Would you believe last night?

Tim Robbins · 26-07-2010 11:07AM #1

Hi,
I watched the 'Would you believe' progam last night which was a special about the crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. The panel consisted of several members who were fed up with it. They were fed up with:
1. The Pope
2. The patronising attitude of the hierarchy
3. The extra theology which the RC church has added to Christianity.

They wished it to return to the original meaning of Christianity as described in the Gospels. They wished for a personal relationship with Jesus.

Because it was RTE's usual low standards of critical thinking, not once was anyone asked what they don't become a Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican or Pentecostal? In fact the most obvious question was avoided.

At the very end the program ended with a lady being asked: "Why don't you leave the Church" to which she answered: "Where would I go?"

What are your thoughts?

PS For those of you don't know I am atheist.

Baggio1 · 26-07-2010 11:26AM

didnt see this programme to be honest,

but as a comment in general -for me the general tone seems to be object to everything and know nothing...i wonder how many of the "panel" actually have read their cathecism from start to finish? or do they take their news about their church from the tv and newspapers!??

their fed up with a pope that none of them i wager know dam all about apart from what the media tells em, the patronising hierachy? um how about patronising society in general?? and adding theology's etc? ugh man they seem to just reak of teenage "i hate my parents man!"

Its another sign of the coming shism that there will be, and thats when you know who truly believes in something and who just gives lip service but chimes in to criticize coz "its what everyone else does!"

i dunno seems soo few these days have any backbone at all to stay loyal to their faith or even to take the time to study it and understand it instead of watching mindless tv and hanging on every word that comes from celebrities,,,ughh give me a break.... i must watch it carefully if anyone can post a link??

ciao' amigos...Baggio.....

Manach · 26-07-2010 11:30AM

I had assumed it would be up to the usual RTE standards, so I watched the excellent "Sherlock" on BBC1 instead.

1in4 · 26-07-2010 12:08PM

The programme was an opportunity lost. Too many speakers and each of them getting 'cut off' by the presenter. To be honest I could only watch about half of the programme before switching off. From what I saw there was nothing 'special' about this production. Just more of the same. Thanks for the thread but I don't think there can be much more said about the programme.

Fanny Cradock · 26-07-2010 12:17PM

I was thinking of watching the programme on RTE player, but I think I'll give it a miss now. It sounds like an exercise in frustration.

Slav · 26-07-2010 12:29PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because it was RTE's usual low standards of critical thinking, not once was anyone asked what they don't become a Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican or Pentecostal? In fact the most obvious question was avoided.

At the very end the program ended with a lady being asked: "Why don't you leave the Church" to which she answered: "Where would I go?"

I have not seen the programme but as you describe it the debate looks more like inter-RCC business so the avoided question is not necessarily the most obvious. If someone is not happy with certain RCC developments but at the same time does not recognise in Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican or Pentecostal the attributes of the One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then the question does not make much sense, does it?

antiskeptic · 26-07-2010 01:36PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
I watched the 'Would you believe' progam last night which was a special about the crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. The panel consisted of several members who were fed up with it. They were fed up with:
1. The Pope
2. The patronising attitude of the hierarchy
3. The extra theology which the RC church has added to Christianity.

They wished it to return to the original meaning of Christianity as described in the Gospels. They wished for a personal relationship with Jesus.

Because it was RTE's usual low standards of critical thinking, not once was anyone asked what they don't become a Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican or Pentecostal? In fact the most obvious question was avoided.

At the very end the program ended with a lady being asked: "Why don't you leave the Church" to which she answered: "Where would I go?"

What are your thoughts?

PS For those of you don't know I am atheist.

I saw it as well.

1) Dire RTE input - a licence fee for this?

2) Stark comparison between iofficial RC flim-flam and those RC's who realise Christianity is primarily a spiritual affair quite apart from RC-ism. It was quite heartening to see how many Christians there are in the RC church, and quite obvious there are some who are not.

3) Excellent question you've asked. What are people getting from RC when you strip away all they find faulty in RC?

Tim Robbins · 26-07-2010 03:58PM

Slav wrote: »

I have not seen the programme but as you describe it the debate looks more like inter-RCC business so the avoided question is not necessarily the most obvious. If someone is not happy with certain RCC developments but at the same time does not recognise in Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican or Pentecostal the attributes of the One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then the question does not make much sense, does it?

One of the main problems they all had was with the Pope. A central tennant of Roman Catholicism is that the Pope is infallable which poses the obvious question which I have already stated.

They also have a major problem with the structure of the RC church in that it had failed to develope what Christianity meant. Again, that's the hole point of the Protestant Churches in that they came up with different structures which were supposed to represent a truer or better version of Christianity.

Someone from these boards should contact RTE and complain that obvious question weren't asked. Protestant faiths shouldn't be so obviously ignored. You pay your license fee too.

Tim Robbins · 26-07-2010 04:01PM

This all suggests the RC Church have been very successful at imparting a belief to be suspicious of all Protestant Churches.

super_furry · 26-07-2010 04:02PM

You can watch it here http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1077417

Didn't seem to be much of anything to me. People talking around in circles about things that will never change.

Fanny Cradock · 26-07-2010 04:12PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This all suggests the RC Church have been very successful at imparting a belief to be suspicious of all Protestant Churches.

Perhaps you don't even have to go entirely down the whole indoctrination route. I would think there is certainly a huge historical factor that would explain the mistrust people have had in Protestantism over the years. It was, after all, associated with an oppressive and occupying force. No better is this demonstrated than up North.

Slav · 26-07-2010 04:38PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One of the main problems they all had was with the Pope. A central tennant of Roman Catholicism is that the Pope is infallable

No, I would call it central.

which poses the obvious question which I have already stated.

What so obviuos about it? I think you just don't realise that the things are a little bit more complicated then they might look from the outside. "Catholicism - Pope - RCC structure = Protestantism" is simply not true.

They also have a major problem with the structure of the RC church in that it had failed to develope what Christianity meant. Again, that's the hole point of the Protestant Churches in that they came up with different structures

No, that's not the whole point of Protestantism, far from it.

ColmDawson · 26-07-2010 06:15PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you don't even have to go entirely down the whole indoctrination route. I would think there is certainly a huge historical factor that would explain the mistrust people have had in Protestantism over the years. It was, after all, associated with an oppressive and occupying force. No better is this demonstrated than up North.

I agree. I wish the concepts Irish and Catholic weren't taken as one and the same by so many people here.
The more Catholics question their faith, the better. If that leads them to atheism, yippee! If they stick with Catholicism or leave it for some other form of Christianity, at least they haven't just blindly followed their parents.

EDIT: A friend of mine, who is an atheist, recently said to me "I was born a Catholic and I'll die a Catholic!". He said this in complete seriousness, and is not an idiot.

JimiTime · 27-07-2010 11:13AM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
I watched the 'Would you believe' progam last night which was a special about the crisis in the Roman Catholic Church. The panel consisted of several members who were fed up with it. They were fed up with:
1. The Pope
2. The patronising attitude of the hierarchy
3. The extra theology which the RC church has added to Christianity.

They wished it to return to the original meaning of Christianity as described in the Gospels. They wished for a personal relationship with Jesus.

In one way I was encouraged that some saw the pomp and frills etc as RC add-ons and nothing really to do with Christianity. However, these people did seem a little bit lost. It came accross as though they didn't know what to be doing.

Also, I couldn't get over how poorly the bishops and the jesuit came accross. It was like they hadn't a clue. Maybe it was camera fright or something. I also thought that they lacked courage, and seemed to simply wimp out of disagreement.

Because it was RTE's usual low standards of critical thinking, not once was anyone asked what they don't become a Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican or Pentecostal? In fact the most obvious question was avoided.

At the very end the program ended with a lady being asked: "Why don't you leave the Church" to which she answered: "Where would I go?"

And when she said, 'where would I go', a voice said 'good answer'. I was thinking what you said there while watching it. I think that they hold this institution as the one true church, and don't see elsewhere as an option. In some ways, that may be positive. It would be great to see people within the RCC rise up and push it back to the foundations of Christ, and rid it of the shackles of its dogma and traditions of men. I doubt this will ever happen though. I would have loved the question asked about another denomination, though I thing the answer would have been predictable.

Pretty poor standard programme overall though. The Chairman was terrible!

kelly1 · 27-07-2010 02:57PM

I watched the latter end of the programme and as usual, it was disappointing and predictable. Does RTE ever have anything good to say about the Church?? There was one Dominican seminarian who was asked why he wanted to become a priest and he was cut off mid flow because he had positive things to say!

And so many of the audience showed a terrible ignorance of Catholic theology. People really have no idea what the Church actually is! The Church is the Body and bride of Christ. Man cannot change the will of God and make what is evil good. Women cannot become priests and homosexual acts will always be a sin. People just don't understand why the Church won't change it's stance on these issues. The Church cannot teach error because it is guided by the Holy Spirit! If the Church wanted more numbers they could simply change teachings on contraception, ordinatation of women, homosexuality etc but it's not going to happen because the truth is far more important than numbers.

JimiTime · 27-07-2010 03:53PM

kelly1 wrote: »

I watched the latter end of the programme and as usual, it was disappointing and predictable. Does RTE ever have anything good to say about the Church??

TBH, they had 2 bishops and a Jesuit to say something positive, but they were so toothless it seemed.

There was one Dominican seminarian who was asked why he wanted to become a priest and he was cut off mid flow because he had positive things to say!

Tbh Noel, he was cutting off everyone. He was just an AWFUL chair person.

And so many of the audience showed a terrible ignorance of Catholic theology. People really have no idea what the Church actually is! The Church is the Body and bride of Christ. Man cannot change the will of God and make what is evil good. Women cannot become priests and homosexual acts will always be a sin. People just don't understand why the Church won't change it's stance on these issues. The Church cannot teach error because it is guided by the Holy Spirit! If the Church wanted more numbers they could simply change teachings on contraception, ordinatation of women, homosexuality etc but it's not going to happen because the truth is far more important than numbers.

As much as I disagree with the above, I wondered why the hell none of the bishops or the Jesuit made this point. I understand they need to be a bit more personable, but surely not at the expense of what they believe. they came accross as tired, confused and lost themselves. It seemed to me that they either didn't have the courage to stand up for what they were representing, or they have lost faith in what they're representing. i.e. the RCC.

Fanny Cradock · 27-07-2010 03:56PM

kelly1 wrote: »

And so many of the audience showed a terrible ignorance of Catholic theology. People really have no idea what the Church actually is!

If that is true -- and I think it is -- then surely the blame lies at the feet of the RC.

kelly1 · 27-07-2010 09:21PM

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, they had 2 bishops and a Jesuit to say something positive, but they were so toothless it seemed.

It's difficult to be positive when you're on the defense. The focus was totally on the negative aspects of the Church. The Church is of course flawed and the media are always quick off the mark to point this out. But yes, I think the bishops could have handled it better.

JimiTime wrote: »

Tbh Noel, he was cutting off everyone. He was just an AWFUL chair person.

Agreed, he was all over the shop.

JimiTime wrote: »

As much as I disagree with the above, I wondered why the hell none of the bishops or the Jesuit made this point. I understand they need to be a bit more personable, but surely not at the expense of what they believe. they came accross as tired, confused and lost themselves. It seemed to me that they either didn't have the courage to stand up for what they were representing, or they have lost faith in what they're representing. i.e. the RCC.

The bishops are very much under fire these days and they're operating in defense mode instead of being out preaching the Good News.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If that is true -- and I think it is -- then surely the blame lies at the feet of the RC.

No, I think the blame can be laid at parent's feet. Catholic faith formation is very poor in schools and I'm not sure the bishops are to blame for this, maybe they are. I don't think most teachers are well versed in theology.

Slav · 27-07-2010 10:12PM

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I think the blame can be laid at parent's feet. Catholic faith formation is very poor in schools and I'm not sure the bishops are to blame for this, maybe they are. I don't think most teachers are well versed in theology.

Does that mean that the Church is not able to communicate a simple message of what it is without employing an essentially secular (at least in most countries) institution: primary and secondary education?

MrPudding · 28-07-2010 08:52AM

kelly1 wrote: »

The bishops are very much under fire these days and they're operating in defense mode instead of being out preaching the Good News.

They've had 2000 years. How long do you think they need?

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I think the blame can be laid at parent's feet. Catholic faith formation is very poor in schools and I'm not sure the bishops are to blame for this, maybe they are. I don't think most teachers are well versed in theology.

Stop the press. "Catholic Apologist in someone else to blame for RCC problems shocker."

MrP

smurfhousing · 28-07-2010 02:22PM

Right. *sigh* So I've finished watching the thing on the RTE site.

I never saw such a collection of self-righteous, completely ignorant of the faith know-it-alls in my entire life. I was near to despair, when Mark Dooley came on like a breath of fresh air and spoke very briefly about the Eucharist and the fact that all we need as Catholics is Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This is the faith. But we didn't hear too much about that.

The rest of them, by and large, were a bunch of people with gripes: why can't I be a woman priest? Why can't I sleep with another man? Why can't I decide what to do with my body? AND WHY CAN'T I HAVE POWER, DAMN IT! Give me some of that power stuff for goodness sake!!!!

I pose this question - can you imagine, for one second, if one of those powerful feminist ladies was a priest or a bishop (all of heaven forbid), do you think for one moment they would listen to me, as a member of the male sex? I don't think so, they'd wipe the floor with me.

With the exception of the young Dominican seminarian - who was hardly allowed to speak - and the contribution of Mark Dooley - the only articulate orthodox person there who was allowed to speak - this was a programme of the dissident group's agenda... they are not interested in the orthodox Catholic Faith. How about we get to hear from the young seminarian, and see what he has to say about things? RTE have their own agenda which is to promote the dissident's cause. The woman asked at the end would she stay in the Church, replied 'Where would I go?', echoing the disciples in the Gospel of St John chapter 6, concerning the Eucharist. However, a point lost on this lady, no doubt, was that these disciples ACCEPTED the teaching of the Christ. Those who didn't accept the teaching walked away. I wonder, to repeat the question of the OP, why do these people stay in such a hateful, woman-hating, patriarchal, evil, corrupt, power hungry Church*?

SO I was not surprised at the content of this programme nor its agenda. I was disappointed with the weak responses of the bishops who really did precious little to affirm or uphold the Catholic teachings, instead letting these, by and large, grey haired feminist ladies (and weak, emasculated men, when the ladies weren't talking...) have the run of the studio. The one exception was when one bishop said there were things which could change and there were things that couldn't change. Now imagine, for one second, if these same grey headed ladies were in charge of the Church! Do you think men would have a place in such a church? I don't think so.

The one theme running through the programme, the common thread, was one of power: how can we grab the power to take it for ourselves? Hardly a mention of sacrifice, of the cross, of dying to self, of dying to our fleshly and disordered desires, our lusts. Instead, a total misrepresentation and indeed character assassination of Pope Benedict in particular, and it was clear that the short, black haired lady hadn't read any of Pope Benedict's writings, a key theme of which is the constant one of friendship with Jesus. Zenit is free, there is no excuse whatsoever not to know what our Holy Father is saying.

* Btw, I love the Holy Catholic Church, holding it to be the true Church of Jesus Christ, teaching faith and morals without error, but if I felt the way so many of these people feel....

kelly1 · 28-07-2010 06:50PM

Slav wrote: »

Does that mean that the Church is not able to communicate a simple message of what it is without employing an essentially secular (at least in most countries) institution: primary and secondary education?

The Church isn't just one voice. Some priests are good at getting the message across, others are lousy and have no back-bone. But it's not just up to the priests. Parents have a vital role and many parents have no interest/faith. Parents have to take responsibility for faith formation.

smurfhousing · 28-07-2010 07:47PM

I think it would be good if RTE got together a panel of people, and allowed them to present the Church teachings, and have the dissidents interject with their 'issues'. I also think that, given an opportunity, it would be really easy to show up the dissident's position. It might take a series, but wouldn't that be a series worth watching? Of course, RTE have no interest whatsoever in such an idea.

The one thing one notices about the RTE programme and the MSM coverage in general, is the reliance of the dissidents on 'feelings' and emotions and personal preferences, and a good does of pride. Reason and intellectualism do not come into it, nor indeed the authority of God. Indeed, one of the feminist ladies on the RTE programme said we should forget about theology and just 'be church'. Then you can see her laughing at herself when challenged by Dooley! Even she knows she's talking b*****!

philologos · 28-07-2010 10:20PM

smurfhousing wrote: »

I never saw such a collection of self-righteous, completely ignorant of the faith know-it-alls in my entire life. I was near to despair, when Mark Dooley came on like a breath of fresh air and spoke very briefly about the Eucharist and the fact that all we need as Catholics is Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This is the faith. But we didn't hear too much about that.

I don't know, I found something quite genuine from a lot of people in the audience. They think the RCC establishment have gone too far, and they don't understand the full consequences of what damage has been caused. There isn't enough involvement of laypeople in the decision making of the RCC and so on. That's fair game.

As for Mark Dooley, I was disappointed that he didn't get more time to speak. From my experiences of him as a philosophy lecturer, I know that he is very opinionated about things.

I'm not really in agreement that the Eucharist is the only thing we need in faith though. Our faith needs to be alive within us also on a daily basis.

smurfhousing wrote: »

The rest of them, by and large, were a bunch of people with gripes: why can't I be a woman priest? Why can't I sleep with another man? Why can't I decide what to do with my body? AND WHY CAN'T I HAVE POWER, DAMN IT! Give me some of that power stuff for goodness sake!!!!

Valid gripes. People should feel as if they have some say in how their church works.

smurfhousing wrote: »

I pose this question - can you imagine, for one second, if one of those powerful feminist ladies was a priest or a bishop (all of heaven forbid), do you think for one moment they would listen to me, as a member of the male sex? I don't think so, they'd wipe the floor with me.

The same criticism could be said for very patriarchal priests and bishops, in respect to women. In fact I believe this point was made in the actual discussion.

smurfhousing wrote: »

I wonder, to repeat the question of the OP, why do these people stay in such a hateful, woman-hating, patriarchal, evil, corrupt, power hungry Church*?

That's probably where the discussion was lacking. Mark Dooley was the only one to mention that other denominations had teachings that perhaps may be more amenable to people.

smurfhousing wrote: »

SO I was not surprised at the content of this programme nor its agenda. I was disappointed with the weak responses of the bishops who really did precious little to affirm or uphold the Catholic teachings, instead letting these, by and large, grey haired feminist ladies (and weak, emasculated men, when the ladies weren't talking...) have the run of the studio. The one exception was when one bishop said there were things which could change and there were things that couldn't change. Now imagine, for one second, if these same grey headed ladies were in charge of the Church! Do you think men would have a place in such a church? I don't think so.

This is really an absurd assumption / argument against women clergy, and can be equally made of very patriarchal priests and bishops. I'm sure there are better arguments to be made, but this one isn't one of the better ones.

smurfhousing · 28-07-2010 10:52PM

I'm gonna fisk this in red because I can't be bothered with all the formatating.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know, I found something quite genuine from a lot of people in the audience. [One can be genuinely wrong, too, don't forget] They think the RCC establishment have gone too far, and they don't understand the full consequences of what damage has been caused. There isn't enough involvement of laypeople in the decision making of the RCC and so on. That's fair game. [There are some things that lay people could be involved in, but changing Doctrine is not one of them. Even the Pope can't decide to have women priests or declare that gay sex is not sinful. Nobody in the RCC can do that, not now, not ever.]

As for Mark Dooley, I was disappointed that he didn't get more time to speak. From my experiences of him as a philosophy lecturer, I know that he is very opinionated about things. [He would have shown the lot of them up for the idiots they were, had he been given more opportunity to speak. He knows the Catholic Faith, that is obvious.]

I'm not really in agreement that the Eucharist is the only thing we need in faith though. Our faith needs to be alive within us also on a daily basis. [What could be more alive than a soul who has just received the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? You are not a Catholic, so I will not pay any more attention to this unfortunate statement.]

Valid gripes. People should feel as if they have some say in how their church works. [Yes, in matters in which they have a valid and meaningful contribution to make. Agreed. But changing Doctrine is not one of them. As I said, the Deposit of Faith is not open to manipulation. No gay sex, and no women priests. It is the spirit of Lucifer who seeks to separate, divide and destroy, who is spearheading this dreadful agenda.]

The same criticism could be said for very patriarchal priests and bishops, in respect to women. In fact I believe this point was made in the actual discussion.

That's probably where the discussion was lacking. Mark Dooley was the only one to mention that other denominations had teachings that perhaps may be more amenable to people. [Exactly. If I wanted acceptance of gay sex or women priests, I'd make my way to the nearest suitable Anglican or Episcopal church.]

This is really an absurd assumption / argument against women clergy, and can be equally made of very patriarchal priests and bishops. I'm sure there are better arguments to be made, but this one isn't one of the better ones. [I'm sure there are too. My point was, most of the women on that show had a serious problem with men, and the authority of men. They are probably angry that Christ dared to incarnate as a man. What you saw on that show were a lot of feminists women (Nuala O'Loan being commander in chief along with the angry black haired woman and the nutty psychotherapist) who are on the rampage. The bishops are so afraid of them that they can't stand up to them and teach the Catholic Faith, instead pandering to them and agreeing with their venom. I've dealt with Nuala O'Loan before and I can smell her agenda and it stinks. She probably doesn't read my online comments on the Irish Catholic website but at least I've tried. She's a feminist, in the worst sense. Plus, the Church you'd have with these women running the show would be so feminised, limp wristed, and emasculated, that no straight male would want any part in it! Trust me!]

So anyway, I thought the programme was a joke, but it was interesting to see one of the panelists, some dude from a university in Scotland, say that the priesthood is the problem. Well there you are. I notice the chair skipped away from that. I thought it was quite disgraceful how one of the bishops couldn't even begin to articulate Church teachings, for example given the perfect opportunity with the homosexual. All he could say was his heart went out to him. Nothing about the teachings of Christ which would set him free. All we got from the bishops was weakness and tiredness with no serious effort to defend the faith from the attacks of what are ignorant people driven by their feelings and passions, and totally seduced by the spirit of the world!

There is a massive schism in the Catholic Church, not only in Ireland, but across the Western World. There is a major battle between true Catholics who are in union with Peter and his successors, who hold fast to the Catholic Faith in its undiluted entirety, and the Modernists, who are infested with the spirit of this world and are enemies of the Church and enemies of the cross. It will get more violent and vicious as time goes on. We will probably lose our churches in time, perhaps our jobs, and even our homes in the coming persecutions. We may eventually lose our lives as martyrs for the faith. All this must happen.

True Christianity is not enamoured with the world and doesn't seek to condone or accommodate its sin. The true Christian will be hated by the world.

Slav · 28-07-2010 11:00PM

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church isn't just one voice. Some priests are good at getting the message across, others are lousy and have no back-bone. But it's not just up to the priests. Parents have a vital role and many parents have no interest/faith. Parents have to take responsibility for faith formation.

So then there was nothing wrong with Fanny saying "then surely the blame lies at the feet of the RC" to which you replied "No"?

smurfhousing · 28-07-2010 11:06PM

Slav wrote: »

So then there was nothing wrong with Fanny saying "then surely the blame lies at the feet of the RC" to which you replied "No"?

The fact of the matter is that all who have sinned are to blame. When one member of the Body of Christ sins, all the members suffer. This is scriptural. Also, Pope Benedict said that the greatest persecutions of the Church come from sin born within the Church via its members. What happened was dreadful (sexual abuse and bishoply covering up, as well as dissent from faith and Morals) but the answer to this is not gay sex or women priests. How the hell that logic works is beyond my simple mind, but this is what it comes down to!

What you saw on that confounded show was a bunch of people who by and large want their sinful lifestyles validated by a Church that says otherwise, by demanding that they get to run the show or else by being told that what is sinful (e.g. gay sex, divorce, etc...) is not sinful. You heard it from the horses mouths. Thye have no interest in holiness nor in dying to self and living for Christ, no matter the cost to self. Their issue IS with the Catholic Church and the Faith and Morals which she teaches. They don't like it or its teachings, but they haven't the guts to leave it. So instead they remain and protest and shout and spit and scream.

philologos · 28-07-2010 11:15PM

[One can be genuinely wrong, too, don't forget]

True, but one can sympathise with them. It is only by trying to understand people that you can help them to have a deeper understanding. Merely chastising them for their views isn't going to solve anything.

[There are some things that lay people could be involved in, but changing Doctrine is not one of them. Even the Pope can't decide to have women priests or declare that gay sex is not sinful. Nobody in the RCC can do that, not now, not ever.]

The point is that the current RCC establishment aren't doing enough in that respect in many peoples eyes. I can understand why that is frustrating. Polls that have been taken amongst church congregations in Australia indicate that people who go to church, want to be a key part of it rather than just a congregant. People want to serve God as well as just being there.

As for homosexuality. I have to say I can sympathise a lot with the gay guy who was on the show, even if I am not gay myself. It must be hard living with that inclination, and having people condemn you, but not really offer any solution as to help with the issue. I think churches in general need to be a bit more sympathetic. (N.B - Not in changing doctrine, but in our response to LGBT people)

[What could be more alive than a soul who has just received the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? You are not a Catholic, so I will not pay any more attention to this unfortunate statement.]

I think the Eucharist is important, but I believe a life lived for Jesus is the most important. You can go take the Eucharist as much as you want, but if you aren't transformed, and living a new life for Jesus, nothing has changed.

[Yes, in matters in which they have a valid and meaningful contribution to make. Agreed. But changing Doctrine is not one of them. As I said, the Deposit of Faith is not open to manipulation. No gay sex, and no women priests. It is the spirit of Lucifer who seeks to separate, divide and destroy, who is spearheading this dreadful agenda.]

See above about compassion. I think the churches need to listen more, and try and see why people are so unhappy.

[Exactly. If I wanted acceptance of gay sex or women priests, I'd make my way to the nearest suitable Anglican or Episcopal church.]

As someone taking a conservative position in the Anglican Communion I wouldn't say that it would be the first port of call. Anglicanism isn't just a liberal church. What I do think is good about Anglicanism though, is that we are talking openly about the issues, even if there is disagreement. There is a transparency in decision making, at general and diocean synod level. There is also transparency in denomination and inter-province discussion. Lay-people and clergy both are involved in decision making.

I also think we need to take into account more the position of LGBT people in the church, and offer them advice on how to live for Christ in respect to their sexuality.

[I'm sure there are too. My point was, most of the women on that show had a serious problem with men, and the authority of men. They are probably angry that Christ dared to incarnate as a man. What you saw on that show were a lot of feminists women (Nuala O'Loan being commander in chief along with the angry black haired woman and the nutty psychotherapist) who are on the rampage. The bishops are so afraid of them that they can't stand up to them and teach the Catholic Faith, instead pandering to them and agreeing with their venom. I've dealt with Nuala O'Loan before and I can smell her agenda and it stinks. She probably doesn't read my online comments on the Irish Catholic website but at least I've tried. She's a feminist, in the worst sense.]

I think they were just frustrated with the situation in general. I think the RCC needs to make more efforts to relate with women and listen to their concerns and see what can be changed, and what can't be.

smurfhousing · 28-07-2010 11:24PM

Jakkass wrote: »

True, but one can sympathise with them. It is only by trying to understand people that you can help them to have a deeper understanding. Merely chastising them for their views isn't going to solve anything.

The point is that the current RCC establishment aren't doing enough in that respect in many peoples eyes. I can understand why that is frustrating. Polls that have been taken amongst church congregations in Australia indicate that people who go to church, want to be a key part of it rather than just a congregant. People want to serve God as well as just being there.

As for homosexuality. I have to say I can sympathise a lot with the gay guy who was on the show, even if I am not gay myself. It must be hard living with that inclination, and having people condemn you, but not really offer any solution as to help with the issue. I think churches in general need to be a bit more sympathetic. (N.B - Not in changing doctrine, but in our response to LGBT people)

I think the Eucharist is important, but I believe a life lived for Jesus is the most important. You can go take the Eucharist as much as you want, but if you aren't transformed, and living a new life for Jesus, nothing has changed.

See above about compassion. I think the churches need to listen more, and try and see why people are so unhappy.

As someone taking a conservative position in the Anglican Communion I wouldn't say that it would be the first port of call. Anglicanism isn't just a liberal church. What I do think is good about Anglicanism though, is that we are talking openly about the issues, even if there is disagreement. There is a transparency in decision making, at general and diocean synod level. There is also transparency in denomination and inter-province discussion. Lay-people and clergy both are involved in decision making.

I also think we need to take into account more the position of LGBT people in the church, and offer them advice on how to live for Christ in respect to their sexuality.

I think they were just frustrated with the situation in general. I think the RCC needs to make more efforts to relate with women and listen to their concerns and see what can be changed, and what can't be.

The teachings are there Jakkass. But I admit, mostly they are not taught. When was the last time I heard a homily on human sexuality, and how to live it in Christ? Until the faith is taught, then souls will continue to be lost. Only in Christ can we be free, but if we don't know Christ, then what hope is there for us? If our priests and bishops don't preach Christ crucified, what hope is there for us? So in this way, people are let down. They are not shown the path to freedom and wholeness in Christ. I speak only of the Irish situation. Pope Benedict is teaching in a most excellent way, and there are many good priests in Ireland, but they are in a distinct minority. There are even good bishops, but their voices are lost in the red tape of the Irish Bishops Conference.

Only if the Catholic faith is preached and proclaimed in its beautiful entirety, will we see a vibrant Church.

As CS Lewis said, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but that it has not been tried.

I read a good book recently, by Vincent Twomey, about the Irish Catholic Church. His conclusion was that the Church is Ireland was not authentically Catholic, nor Irish.

As someone with a rudimentary understanding and basic experience of the discernment of spirits, what i saw on that programme was a lot of self-righteous anger, puffed up pride, and conceit, and precious little holiness, or even the beginning of a desire for it. Fortunately, holy Mother Church has 2000 years experience of the human condition and so will not be fooled by the likes of Nuala O'Loan or Soline Humbert and their feminist crusade.

Slav · 28-07-2010 11:26PM

smurfhousing wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that all who have sinned are to blame. When one member of the Body of Christ sins, all the members suffer. This is scriptural. Also, Pope Benedict said that the greatest persecutions of the Church come from sin born within the Church via its members. What happened was dreadful (sexual abuse and bishoply covering up, as well as dissent from faith and Morals) but the answer to this is not gay sex or women priests. How the hell that logic works is beyond my simple mind, but this is what it comes down to!

What you saw on that confounded show was a bunch of people who by and large want their sinful lifestyles validated by a Church that says otherwise, by demanding that they get to run the show or else by being told that what is sinful (e.g. gay sex, divorce, etc...) is not sinful. You heard it from the horses mouths. Thye have no interest in holiness nor in dying to self and living for Christ, no matter the cost to self. Their issue IS with the Catholic Church and the Faith and Morals which she teaches. They don't like it or its teachings, but they haven't the guts to leave it. So instead they remain and protest and shout and spit and scream.

This is all very well but the question was about the members of RCC who have very limited understanding of what the Church actually is and who/what is to blame for the big numbers of such members.

smurfhousing · 28-07-2010 11:42PM

Slav wrote: »

This is all very well but the question was about the members of RCC who have very limited understanding of what the Church actually is and who/what is to blame for the big numbers of such members.

I admit that catechesis went to pot, wholesale, after the Vatican Council II. This was largely the work of Modernists who also did their damnedest to destroy our Liturgy. Pope Benedict is trying to sort this out, against massive opposition. You can blame poorly formed priests and Modernist bishops for that.

But now, there really is no excuse not to know your faith, if you desire to know it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is widely available for less than a tenner. You can get it online for free. Catholic Bibles can be had for less than a fiver. So there is now no excuse not to know your faith. Seek and ye shall find. I wasn't taught the faith growing up, but by the grace of God found Him at university, along with His beautiful teachings, whilst at university.

Is there any excuse for Nuala O'Loan not to know her faith and spout pure and utter ignorance about Pope Benedict on national TV? When I heard what she said I had the urge to throw my laptop to the other side of the room. Is there any reason for Soline Humbert not to know her faith and campaign instead for women priests even though the Church has said no? Why the pried and the dissent? What about humility and holiness? Naa that's too boring!

Slav · 28-07-2010 11:58PM

I agree that ignorance of any sort perhaps has no justification especially if you are about to speak publicly on the matter. The question was where is the root cause of such a large number of RC not knowing their faith?

smurfhousing · 29-07-2010 12:14AM

Slav wrote: »

I agree that ignorance of any sort perhaps has no justification especially if you are about to speak publicly on the matter. The question was where is the root cause of such a large number of RC not knowing their faith?

That is the question and the answer is all over the place. You could start though, with what has happened, and is still happening, in the primary schools, where instead of authentic Catholic Faith, we have new age tripe being fed to kids: http://www.eannajohnson.org/writings.htm and all of this with the approval of the Irish Bishops.

Slav · 29-07-2010 08:30AM

smurfhousing wrote: »

That is the question and the answer is all over the place. You could start though, with what has happened, and is still happening, in the primary schools, where instead of authentic Catholic Faith, we have new age tripe being fed to kids: http://www.eannajohnson.org/writings.htm and all of this with the approval of the Irish Bishops.

Which brings us back to exactly where we started from, i.e. Noel's post #18 and my question in post #19.

smurfhousing · 29-07-2010 10:54AM

Slav wrote: »

Which brings us back to exactly where we started from, i.e. Noel's post #18 and my question in post #19.

Does that mean that the Church is not able to communicate a simple message of what it is without employing an essentially secular (at least in most countries) institution: primary and secondary education?

The Church is able to do all things through Christ. Whenever one sets Him aside and does things one's own way, then I wouldn't expect too much fresh fruit. I suggest that this is part of the problem. Particularly the idea of 'We Irish know best.' And this problem expresses itself in lots of different ways, from the ignoring of instructions from the Holy Father (Sacramentum caritatis anyone?), to disregarding the words and rubrics of the Mass in favour of prideful self (of priests), to the disregarding of Canon Law and the covering up of pervert offenders. I think a lack of fidelity to Holy Mother Church and an almost total lack of faith in some quarters, are just a few of the problems we find. Too much Irish and too little Roman, that is a problem too.

philologos · 29-07-2010 12:45PM

smurfhousing wrote: »

Seek and ye shall find. I wasn't taught the faith growing up, but by the grace of God found Him at university, along with His beautiful teachings, whilst at university.

How did you find out about it at university? I'm curious.

Believer · 29-07-2010 01:14PM

Me too. This is a really interesting discussion and is very refreshing from the remainder of the boards stuff where the Lord's name is used as often as a full stop. I was born into a Roman Catholic household, but God has no grandchildren, so I found my way to the Lord and now attend a Christian church were my spirit and His meet and I find joy.

Fanny Cradock · 29-07-2010 01:17PM

Welcome!

smurfhousing · 29-07-2010 05:55PM

Jakkass wrote: »

How did you find out about it at university? I'm curious.

I was living in halls, and my next door neighbour was a Jehovah's Witness. He gave me a booklet to read. I knew the JWs were a cult, more or less, but his intervention in my life at that time led me to learn about the JW religion, and my own, on the Catholic Answers website, amongst others. There are other factors, but that's the main part.

Believer: I found all that and more in the Catholic Church. But it is truly a tragedy that the Church has failed, utterly FAILED, so many of her children here in Ireland. Of course God always gets His man (if he co-operates, of course); He does not withhold His grace, and so all those who seek shall find, despite everything, even here in Ireland where sin has done so much damage to the mission of the Church.

Tim Robbins · 29-07-2010 07:00PM

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I think the blame can be laid at parent's feet. Catholic faith formation is very poor in schools and I'm not sure the bishops are to blame for this, maybe they are. I don't think most teachers are well versed in theology.

Why do you need faith formation in schools? Jesus didn't need faith formation in schools to spread his message. That's nowhere in the Gospels.

Personally the only chance I see the Catholic Church has is to put a massive emphasis on its humanitarian ethos which is a central aspect to the Gospels and the Bible. It is failing in this regard. If the Church put a huge emphasis back on agape, charity, loving your neighbour, turning the other cheek, fighting for the poorest of the poor, building schools in the back of beyond, standing up for societies who are having their lifes and environments destroyed by raging capitalists and building social cohesion people would respect it as they would see it as an organisation that is relevant.

No-one really cares that much about transubstantiation.

kelly1 · 29-07-2010 09:30PM

Slav wrote: »

So then there was nothing wrong with Fanny saying "then surely the blame lies at the feet of the RC" to which you replied "No"?

I'm saying that the blame isn't solely with the clergy.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why do you need faith formation in schools? Jesus didn't need faith formation in schools to spread his message. That's nowhere in the Gospels.

Faith formation is vitally important IMO and in many cases it's left to the schools when it should be happening at home. What chance of salvation do these children have?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Personally the only chance I see the Catholic Church has is to put a massive emphasis on its humanitarian ethos which is a central aspect to the Gospels and the Bible. It is failing in this regard. If the Church put a huge emphasis back on agape, charity, loving your neighbour, turning the other cheek, fighting for the poorest of the poor, building schools in the back of beyond, standing up for societies who are having their lifes and environments destroyed by raging capitalists and building social cohesion people would respect it as they would see it as an organisation that is relevant.

I think you'll find the Church is very much at the heart of this effort. The Church isn't just the Vatican!!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No-one really cares that much about transubstantiation.

Speak for yourself....

Tim Robbins · 30-07-2010 02:49PM

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm saying that the blame isn't solely with the clergy.

Faith formation is vitally important IMO and in many cases it's left to the schools when it should be happening at home. What chance of salvation do these children have?

Faith formation surely shouldn't neccesitate parenting or schools
surely this is saying something very obvious.

Speak for yourself....

It's the people who are leaving the Church I was talking about.

SonOfAdam · 30-07-2010 04:06PM

The overwhelming feeing I got watching the programme was of hungry people wanting to know where to get food and were left wanting.
I understand that there will always be people who will want the church to validate their lifestyles and will spit and scream, as was mentioned earlier, when that doesn't happen but the church is there to point the way to the One who can bind up the broken hearted and bring freedom to the captives. It is not there to condemn or disgrace. The church is very big on 'lifestyle' sins without realising a life independent of God is the only 'lifestyle' sin. Whilst it remains preoccupied with its own protection and damage limitation the church will never point to Jesus - it simply can't - it has lost its purpose

Tim Robbins · 30-07-2010 11:35PM

SonOfAdam wrote: »

The overwhelming feeing I got watching the programme was of hungry people wanting to know where to get food and were left wanting.
I understand that there will always be people who will want the church to validate their lifestyles and will spit and scream, as was mentioned earlier, when that doesn't happen but the church is there to point the way to the One who can bind up the broken hearted and bring freedom to the captives. It is not there to condemn or disgrace. The church is very big on 'lifestyle' sins without realising a life independent of God is the only 'lifestyle' sin. Whilst it remains preoccupied with its own protection and damage limitation the church will never point to Jesus - it simply can't - it has lost its purpose

The history of the Church is top down. People were told what to believe and what to do. The structure worked for centuries but cannot work in the 21set century. It has peaked and imploded.

Nearly every Catholic wants something different. It reminds of all the groups who wanted No to Lisbon.

SEMPER IDEM · 31-07-2010 08:25PM

I was reading in the new issue of Catholic Voice newspaper, that Dr Mark Dooley had to threaten to leave the studio before he was given a chance to speak. Interestingly, of the 60 minute programme, only 4 minutes was devoted to Catholics who upheld the Apostolic Faith. If you want to contact the programme editor, you can do so: Roger Childs - roger.childs [at] rte.ie - remember to remove the spaces and replace the '@' symbol. You might consider a complaint and also challenge RTE to broadcast a sequel with a selection of the many faithful Catholics that make up the mainstream Church.

Would you believe last night?

Comments