Fanny Cradock wrote: » It might be fruitful if all of us explain what we understand the word secular to mean.
Manach wrote: » To me secularalism has negative historical meanings. From its origins in the French revolution it meant the attempted destruction of religious morality and the subsitution of that of the Robiespierre's altar of reason . Now in today's secularism is a way to marginise those holding opposing religious viewpoints from the prevaling social-liberal classes, to move it out-side the public square and into the realms of the private.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » But the Devil, as always, is in the details.
PDN wrote: » I would describe myself as a Christian secularist. By that I mean that I support separation of Church and State and want Christians to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. No special privileges, but no special handicaps either (such as the current legislation that bars religious bodies from advertsing on TV and radio). My reasons for this are grounded in history. Human nature is fundamentally warped so when any ideology (religious or otherwise) holds political power it tends to become corrupted and to interfere with the freedoms of others. So, the blurring of the Church/State divide is bad for society and bad for the Church. Also, sometimes religious minorities are nutty heretics, but sometimes they are reforming movements trying to bring the Church back to its roots. In a secular society these minorities either flourish or decline according to their ability to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people - sort of a religious survival of the fittest. In a society where the Church has political power then these minority groups get stomped on. That might suppress some heresies, but it also prevents reform - ensuring that the dominant religion becomes increasingly corrupt. The opposite of secularism is the kind of theocracies that burned their fellow Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) at the stake 500 years ago, and which find their modern expression today in the likes of the Taliban. For this reason I would make a clear distinction between Christendom (where the church imposes its values on society) and Christianity (where people seek to follow the teachings of Christ while they live in a society).
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I am all for secularisation. It makes sense in all the right ways once you accept the basic premise that people are free to believe in and follow your religion, and if they dont believe, they are free to choose not to follow your religion. Take a contentious issue like sexuality as an example. I am not opposed to the government recognising gay civil unions. I would however be opposed to the government forcing a religion to recognise them. i would support a religions right to discriminate on grounds of sexuality to that extent. religious people are free to choose to not engage in homosexuality and i support that right. i agree largely with the post quoted above and do not support a ban on religious advertising on TV and radio (although i do not wish to hear it). i had never heard of it actually and was surprised. what else can you not advertise or what is the rational behind disallowing them to advertise. religion and cigarettes cause cancer?
Xizors Palace wrote: » I think we are going to see a battle shortly to have Catholic priests officiate at 'gay weddings' in Ireland and the UK. I think things are going to get very, very nasty. The limp-wristed priests will cave in to the secular pressure whilst the good, strong, holy priests will resist and probably be put in jail or fined or whatever.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Im not sure what you mean by a battle. The Catholics will come under pressure on the grounds that their policy on sexuality is not based on equal treatment for couples outside of one man one woman couples. Our society is increasingly moving towards equality for gay couples so a gap is appearing between society and Catholics in that regard. Personally I would not support any government effort to force Catholics to recognise gay couples commitment to each other. I would have thought there would be no way the government could do that anyway. what might happen is that people will highlight the discriminatory stance the Catholics hold and based on that, they might choose to soften their policy, they might not. I'm not sure what you mean by "nasty". Nasty between Traditional Catholics and modern Catholics? Or Government and Catholics? Or lay people and Catholics? Im not sure whether by "limp wristed" you mean gay or weak willed. Like I say i wouldn't think the government could force a private organisation like the Catholics to adopt a policy. Have they ever done so before?
Xizors Palace wrote: » You can read limp-wristed whichever way you like. I intended a wide interpretation. There are not 'Traditional' and 'Modern Catholics'. The only kind of Catholic there is the one that is in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The Church's teaching on this matter is quite clear, based on 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, which we have been reminded about in recent Magisterial documents. Some priests will welcome the opportunity to officiate at gay ceremonies, evn using Catholic Churches to do so. Like I say, it is going to turn very, very nasty. I envision within the next 10 - 15 years the establishment of an Irish National Church, separated from Rome, and a small remnant of the Catholic Church which will be stripped of much of its properties - its churches, schools, and buildings. The Irish National Church will be supported by the state and will receive widespread acclaim for it modern and 'tolerant' approach. I am sorry to say it, but many priests and bishops will yield, some quite willingly, to the new agenda of 'diversity' and 'equality'. Oh well.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ah fair enough, what I meant by modern Catholics is people who call themselves catholic and would probably be more interested in the notion of equality. Schisms have happened before and could happen again. Personally I doubt it will. It is possibly that the Catholic teaching will come to change its stance on gays. It might be prudent to do so rather than let those who might join an alternative church to leave. Gate receipts are down enough in recent times. I imagine they would consider changing their policy if it becomes an obvious point of contention between the society and the Catholics. I mean prudent even if not true to your Sacred Tradition. Would those priests who are sympathetic to homosexual be allowed to officiate at gay unions? I mean would they be allowed by Rome. I would have thought they would need Rome's say so before letting out the individual churches for gay ceremonies. Or would you see it as a sort of nixer for priests? I really don't see on what grounds the new government church could strip the Catholics of their assets. Sounds like there would be protection under law for that. needless to say i would not support any government in that. is there any provision in law for any of that (State funded church which steals Catholic Churches assets) or is it completely fantasy? I dont see a schism happening as being as likely as you make out. I imagine they would sooner change their stance than allow people to set up a rival church. It could be a case that he who pays the piper calls the tune.Beyond that i dont mind how the Catholics change their religion so long as it conforms to Irish law.
Xizors Palace wrote: » The Catholic religion won't comply with Irish law, and that is going to be the problem you see. We won't go along with the diktats of the state. I think the whole bums on seats model hasn't served the Church particularly well. What is the point of having a full Church if most inside do not actually subscribe to the declared faith of that Church? What is the point of that? If the Catholic Church did what you propose, it would cease to be the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and become the laughing stock of the world, with zero credibility. (Cue smirks and smart remarks from stage left). The Church can no sooner change its constant teaching on homosexuality than it could suddenly declare that the Trinity is not actually the reality of the God-head. I'd say we'll see some nutter priests who will be very happy to officiate at 'gay weddings'. They'll do it on Church property, no bother. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome will instruct them to cease and desist, but they will just laugh at the CDF and at their Bishop. That's IF the bishop remains faithful. And there is no guarantee of that. There is precedent for the confiscation of Catholic Church property and congregations. It happened during the Protestant revolt in England when Henry VIII established his own church, executing those who disagreed. Thus we saw that the great Catholic Churches were confiscated and to this day remain in CoE hands. I expect in Ireland we shall see that some Catholic parishes and diocese will remain faithful to Rome; others won't. Those who are not faithful will take the churches and the state will help them via the courts. You may think it alarmist, but it is the likely course of events, from what I can see. Look at what the ultra-dissident Association of Catholic Priests is campaigning for in Ireland: gay sex and women priests. Sooner or later (that's if their mostly middle-aged and older priestly members don't die first) the penny will drop and they will realise that Rome isn't, after all, going to sanction their rebellion, then you shall see the nasty business I am talking about. Your alternative, that the Catholic Church will change its teachings to accord with the modern norms, is laughable, with all due respect. Read this article by David Quinn on this very subject.
Xizors Palace wrote: » I think we are going to see a battle shortly to have Catholic priests officiate at 'gay weddings' in Ireland and the UK. I think things are going to get very, very nasty.
Wicknight wrote: » I initially dismissed this as silly but on further reflection I do actually think I can imagine two gay "Catholics" making a song and dance about not being married in the church they want to be married in, an society ignorant of the issue supporting them with an argument along the lines of Why shouldn't they be allowed be married in the church (see, we can agree on something :pac:) It can easily be imagined because of the number of Catholic-only-in-name heterosexual couples who expect, to the point of demanding, that they be married by their local priest in their local church. Society has come to expect that marriage is a cultural thing and that the RCC should facilitate this. A Catholic marriage in a Catholic church for so many heterosexual couples is about having it in the church and little to do with the religion. Of all the weddings I've gone to in the last few years the majority have been in a Catholic church with two people who wouldn't know Jesus if he slapped them in the face. The Catholic church has an issue (I guess some would say their own making though I don't mean this post as giving out about the RCC) that they have tolerated basically shame marriages in their churches for so long that there will be an expectation in society that a gay couple should be allowed marry in the church because society has forgotten that it is actually supposed to be a Catholic wedding, not just a wedding. If the Catholic church want to head this off I think they need to start refusing heterosexual couples on the grounds of skepticism towards devotion to a Catholic way of life. It will become easier then to argue that there is no double standard here.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » The point of the bums on seats model is to get bums on seats, gate receipts as I said. What beliefs they conform to is not really my concern as long as its legal. Regarding the Catholics changing teaching. I thought they did that with Vatican 2. Change their discipline rather than doctrines if thats how Catholics like to phrase it when they change their practices. Quick question was it a typo when you said the association of catholic priests are campaigning for gay sex? if so is it just the sex the Catholics have a problem with. Would Catholics mind gay people devoting themselves to each other if they abstain from sex? Goodnight
Xizors Palace wrote: » Wicknight: There is already a gay priest who has been excommunicated from the Church. He now offers gays 'weddings'. I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. :-(
Xizors Palace wrote: » Archbishop Martin of Dublin has spoken about this many times. He says we need to re-consider our approach to marriage and baptism. He has an issue with this sham behaviour, where people use the church as a nice setting for a social occasion, but haven't the least interest in Jesus and wouldn't recognise Him if, as you say, He slapped them in the face. An example would be co-habiting, contracepting couples who come together in the church for marriage, and then afterwards go back to contracepting and the marriage probably falls apart in 5 years or so.
Wicknight wrote: » In his private church though, which is fine.
Wicknight wrote: » It is that sort of nonsense that priests should also be nipping in the bud. If you aren't a Catholic you aren't a Catholic. Getting married in a Catholic church doesn't make it so to your neighbours, let alone God.
prinz wrote: » +1. The same people will be the very ones to complain about having to do the pre-marriage course etc as well.
Xizors Palace wrote: » I don't think it is fine. He was asked to vacate parish property and he refused. I am not sure if he is still on parish property or not. He was excommunicated though and remains in that state to this day.
Xizors Palace wrote: » Where does that leave the faithful Catholic believer like me? I'll tell you were: yesterday I almost walked out of Sunday Mass because of what went on. But that is for another thread.
Wicknight wrote: » I guess it leaves them in an unfamilar yet probably more supportive position of being a minority influence in the society holding true to core principles, no matter how out of favour with the large population. I guess the odd reformation even once and a while is healthy for the soul
Xizors Palace wrote: » So Catholic beliefs must comply with the state's idea of morality? Hardly. Vatican II is widely, severely misunderstood by most Catholics, and mostly everybody else. It was a pastoral council which sought to present the timeless faith of the Church to the modern world. Unfortunately, the Council coincided with the free love 60s era, and in the turmoil, confusion, and heady excitement following the council, some mad ejits who'd probably smoked too much wacky-backy, wormed their way into positions of authority and influence to they could do their thing. They caused a lot of confusion and suffering, and caused much damage to the Church, but most of them are now, happily, in their 60s and 70s and due to die off any day now. Pope's Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict strove and are striving towards an authentic implementation of the Council, which was a Council of reform, not revolution. There can be no revolution in the Church. The ultra-dissenting Association of Catholic Priests are campaigning for women priests and gay sex. I suppose most dissent in the Catholic Church does come down to sex. You don't hear people complaining about the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, or about the Incarnation. It usually always comes down to sex. I guess that's understandable, given that sexuality is such a powerful force and the one area where man was most affected in the fall. It is therefore understandable that people, whether it be gay sex or whatever else they want to do in the sexual sphere, they would like the Church to change her teachings so that they could get on with it, you know what I mean? But then this contrasts with the words of the Lord who told us to deny ourselves, give up our 'oul sins, take up the cross, and follow Him, dying to ourselves so that the life we live is His. Gay sex has nothing whatsoever to do with living a holy lifestyle. I wonder what was lacking in the formation of these priests that they do not understand this? Wicknight: There is already a gay priest who has been excommunicated from the Church. He now offers gays 'weddings'. I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. :-( Archbishop Martin of Dublin has spoken about this many times. He says we need to re-consider our approach to marriage and baptism. He has an issue with this sham behaviour, where people use the church as a nice setting for a social occasion, but haven't the least interest in Jesus and wouldn't recognise Him if, as you say, He slapped them in the face. An example would be co-habiting, contracepting couples who come together in the church for marriage, and then afterwards go back to contracepting and the marriage probably falls apart in 5 years or so. Or a sham baptism, where the poor child is baptised into the Church but has no hope of being brought up in the faith as the parents haven't the slightest interest and mean to deprive the child of any sort of Christian upbringing. It's very sad and a source of personal pain for me. I have a big issue with this and hopefully it will be sorted in the coming years as the Church moves to clarify what is expected and what is required and explains the meaning of all these things.This kind of thing is exactly what the Lord was talking about in Revelations when He spoke of vomiting the lukewarm from his mouth. He wants people on fire, not bums on seats.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Not to say that be beliefs of Catholics must comply with the states view of morality. Just that citizens must comply with state laws. Its not too far out there to suggest that people who act outside of the law can wind up in trouble. Surely we are in agreement that the citizens must comply with state laws. So while the Catholics can have any rules they like, citizens still have to comply with state laws. The state can't tell the Catholic religion what rules to have in their club but it can tell Irish citizens what is acceptable behaviour in Ireland. I was asking about whether the Catholics have a problem with gay relationships outside of the sex aspect. If a couple are devoted to each other, love each other, support each other emotionally, financially and all the things couples do together except have sex, is that a big problem for the Catholics? Whatever was lacking in the formation of those priests you refer to, I suggest it was not compassion. Regarding the last paragraph what do you think would happen if the Catholics stopped having people use the local church for weddings unless they are full on Catholics? It surprises me how many people don't know that marriage is first and foremost a state contract. They can have it in a church, recognised by their religion, and all the fanfare that goes with it but they are just as legally married if they go to the local registry office. If the Catholics brought that to more peoples attention they might end up becoming almost completely irrelevant to the 'catholic in name only' people. I don't imagine you are that worried about those people, but from a pragmatic point of view where is the money to run parishes to come from? Can they afford to send more people away I wonder? What do you think would happen?
Xizors Palace wrote: » Catholics are obliged to follow state laws so long as those laws do not conflict with Catholic faith. In that case, the state laws must be disobeyed.
Xizors Palace wrote: » God's laws supercede the laws of men. God's law trumps state law. State law should be in conformity with God's laws.
Xizors Palace wrote: » Hence we see how disastrous it was for Ireland to recognise these gay unions recently and not we see in the papers this weekend past gay men getting a woman to make a baby for them.
Xizors Palace wrote: » Re: your question, it would be quite foolish for two gays to live together because there would be the risk of misbehaviour.
Xizors Palace wrote: » As regards the last question, in the RCC, marriage is a sacrament. In the state, it is a contract essentially. They could have it in a registry office but there is still a stigma surrounding that in Ireland. As regards money, I don't see what the point in having big churches if the faith is not being taught in them. I said it before, we're wasting our time. Better to have a small, flourishing underground church than a big church full of people who don't give a damn and couldn't care less.
28064212 wrote: » Absolutely not, although I don't think that's what you meant. No country anywhere compels people to perform abortions. However, Catholics are given a choice, they can either be doctors or Catholics. The nature of the profession means you can't be both, but it is a choice If the state ever tried to bring in a law forcing churches to allow gay marriage, I'd be the first to protest against it
