1997.

ISAW

marco_polo wrote: »

It probably had something to do with John Major being Prime Minister at the time.

LOL! John "back to basics" moralising major? who was having an affair with another cabinet member at the time?

They did sign up quite quickly after coming to power in 1997.

Yeah. But skeptics seem to have grown too.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Don't know if i can now. Last time I saw it it was in the toilet.

Like water, the good Mr McKevitt seems to have found his own level.

Run_to_da_hills

Alive was about the only religious publication to speak out the truths of the lisbon referendum, even to the extent of a request to have the publication removed from church property.

Now that this thing is passed don't be at all surprised to see this and other publications censored or banned by Eurocrats in time to come.

prinz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Alive was about the only religious publication to speak out the truths of the lisbon referendum, even to the extent of a request to have the publication removed from church property.

It was supposed to be removed because it was full of nonsense.

Run_to_da_hills

prinz wrote: »

It was supposed to be removed because it was full of nonsense.

"Nonsense" ie in other words speaking out about the referendum that was imposed twice upon the people of Ireland.