Monk's Mother Calls for One Day Boycott of Mass

LittleBook

Monk's Mother Calls On Women To Join One Day Boycott of Mass

AN 80-YEAR-OLD woman is organising a one-day boycott of Sunday Mass “by the faithful women of Ireland” next month.

Jennifer Sleeman from Clonakilty in Cork said she wants “to let the Vatican and the Irish church know that women are tired of being treated as second-class citizens”.

She has called on the Catholic women of Ireland to “join your sisters on Sunday, September 26th. On that one day boycott Mass. Stay at home and pray for change. We are the majority. We may have been protesting individually but unremarked on, but together we have strength and our absence, the empty pews, will be noticed”.

She said: “Whatever change you long for, recognition, ordination, the end of celibacy, which is another means of keeping women out, join with your sisters and let the hierarchy know by your absence that the days of an exclusively male-dominated church are over.”

She told The Irish Times she had chosen the date of September 26th as her 81st birthday was three days previously, on the 23rd.

She said she looks at her “children and grandchildren and see no future for the Catholic Church. Some of the grandchildren go through the rites of sacraments but seldom, if ever, visit a church afterwards. Some of my children are actively looking for a meaningful spiritual life but they do not find it in the Catholic Church.” But, she said, “I must except my eldest son who is a monk in Glenstal Abbey, another place that helps me keep some shreds of faith.”

She noted her son, Fr Simon, was supportive of her in her action.

Over recent Sundays, Ms Sleeman had been to the Church of Ireland in Clonakilty, to Mass in Knocknaheeney, and back to the Catholic Church in Clonakilty. “I felt so welcome in the first two and just wondered what I was doing in ‘my own church’ [Clonakilty],” she said. “Since then I have been to the celebration of the Methodist Church’s 150 years in Clonakilty, another joyful and welcoming occasion.”

A former Presbyterian who converted to Catholicism 54 years ago, she said: “I am not a cradle Catholic. I chose to join as an adult helped by meeting a wonderful priest . . . but I now wonder did I do the right thing?” She has found that “somehow I have grown up but the church has not”.

The sexual abuse scandals “horrified me. I find I belong to an organisation that seems caught in a time warp, run by old celibate men divorced from the realities of life, with a lonely priesthood struggling with the burden of celibacy where rules and regulations have more weight than the original message of community and love”.

Once I realised they weren't talking about "The Monk's" mother this article (or rather this lady) really impressed me. Articulate and devoted, this woman seems to really care about the future of the church and is doing something (hopefully) productive about it. The most lasting change has to come from within.

I'll be very interested to see if any reporting is done on attendance figures the day after the boycott.

panda100

Why don't these women just leave the RC church instead of boycotting it,they clearly do not agree with some of its core principles?

I think a lot of people have a rose-tinted view of what they think the RC church is compared to what it actually is.
How can the RC church change dogma's on celibacy and ordination when for thousands of years they believe these doctrines to be handed down by Jesus Christ himself? What next? Forget about transubstantiation because its a bit ludicrous and has no basis in our modern scientific world?


I got a shock when I read the article and it said the women leading the boycott was 80! She,who was brought up in an Ireland who would never question the church or women's role in it. My parents are only in their 60's and they are so indoctrinated, If you even so much as peep a criticism towards the Church all Hell will break lose.

The Smurf

The article is all about the monk's mother, Mrs Sleeman.

Deliberately missing Holy Mass is a mortal sin. See how much this woman cares for your female soul, in her protest, just because she doesn't get what she wants.

The Church's reservation of priestly ordination being reserved to men belongs to the Deposit of Faith and is unchangeable. Priestly celibacy is a discipline and could be changed, but that is very unlikely.

Wibbs

The Smurf wrote: »

Deliberately missing Holy Mass is a mortal sin. See how much this woman cares for your female soul, in her protest, just because she doesn't get what she wants.

The Church's reservation of priestly ordination being reserved to men belongs to the Deposit of Faith and is unchangeable. Priestly celibacy is a discipline and could be changed, but that is very unlikely.

Of course that lot has little enough to do with original christianity. In the early days women were priests(and Bishops). Mary Magdelene is mentioned in the early texts as being like one of the apostles. The echo of that is still heard in the story where the first people he appears to after resurrection is her. A lot of the early church missionarys were women too. Wall paintings have been found dating from the 3rd century which show one(whose name sadly escapes) along side St Paul and she's rendered larger than him. Priests could be married too. Our own St patricks da was a deacon and his grandfather a bishop. Mass it could well be argued is an invention itself.

Of course none of this is worth much if you follow the holy see(or indeed much of the protestant faiths), but it's interesting how a very male dominated culture, Rome, changed a lot of the direction and ethos of the original faith(as much as we know about it). And when other Christians isolated from Rome were more along the lines of the original crowd, Rome didnt like it one bit. Particularly when it came to women's involvement. Not least in the early Irish church, where women had a lot of input and were even bishops of monasteries.

Macha

panda100 wrote: »

Why don't these women just leave the RC church instead of boycotting it,they clearly do not agree with some of its core principles?

I think a lot of people have a rose-tinted view of what they think the RC church is compared to what it actually is.
How can the RC church change dogma's on celibacy and ordination when for thousands of years they believe these doctrines to be handed down by Jesus Christ himself? What next? Forget about transubstantiation because its a bit ludicrous and has no basis in our modern scientific world?

I suppose because a lot of the dogma of the RC church has no foundation in the bible itself.

The example of the banning of women's ordination is outlined in this article:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0726/1224275466148.html?via=mr

She is trying to take back ownership of the RC Church from the old men who are currently running it. She still believes in the RC god, I assume.

Edit: Curses, I knew Wibbs would get there first!

LittleBook

The Smurf wrote: »

The article is all about the monk's mother, Mrs Sleeman.

No, it's about a monk's mother.

The Smurf wrote: »

Deliberately missing Holy Mass is a mortal sin.

Maybe Mrs Sleema thinks God would disagree.

The Smurf wrote: »

See how much this woman cares for your female soul, in her protest, just because she doesn't get what she wants.

The Smurf wrote: »

The Church's reservation of priestly ordination being reserved to men belongs to the Deposit of Faith and is unchangeable. Priestly celibacy is a discipline and could be changed, but that is very unlikely.

If "the Church" wrote the Deposit of Faith, why can't it be changed?

LittleBook

panda100 wrote: »

Why don't these women just leave the RC church instead of boycotting it,they clearly do not agree with some of its core principles?

I think that's exactly what she (and many others) will eventually do.

panda100 wrote: »

I got a shock when I read the article and it said the women leading the boycott was 80! She,who was brought up in an Ireland who would never question the church or women's role in it. My parents are only in their 60's and they are so indoctrinated, If you even so much as peep a criticism towards the Church all Hell will break lose.

Me too, it was her age that caught my attention. If a 21-year-old did this I doubt it would have made the front page.

I think it's slightly different maybe for this woman as she wasn't indoctrinated but chose RC later in life. She met a "wonderful priest" who introduced her to a faith she grew to love and which, for her, has not yet been destroyed but which she feels she can no longer practice within the confines of the RC.

Wibbs

Well without going into theology and banning myself for going too off topic I would say that objectively the position of women in the church throughout its history has varied so much that to say there is any kind of consistency is a stretch. There were married Priests. There were women priests and even heads of monasteries. Married priests were gotten rid of as much for the possible loss of church lands due to laws of inheritance as any canonical issue.

Contrary to popular belief(and up there with Magdelene was a whoer, she wasnt) Some of the original apostles including Peter brought their wives with them http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-5.htm. The whole celibacy/no women priests didnt kick off until much later. I blame Augustine of Hippo myself(the lad had more issues than readers digest). But thats for another day.

panda100

Wibbs wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief(and up there with Magdelene was a whoer, she wasnt) .

I always thought Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and was told by my Religious teachers she was. Years later I learned that theres absolutely no evidence to suugest this whatsoever?
Then on the opposite end of the sexual spectrum you have the Virgin Mary,the most venerated women in the world. It's a bit warped the exulatation of a women who cannot share with women something so fundamental to our nature as the experience of sex.

corkcomp

to be fair the monks mother is dead right to organise the boycott if she believes the church treat women unfairly. on the other hand, would she follow through and avoid the church completely if she doesnt like what the institution stands for?

Wibbs

panda100 wrote: »

I always thought Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and was told by my Religious teachers she was. Years later I learned that theres absolutely no evidence to suugest this whatsoever?

Yep. She's confused with the woman Jesus saved from stoning. We don't get to hear her name. She's also confused with the "fallen woman" who anointed his feet. She's a different Mary. Then again Mary or Maryam was a very common name for women at the time. If you shouted Maryam in a crowded Galileean street a lot of heads would have turned around. All they say about Magdalene's origins is that Jesus cured her of "demons". She's described as an apostle to the apostles and very well regarded by both Jesus and his followers. According to the gospels she, his mother and a group of women followers are the ones at his crucifixion. The male apostles with one exception having legged it in fear.

Then on the opposite end of the sexual spectrum you have the Virgin Mary,the most venerated women in the world. It's a bit warped the exulatation of a women who cannot share with women something so fundamental to our nature as the experience of sex.

Though as Jesus had younger brothers and possible sisters, she wasnt a virgin all her life(though some churches will dispute that IMHO not very convincingly). She's not mentioned much in the original texts at all which considering how much the Catholic and Orthodox churches venerate her I always found strange, even though I was schooled by a Catholic order.

I think both serve as archetypes more than anything and as replacements for the feminine goddesses the Romans were used to. They've ceased to be real women. Which IMHO suited the paternalistic Romans to a tee. Can you imagine the late Roman mind trying to come to terms with the idea that women could be ministers of the new faith? Eyebrows flying up and loud "harrrumphs!!: all over the place. On the other hand Jesus himself was very sympathetic and equal in his dealings towards women. Quite anachronistically so, given his cultural background. He would have been thought of almost as a radical feminist in his day. Funny how things that dont quite fit get airbrushed out or distracted when they're uncomfortable.

I'd go so far as to say that women Christians should fight for and take back "their" Jesus and their history in spreading and feeding the faith.

corkcomp

it seems like a lot of people want to mold the church into an institution that encompasses their idea of the way it should be.. why do this? (imo) people should either follow the church if they believe in its teachings and are willing to abide by the "rules" or else opt out.. Personally I go with the later option because the wrongs far outweight the the good messages.. I know not everyone will agree with a black and while view like that though.

LittleBook

The Smurf wrote: »

The monk's mother and a monk's mother are the same thing. The apostrophe gives it away. It is, after all, Mrs Sleeman we are talking about here. Her son is a monk. A priest monk.

The Monk

The Smurf wrote: »

The Deposit of Faith is given by God.

The arrogance of religious leaders (of any religion) to presume to speak for God, and the ignorance of those that blindly follow them, never ceases to surprise me.

Anyway, that is not the point of my topic. I wanted to talk about this lady who would have appeared to me to embody a section of the staunchest supporters of the Catholic Church in Ireland and has chosen to protest against them.

LittleBook

corkcomp wrote: »

it seems like a lot of people want to mold the church into an institution that encompasses their idea of the way it should be

Including the leaders of the institution?

corkcomp wrote: »

why do this? (imo) people should either follow the church if they believe in its teachings and are willing to abide by the "rules" or else opt out..

Again, I think many people have and many more will opt out. But I guess some, like this woman, believe that expecting the church to "grow up" isn't too much to ask. Her son, the monk, "thinks it's brilliant".

corkcomp wrote: »

would she follow through and avoid the church completely if she doesnt like what the institution stands for?

She is already attending services in other churches and has compared her own church unfavourably to these "joyful and welcoming occasions".

panda100

Wibbs wrote: »

Though as Jesus had younger brothers and possible sisters, she wasnt a virgin all her life(though some churches will dispute that IMHO not very convincingly).

If you mention this to a Catholic in Ireland they will be aghast at the very thought of Jesus having brothers and sisters. I remember when the Da Vinci code came out my family were so ready to dismiss it as pure fiction, yet they accept the New Testament without question, it completely bemuses me.

The more I read about the history of the church and the history of the veneration of Mary,the more I see how much of it is completely fabricated it all is by the RC church. From her assumption to her virgin status these were all determined by men thousands of years after her death.

Instead of a boycott maybe these women should join together and highlight the importance of women in Jesus life as Wibbs highlighted.

SerialComplaint

corkcomp wrote: »

it seems like a lot of people want to mold the church into an institution that encompasses their idea of the way it should be.. why do this?.

Probably because they feel that they own the institution - it doesn't belong to the lads in Rome, it belongs to the people.

The Smurf

I'd just point out that there were never women priests in the RCC. There were heretcial sects that had priestesses, but these were always rejected by the True Church, headed by Peter and his successors.

<snip>

Pyr0

I also don't understand why she doesn't leave the RC Church if she feels so strongly about women's standing within the Chruch itself. What is walking out from one mass going to achieve if she's just going to walk straight back in the next Sunday ? Surely the only thing that guarantees your place beside God is Faith in Him and not your membership within a corrupt organisation ?

iguana

panda100 wrote: »

How can the RC church change dogma's on celibacy and ordination when for thousands of years they believe these doctrines to be handed down by Jesus Christ himself?

It has been less than 2000 years since Jesus started preaching so the Catholic church certainly hasn't been believing anything for thousands of years. And much of what they have been believing in has changed again and a again throughout the decades.

The earliest christians was at best loosely organised and meant that there was widespread interpretation of the meanings of christ's teachings. It took nearly 100 years for a more structured hierarchy to emerge. The structure of that hierarchy and the societal rules it venerated was very much influenced by the Roman Empire it existed within.

The growth of the church and the fact that christians could not take part in much of public life due to their renouncing of other gods coincided with the economic and political crises which marked the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire. Christians were blamed for this as their refusal to take part in public ceremonies was believed to have angered the gods. This started a spate of organised persecutions of christians. The first major schisms in the church happened at this point.

After the legalisation of christanity and it's later adoption as the state religion of the Empire many changes were made during what is known as the First seven Ecumenical Councils from the period of 325 to 787. At one of these gatherings in the late fourth century the church decided which books of the old and new testaments it would keep and which it would disregard as nonsense. Over this period there were again many schisms.

I could go on and on detailing the changes in the church over the centuries, the different schisms the newly founded churches, those that still exist and those which faded away. But I'd be here for a very, very long time and I want to go to B&Q. Needless to say the church is in a constant state of flux and the Roman Catholic church of today is very different from that of 1500 years ago. That people should seek reforms now is hardly unusual or unheard of. People for whatever personal reasons still believe in the teachings of the church but are unhappy with that execution. Some will form, or attempt to form, their own churches, other will seek reforms in a church they are otherwise happy with.

Wibbs

The Smurf wrote: »

I'd just point out that there were never women priests in the RCC. There were heretcial sects that had priestesses, but these were always rejected by the True Church, headed by Peter and his successors.

That is seriously debatable. There were a number of women preachers in the early church. Like Iguana said they have changed their tune a lot over the years. They excised books and people, especially women that didnt fit and they did so as much because of the Roman culture that they were a part of. Romans had a variable attitude to women. Seen and not heard being a large part of it. Madonna and whore being another. Not dissimilar in fact to the Jewish faith from which Christianity sprang. If they didnt excise important women directly they reduced their role by associating them with fallen women/prostitutes. Magdalene the classic example.

Like I said Jesus was remarkably revolutionary on that score. He spoke to women not related to him in public(big no no), he comforted widows(again usually seen and not heard) and even forgave prostitutes, considered the absolute lowest of the low(stonings ahoy). Prude he was not. Women were in his group too. Contrary to popular belief and what hollywood would have it, women followed with him and his apostles. Even supported him http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/luke81.htm You'll note mary magalene being mentioned but not as a prostitute. And these women, the second class of society supported him out of their financial means. Major no no for the time.

Then we come to married priests. Paul himself notes that at least some of the apostles were married and brought their wives with them. Married priests were certainly an option of the early church. Celibacy was considered a "gift", but not the only way to do things. And its only since the 1100's was it made mandatory. Of course when it was there was zero provision for the ex wives of those priests who were married. Very charitable, but yet another example of a change in how things were done.

menoscemo

Jes*s H Chri*st this is a serioulsly annoying topic. Why are people trying to change the way The RC church is? They won't change and don't care what you think. If you are not welcome, just don't join them and find a different religion/belief.
It is like Blacks trying to join the KKK :mad:.

Wibbs

The Smurf wrote: »

Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see in the world."

I don't see how protest or pride or dissent can achieve anything that is good,

Yet you quote Ghandi?

pure, or holy, or how it serves the prayer of the Lord 'that they all be one', that unity manifested in 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism', the unity willed by Christ which is unity with His Church, shepherded by the successor of Peter, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

Pretty much a manifesto for submission of ones own will to an organisation right there. And submission like that has been the cause of much of the worlds ills.

In Scripture, we read:

Yep and Buddha said similar, but it certainly doesn't cover all reasons to "quarrel". Not even close.

menoscemo wrote: »

Jes*s H Chri*st this is a serioulsly annoying topic. Why are people trying to change the way The RC church is? They won't change and don't care what you think. If you are not welcome, just don't join them and find a different religion/belief.
It is like Blacks trying to join the KKK :mad:.

Oh they've changed in the past and they would again, if enough of their members stood up. They'll simply have to change. Ordinations have never been so low in their 2000 yr history. In this country, once one of the most catholic, they're almost nil.

Nevyn

I think the protest is a good thing, things need to change be it the church breaking from rome or people breaking from the catholic church. Mad the number of people who's beliefs are those of the Anglican church but they don't know it.

SerialComplaint

corkcomp wrote: »

Id rather not have a share thanks

Me too, as it happens. I'm just pointing out what other people might be thinking.

menoscemo wrote: »

Jes*s H Chri*st this is a serioulsly annoying topic. Why are people trying to change the way The RC church is? They won't change and don't care what you think. If you are not welcome, just don't join them and find a different religion/belief.
It is like Blacks trying to join the KKK :mad:.

No, the KKK analogy doesn't hold. There is a big difference here. These people are members of the Church, and want to continue to be members of the Church. Their problem is not with the core of church thinking. Their problem is with the way the Church is led as an organisation. They are acting to take back control of their own organisation.

It is the same in any voluntary organisation, e.g. GAA club or political party branch. You don't walk out when you have a little tiff - you work from the inside to bring about the change you need.

Nevyn

It is unlikely that change will happen and those who are laity and who are not priests and can never be priests are the ones fartest on the outside and the hieracy won't listen to them.

panda100

SerialComplaint wrote: »

No, the KKK analogy doesn't hold. There is a big difference here. These people are members of the Church, and want to continue to be members of the Church. Their problem is not with the core of church thinking. Their problem is with the way the Church is led as an organisation. They are acting to take back control of their own organisation.

I think they actually do disagree with some of the churchs core beliefs.

For example, this lady is boycotting the church due to its attitude towards women as second class citizens. Yet it is dogma that Jesus, supposedly, chose men not women to be his represntaive on earth. A rejection of RC dogma is considered the mortal sin of heresy.This women is actually commiting heresy as far as the 'Core of church thinking' is concerned.

I guess If the RC church can drop previous beliefs such as Purgotary,Limbo and Indulgences Im sure it will be only be a matter of time before women become priests.How anyone can believe that the RC church is the word of God though is laughable considering every Catholic doctrine and dogma is up for grabs in order to be popular with the masses. Their subordination of women is the only thing they have left to cling on to,despite the fact, as Wibbs alluded to earlier, that Jesus treated men and women as absolute equals.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

It is the same in any voluntary organisation, e.g. GAA club or political party branch. You don't walk out when you have a little tiff - you work from the inside to bring about the change you need.

Nah,you can never bring change from the outside in of something that is corrupt and rotten to the core. I saw many of my friends joining FF in Uni thinking they could change it, and they're all now either completely disillusioned with politics or the type of people who would sell their own mother to make a few bob.

menoscemo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

No, the KKK analogy doesn't hold. There is a big difference here. These people are members of the Church, and want to continue to be members of the Church. Their problem is not with the core of church thinking. Their problem is with the way the Church is led as an organisation. They are acting to take back control of their own organisation.

Well, the Smurf just proved my point and unfortunately I think that his beliefs are more in line with the catholic higherarchy than the reformists and protestors.

As said before most of those boycotting/protesting/ demanding modernisation of the catholic church would be much better off just becoming Anglicans.

time42play

It makes a good news story, but there will be no change in the catholic church no matter how many women might boycott mass on the day.

I happily accept the "ignorant" label, after all I got through communion and confirmation without ever learning about things like transubstantiation. I'm quite proud of that, as it also means I didn't absorb all the "women are inferior" teachings that came as a surprise to me later and hastened my departure from an outdated and discriminatory institution.

I was coerced by the families into a church wedding, and found all the available readings on the inferiority of women in a marriage quite interesting. I chose the most extreme of them on purpose, and then stood with a big smile thinking of my friends and family sitting behind me trying to keep a straight face while listening to those words in connection with me. Oh, and the idea that "marriage is a sacrament" was news to me as well. Apparently my ability to ignore religious indoctrination was well developed!

When it comes to the catholic hierarchy (and all of their machinations to maintain their immense power and wealth) I have no desire to be associated with them, and I would say they're just as happy to be rid of the likes of me. Change from within will never happen.

Xiney

OK

Let's try this again. It's an interesting discussion that I think has the right to be had - not obscured by reams of scripture quotings and Catholic doctrine that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Off topic posts will get people banned.

LittleBook

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh they've changed in the past and they would again, if enough of their members stood up. They'll simply have to change. Ordinations have never been so low in their 2000 yr history. In this country, once one of the most catholic, they're almost nil.

Honestly, until I read this thread and these articles:

Women May Shun Mass But Church Won't Listen

Latest Vatican Document Is Final Straw For Women
(thanks Taconnol)

I don't think I realised how doomed the RC church is.

Before the Vatican issued the [1976 Inter Insigniores] document, it had asked the pontifical biblical commission to explore the biblical reasons for excluding women. Seventeen out of 17 members concluded that they could fine none. To their great credit, several members resigned in protest at the use the Vatican had made of their work.

The 1976 document was a watershed for many women who had sought to serve the church and had begun theological and ministerial studies to that end. Some persisted and, at least in Ireland, remained mostly impoverished and marginalised.

Others despaired of remaining in perpetual opposition, and began to explore the deep seated psychological, anthropological and political reasons for the Vatican’s stance.

They looked, for instance, to Scandinavia where, since the late 1960s, women had been ordained. However, a “let-out” clause allowed those male clerics who disapproved to maintain “clean dioceses”, “clean parishes”, and even “clean vestments”, ie those that an ordained female body had yet to defile.

[shudders]

the rules and regulations were supposed to be about community and love -- Diarmuid Martin proved that when he said that the church had to take responsibility for its shame and failures. Those were the rules of Christianity, he believed. And now the Pope has effectively indicated that power, the status quo, and the egos of two men who failed to differing degrees in their holy ministry are far more important than community and love. And Diarmuid Martin, the one who cared about the children and the church's honour, is the scapegoat.

Jennifer Sleeman may or may not succeed in emptying the churches of women on September 26. But she won't change anything.

Hundreds of years of domination ended in a few decades. Hey ho.

Wibbs

Unfortunately for the women who do believe and want to stay within the church are up against an increasingly entrenched and out of touch hierarchy. The ones who think vatican 2 was too much, too far. The mainstream church has always had an issue with sex and women in particular. Echoing the culture it sprang from and the times it lived in. TBH they seem to be getting worse not better in this regard and I can't see it changing anytime soon.

Callan57

I admit to being very conflicted about this ... on the one hand I totally and utterly disagree with institutional RC on so many things ... not least their misogyny ... but I like to go to Mass, more for the community aspect than any religious aspect, and it's not 'their' Church anyway so I don't see why I should be the one to leave it.

But every time I attend Church or make a contribution I feel I'm contributing to the upkeep & continuance of a system I despise & that has no respect for me.

I do think it is amazing that every time they think they have dealt with the abuse issue it jumps up again in another place and they make a mess of dealing with it again ..... do you suppose the Almighty is desperately trying to tell them something?

LittleBook

Callan57 wrote: »

I admit to being very conflicted about this ... on the one hand I totally and utterly disagree with institutional RC on so many things ... not least their misogyny ... but I like to go to Mass, more for the community aspect than any religious aspect, and it's not 'their' Church anyway so I don't see why I should be the one to leave it.

Would you consider, as the lady in the article has, exploring other religions?

Nevyn

LittleBook wrote: »

Would you consider, as the lady in the article has, exploring other religions?

A lot of people won't as they do not wish to leave the community, the parish in which they have friendships and support and here about what is going on around them.

Callan57

LittleBook wrote: »

Would you consider, as the lady in the article has, exploring other religions?

I have done some reading up on other religions but they are all human constructs and as such one is probably as good as another. Anyway I like the idea of tradition ... of sitting in the Church that my ancestors sat in and communing with my neighbors & friends.
Anyway as I said it's not their church so why should I leave and make it easy for them to hunker down in their complacency & superiority .... I'm no expert but as far as I know Christ did not cease being Jewish even though he had serious differences with their 'hierarchy'.
'The mills of God grind slowly,
Though with patience He stands waiting
With exactness grinds He all'

Fox McCloud

Crazy idea, but why not set up your own church group or christian/bible meeting in your area? Encourage everyone to join and have a democrtic system of different community members say 'mass', giving talks on personal experence and their own study and interpretation of the bible.

The idea that you have to worship within a controlled chruch environment was perpetuated by those who gained power from this set up. I think the only way to get rid of the seriously messed up bits of religion is to get rid of the power. The church doesnt fear people leaving it as athiests as much as they fear people realising the church's base self interest and leaving it to set up a democratic fair church that jesus himself would be proud to be a member.

LittleBook

Thaedydal wrote: »

A lot of people won't as they do not wish to leave the community, the parish in which they have friendships and support and here about what is going on around them.

Yes, I would hazard a guess that for some people (i.e. those who are conflicted but still attending) that is the last remaining hold that the church has on them.

Callan57 wrote: »

I have done some reading up on other religions but they are all human constructs and as such one is probably as good as another. Anyway I like the idea of tradition ... of sitting in the Church that my ancestors sat in and communing with my neighbors & friends.
Anyway as I said it's not their church so why should I leave and make it easy for them to hunker down in their complacency & superiority .... I'm no expert but as far as I know Christ did not cease being Jewish even though he had serious differences with their 'hierarchy'.
'The mills of God grind slowly,
Though with patience He stands waiting
With exactness grinds He all'

So do you hope/believe it's possible for the church to change? What do you think of the lady's protest and her ideas?

As I mentioned, at first I found her protest interesting and thought provoking but I've since become convinced it's futile.

Callan57

LittleBook wrote: »

Yes, I would hazard a guess that for some people (i.e. those who are conflicted but still attending) that is the last remaining hold that the church has on them.



So do you hope/believe it's possible for the church to change? What do you think of the lady's protest and her ideas?

As I mentioned, at first I found her protest interesting and thought provoking but I've since become convinced it's futile.

Unfortunately I think I agree with you .. her protest may give an initial satisfaction in feeling she is doing something but it is ultimately futile. The RC is a major corporation and like all other corporations the only way to really hurt them is financially .... when we stop contributing only then will they listen.

Fizgig Bandicoot

I thought you meant the criminal's mother at first. Go old lady! I'm very impressed with her. I'd say my Nanny's raging with her-you couldn't meet a stauncher Catholic.:p