Shocking: RTE and "Would You Believe"

Estebano

Just finished watching "Would You Believe" on RTE. I have to say I was shocked.

An Association of Catholic Priests gathering full of priests in their civvies, women "priests" saying "Mass", spirit of Vatican II malarkey and a hip Bishop who likes to avail of all the benefits of the Church, whilst preaching heresy.

I wonder will RTE show a bit of "balance" and go down to St Kevin's on Harrington Street to see the real soul of the Church at play?

Utterly contemptible stuff on air tonight. If I lived in Dublin, I'd picket that church that allows priestesses on the altar of God. Diarmuid Martin should clamp down on it as a matter of grave urgency. If he waivers, he should take his orders from Rome or step aside.

These people should go set up their own church. Instead, they're intent on stealing from the Catholic Church.

Thinkingaboutit

The Irish Times has a thing for those alt Catholic fools.

Estebano

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The Irish Times has a thing for those alt Catholic fools.

And Patsy McGarry is their pied piper.

Thinkingaboutit

Patsy McGarry is someone with a predictable position. He can't do much harm. The problem is that the Irish Times likes to give the impression that this is the voice of grassroot priests.

Estebano

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Patsy McGarry is someone with a predictable position. He can't do much harm. The problem is that the Irish Times likes to give the impression that this is the voice of grassroot priests.

Anyone affiliated with the Association of [Liberal] Catholic Priests should be booted out of their parochial home.

kelly1

RTE just love pushing the women priests/married priests/lay-lead church agenda.

lmaopml

Didn't see the program, but I would be slow to critizise RTE for reporting actual facts as opposed to non factual stuff obviously. I think the media serves a purpose, and if it's factual, then it's better if it's common knowledge, and out in the open.

Thinkingaboutit

At least they go accuse a priest of making babies.

Harry Angstrom

So what exactly is wrong with having women priests or married priests for that matter??
In my opinion, the Catholic Church would be in a far healthier place if women were allowed to become priests, and if priests were allowed to marry.

Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with his apostles being married so why on earth should the Catholic Church have such an aversion to it?

lmaopml

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So what exactly is wrong with having women priests or married priests for that matter??
In my opinion, the Catholic Church would be in a far healthier place if women were allowed to become priests, and if priests were allowed to marry.

Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with his apostles being married so why on earth should the Catholic Church have such an aversion to it?

It's not a dogma of the Church, but a disciplin in the Latin rite to be celibate - there are other rites that do allow a Priest to be married and they are Catholic too- it depends how you are called.

You would have to understand the theology associated with the Eucharist in order to understand why a woman can't be a Priest. The Church in this regard is not 'hating' women, I am a woman and I know that in the Church I have a role, as both member and as a woman, I can certainly spread the faith though and get involved in the Parish. A woman can no more become a Priest and be Catholic than a man can become a Nun and be Catholic...That's not the Catholic Church, it's another Church..

Hope that helps.

SillyMcCarthy

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So what exactly is wrong with having women priests or married priests for that matter??
In my opinion, the Catholic Church would be in a far healthier place if women were allowed to become priests, and if priests were allowed to marry.

Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with his apostles being married so why on earth should the Catholic Church have such an aversion to it?

Women priests is the equalivant of women being allowed to drive on irish roads & I've seen enough to know!
The kitchen should be enough to keep 'em happy & entertained & if their not happy in that domain, there is always the bedroom!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Harry Angstrom

lmaopml wrote: »

It's not a dogma of the Church, but a disciplin in the Latin rite to be celibate - there are other rites that do allow a Priest to be married and they are Catholic too- it depends how you are called.

You would have to understand the theology associated with the Eucharist in order to understand why a woman can't be a Priest. The Church in this regard is not 'hating' women, I am a woman and I know that in the Church I have a role, as both member and as a woman, I can certainly spread the faith though and get involved in the Parish. A woman can no more become a Priest and be Catholic than a man can become a Nun and be Catholic...That's not the Catholic Church, it's another Church..

Hope that helps.

Don't give me all of that theology nonsense. It's about as relevant as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This was the very thing that Jesus was railing against. As far as I can see, the whole reason behind a celibate clergy is far more to do with pragmatism than dogma or theology. It suits the Catholic Church not to have married priests from a financial point of view. Far better to have a "celibate" clergy than to have married clergy where the Church would have a financial obligation towards the wife and children of a married priest if he were to die whilst still a serving priest. What really annoys me is when I hear representatives of the Catholic Church talking about celibacy being a "gift" :rolleyes:

There's nothing natural about enforced celibacy. In my opinion, priests would be far more prepared to deal with the practical difficulties of life if they themselves experienced what it was like to raise a family and have a spouse. I believe that marriage should be an option for priests. Fair enough if some priests decide it is not for them, but to impose it forcefully upon priests has done inestimable damage to the Catholic Church.

Harry Angstrom

lmaopml wrote: »

I am a woman and I know that in the Church I have a role, as both member and as a woman, I can certainly spread the faith though and get involved in the Parish. A woman can no more become a Priest and be Catholic than a man can become a Nun and be Catholic

Do you not feel that, as a woman, you are being treated as an inferior being because of the fact that you are precluded from becoming a priest? The Catholic Church has hardly been a bastion for feminism and women's rights over the years. The prohibition of women priests is further evidence of this, and not just the prohibition of women priests but the sheer pig-headedness of the Catholic Church to even discuss the matter.

Newsite

lmaopml wrote: »

It's not a dogma of the Church, but a disciplin in the Latin rite to be celibate - there are other rites that do allow a Priest to be married and they are Catholic too- it depends how you are called.

I know this is your answer on this lmaopml, but it just doesn't add up. The majority of priests - or at least a significant number - want an end to mandatory celibacy. So how could it be that they have an option? Surely if any priest did not want mandatory celibacy, he would just join a different rite?

And why wouldn't they want to be married and have a sexual life, just like any other man - all the more so since the mandatory aspect is decreed by Rome, not by God.

Newsite

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Do you not feel that, as a woman, you are being treated as an inferior being because of the fact that you are precluded from becoming a priest? The Catholic Church has hardly been a bastion for feminism and women's rights over the years. The prohibition of women priests is further evidence of this, and not just the prohibition of women priests but the sheer pig-headedness of the Catholic Church to even discuss the matter.

Afraid you've got this one wrong - the Bible states that a woman cannot be a preacher and is to look to the man in matters of preaching and teaching.

lmaopml

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Don't give me all of that theology nonsense. It's about as relevant as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This was the very thing that Jesus was railing against. As far as I can see, the whole reason behind a celibate clergy is far more to do with pragmatism than dogma or theology. It suits the Catholic Church not to have married priests from a financial point of view. Far better to have a "celibate" clergy than to have married clergy where the Church would have a financial obligation towards the wife and children of a married priest if he were to die whilst still a serving priest. What really annoys me is when I hear representatives of the Catholic Church talking about celibacy being a "gift" :rolleyes:

There's nothing natural about enforced celibacy. In my opinion, priests would be far more prepared to deal with the practical difficulties of life if they themselves experienced what it was like to raise a family and have a spouse. I believe that marriage should be an option for priests. Fair enough if some priests decide it is not for them, but to impose it forcefully upon priests has done inestimable damage to the Catholic Church.

Well, the faith is centred around Christ and theology, so I don't think it's nonsense to speak of theology in relation to the faith. For sure you could be right that married clergy could be a good thing in the Latin Rite, but at the moment it's a disciplin - it's not outlawed within the Catholic Church though, to be a Priest and be married in another rite if that's the calling. A Priest serves many years before he takes his vows of his own freewill, nobody is forcing celibacy - I think being faithful to the vow can be difficult, like anything...and there have been terrible Priests for sure.

I think it's important that Catholics can express themselves though and effect change from the grassroots, so no harm in discussing it with the clergy and with Bishops etc. a dialogue is good.

Harry Angstrom

Newsite wrote: »

Afraid you've got this one wrong - the Bible states that a woman cannot be a preacher and is to look to the man in matters of preaching and teaching.

The Bible states a lot of things mate. If one were to take it literally, we would more than likely be living in a very very strange society where fair and reasonable man-made laws would be set aside for the sake of something entirely different, such as Muslim countries where Sharia laws are strictly upheld according to the Koran.

Newsite

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

The Bible states a lot of things mate. If one were to take it literally, we would more than likely be living in a very very strange society where fair and reasonable man-made laws would be set aside for the sake of something entirely different, such as Muslim countries where Sharia laws are strictly upheld according to the Koran.

You'd need to elaborate on that. We don't take every piece of it literally, we interpret it based on an understanding of the texts as a whole. But it's quite clear that the role of a teacher and preacher according to the Bible is that of a man's.

JONJO THE MISER

My god if some of the posters on here had there way we would be back to the 1950's,some posters remind me a lot of the evangelical sorts in the deep south of the states.

Harry Angstrom

Newsite wrote: »

But it's quite clear that the role of a teacher and preacher according to the Bible is that of a man's.

Yes, and that's according to the mores and folkways of people who existed a few thousand years ago. Did it ever occur to you that, in those days, they also believed the Earth to be flat??

Newsite

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Yes, and that's according to the mores and folkways of people who existed a few thousand years ago. Did it ever occur to you that, in those days, they also believed the Earth to be flat??

Em no it's according to the word of God.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Harry Angstrom

Newsite wrote: »

Em no it's according to the word of God.

So, according to the word of God, Adam and Eve were the first people to appear in the world, which was created in 6 days? :rolleyes:

Harry Angstrom

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Philosophers and scientists may have held this view but I bet that most "ordinary" people at the time believed that the Earth was flat. Don't forget, relatively speaking, it's not that long ago that Galileo was branded a heretic by the Catholic Church for daring to suggest that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.

PDN

Moderating Instruction
Let's keep it on topic please folks. RTE's "Would You Believe" and the liberal priests.

Those who want to make generalised rants about Christianity or the Bible can take it to A&A or to After Hours.

Estebano

This isn't about women priests at all. It's about open dissent. If these women want to go off and be priestesses, they should consider another church. Instead they're quite happy to steal from the Catholic church.

Peregrinus

Newsite wrote: »

You'd need to elaborate on that. We don't take every piece of it literally, we interpret it based on an understanding of the texts as a whole. But it's quite clear that the role of a teacher and preacher according to the Bible is that of a man's.

More clear to some than to others, you’d have to concede, Newsite. There is a variety of sincerely-held and much-prayed-about positions on this within Christianity, and (official) Catholicism is somewhere in the middle. There are Protestant groups which take a more restrictive view of women’s ministry than Catholicism does - yours may be one of them - and other Protestant groups which take a less restrictive view.

I haven’t seen the programme - I don’t live in Ireland - but judging from this conversation (and leaving aside, as PDN suggests “generalised rants about Christianity or the Bible”) the issue seems to be this: what do we make of Catholics who retain an identification with the Catholic church but who reject Catholic teaching or practice with respect to matters like women’s ministry, or clerical celibacy?

There is, I think, a distinctively Catholic take on this. The Protestant tradition lays great stress on the unmediated relationship between the individual believer and Jesus Christ. By “unmediated” I mean unmediated by other believers; the relationship is of course mediated by scripture. The Protestant believer goes where scripture takes him and, if that takes him away from other Protestant believers who read or understand scripture differently, so be it. Hence on a question such as women’s ministry you get Protestant denominations to the “right” of Catholicism, and others to the “left”, and this division is replicated on a thousand other matters, some of great moment and some of little.

The result is a huge network of Protestant denominations and independent churches. To the Protestant believer, this isn’t a problem; the members of all these churches and denominations are united by their common baptism and their shared faith in Jesus Christ, which is ultimately all that is necessary. The fact that their disagreement on other other points prevents them from worshipping together (or forming regular worshipping communities together) is just a consequence of the diversity of their relationships with Christ.

But for the Catholic, community - and communion - are essential. Even if two Catholics disagree, they both recognize the need to worship together, and to be part of the same worshipping community, however problematic their disagreement may make it. That shared commitment to communion, in fact, is what makes this a disagreement between two Catholics, rather than a disagreement between two Protestants, or between a Protestant and a Catholic.

So, a Catholic who disagrees about, say, women priests but who still identifies as a Catholic might be a dissenter as regards women priests, but is completely Catholic as regards the desire for communion, however problematic that communion may be. Whereas the Catholic on the other side who says “why don’t you go off and join another church/found a church of your own/stop pretending to be Catholic?” may be Catholic in their views on the ordination of women, but is distinctly Protestant in their views on the imperative towards communion.

lmaopml

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, a Catholic who disagrees about, say, women priests but who still identifies as a Catholic might be a dissenter as regards women priests, but is completely Catholic as regards the desire for communion, however problematic that communion may be. Whereas the Catholic on the other side who says “why don’t you go off and join another church/found a church of your own/stop pretending to be Catholic?” may be Catholic in their views on the ordination of women, but is distinctly Protestant in their views on the imperative towards communion.

That's an interesting way of putting it Peregrinus. You've articulated something there that I feel very strongly about too, and probably would have wrote a novel to get across - I also would be of the opinion that if a person identifies as Catholic, but for instance has difficulty with some of the teachings, than they are still Catholic and in communion, just having difficulty always being inline.

For instance, I don't receive the Eucharist as my husband and I use contraception, however, I would see myself as being out of kilter with the Church as opposed to the Church not conforming to me, and still attend mass, make my peace etc with God and praise him with other Catholics. Hmm, it's not easy being a perfect Catholic that's for sure! I think it's important that the Church has a dialogue with it's people and also that they understand their faith a little better sometimes too....

gerbilgranny

I saw the programme too - and was shocked.

SHOCKED THAT WE WERE SEEING SUCH A HOPEFUL & ENCOURAGING ACCOUNT OF HOW THINGS ARE.

I know that whilst the headline 'status' of the Catholic Church is dire at the moment, on the ground, there are faithful people who are working to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth. This was borne out on WYB, though as was said, 'new blood' is needed.

I think last night's programme showed evidence of the presence of God amongst us here on earth. Thanks be to God!

Estebano

One of the priests said the church is going to go two ways: back to its roots or this uneducated "grassroots" movement.

One thing is for sure, this dissenting movement will not be tolerated much more. They're stealing the resources of the church to peddle heresy.

The Brigadier

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, a Catholic who disagrees about, say, women priests but who still identifies as a Catholic might be a dissenter as regards women priests, but is completely Catholic as regards the desire for communion, however problematic that communion may be. Whereas the Catholic on the other side who says “why don’t you go off and join another church/found a church of your own/stop pretending to be Catholic?” may be Catholic in their views on the ordination of women, but is distinctly Protestant in their views on the imperative towards communion.

To be honest with you a Catholic who rejects any dogma of the Church commits the sin of heresy. Should this be a "formal rejection" of the dogma then they subject to excommunication under canon law.

What baffles me are the numbers of people who call themselves Catholic but think that fundamental aspects of the faith can be changed to suit them.

As as Catholic there are rules that you have to follow and things you need to accept. I don't try and force my views on other people. Anyone is free to walk another path and reject the dogma of the Church - it is just impossible to do so and remain a Catholic.

The Brigadier

Oh, by the way, I was shocked at the hippy dippy rubbish on that programme.

It just shows the way modern society has evolved. We objectify the self and the programme seemed to focus on far too many people wanting the church to change to suit their lives. I found it offensive and and a crying disgrace.

saa

The Brigadier wrote: »

What baffles me are the numbers of people who call themselves Catholic but think that fundamental aspects of the faith can be changed to suit them.

As as Catholic there are rules that you have to follow and things you need to accept. I don't try and force my views on other people. Anyone is free to walk another path and reject the dogma of the Church - it is just impossible to do so and remain a Catholic.

But the church has changed over time, you cannot live by every command of the bible so it's impossible not to pick and choose.

The Brigadier

saa wrote: »

But the church has changed over time, you cannot live by every command of the bible so it's impossible not to pick and choose.

Catholics don't live by "every command of the bible". Only Protestants live sola scriptura.

CMpunked

I'd welcome any kind of step towards ordaning women.
After all, we were created equal, God even points it out when he said we are to be together.
So its strange to think that the religious leaders still maintain that women are below men in that regard.

The Brigadier

CMpunked wrote: »

I'd welcome any kind of step towards ordaning women.
After all, we were created equal, God even points it out when he said we are to be together.
So its strange to think that the religious leaders still maintain that women are below men in that regard.

First of all the Church doesn't maintain that women are below men in any regard. They are simply different.

kelly1

As a man, I demand the right to have babies!

Estebano

These people are potentially committing the gravest type of crime known - crimes against the faith. Now I'm no judge and juror, but the people benefiting from church funds featured on that program should be investigated as a matter of urgency.

If this is left to fester, souls will be decieved, people will refuse to fund the Church if they know their money is being directed in such a fashion and a snow-ball effect could arise leading to a great rupture in the Irish church. I fear that this is exactly what they're after - a rupture. The wheat must be separated from the chaff every now and then which is fine by me, just so long as it's made very clear that the church and her wealth does not belong to them.

This situation needs to be nipped in the bud by the powers that be and a very clear message sent out that crimes against the faith will not be tolerated.

The Church in Ireland is currently an unstable system and is liable to go out of control. It is a 21st century organisation with 19th century infrastructure. We can no longer have 26 dioceses and a church in every village. People have cars and internet these days - they can travel to Mass and inform themselves much better than ever before from online publications.

- historic dioceses will need to be merged/abolished
- churches with low Mass attendence sold off (with the proceeds going back to Rome)
- a la carte "Catholic" schools rented to the State for their Big Secular Society experiment
- defunct seminaries/convents/friaries sold off
- allow current clergy to retire in peace and import new clergy/religious from abroad and put in place a comprehensive cultural assimilation program for them
- rebuild from the ground up - a smaller, truer, more holy and more faithful Church

If decisive action is not taken, a muddle will evolve - an environment in which alt Catholics would thrive in.

I am disillusioned with the current leadership (with a few notable exceptions) and fear for the future of the Church. God help us all.

Estebano

CMpunked wrote: »

I'd welcome any kind of step towards ordaning women.
After all, we were created equal, God even points it out when he said we are to be together.

First off, I'll bet you're not even Catholic, yet feel perfectly equipped to opine on how the Church should be run.

Secondly, "equality" is a socialist concept. We're not all equal - we are all dealt a hand. We all have our talents and we all have our crosses to bear.

Onesimus

Estebano wrote: »

First off, I'll bet you're not even Catholic, yet feel perfectly equipped to opine on how the Church should be run.

Secondly, "equality" is a socialist concept. We're not all equal - we are all dealt a hand. We all have our talents and we all have our crosses to bear.

We are all Equal. But God has given both sexes their theological role in the plan of salvation. The woman has hers and the man has his.

Women can no more represent Christ and stand in his place than a man can the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is not just something we get from the Bible but Sacred Tradition also. It can never be changed so conversations about it ( with anyone ) are futile really. Especially with self styled experts from the internet who only look at the Church from the outside in as opposed to standing from within the Church and looking out.

Estebano

Onesimus wrote: »

We are all Equal. But God has given both sexes their theological role in the plan of salvation. The woman has hers and the man has his.

Women can no more represent Christ and stand in his place than a man can the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is not just something we get from the Bible but Sacred Tradition also. It can never be changed so conversations about it ( with anyone ) are futile really. Especially with self styled experts from the internet who only look at the Church from the outside in as opposed to standing from within the Church and looking out.

We are all equal in many senses. But "equality" is not absolute. It's a loaded word with many liberal/socialist connotations and I try to avoid the word wherever possible. I also grit my teeth when I hear people banging on about "equality" as if there's an assumed universal liberal understanding.

Onesimus

Estebano wrote: »

We are all equal in many senses. But "equality" is not absolute. It's a loaded word with many liberal/socialist connotations and I try to avoid the word wherever possible. I also grit my teeth when I hear people banging on about "equality" as if there's an assumed universal liberal understanding.

I understand what you mean. One person says ''Love'' and another says ''Love'' but both people approach the word ''Love'' with two completely different interpretations/perceptions. Catholic doctrine has equality and it's interpretations correct yet many non-catholic perceptions of equality are confused at best because they fail to see the theology behind it.

I reccomend people read Theology of the Body by Bl.Pope John Paul II.

Benny_Cake

Estebano wrote: »

First off, I'll bet you're not even Catholic, yet feel perfectly equipped to opine on how the Church should be run.

Secondly, "equality" is a socialist concept. We're not all equal - we are all dealt a hand. We all have our talents and we all have our crosses to bear.

Socialism as a political philosophy largely emerged in the 19th century.

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." -Galatians 3:28

One can dispute the merits or lack thereof of women priests - personally I'm in favour - but the idea that equality lacks a basis in Christianity simply isn't true.

philologos

Estebano wrote: »

One of the priests said the church is going to go two ways: back to its roots or this uneducated "grassroots" movement.

One thing is for sure, this dissenting movement will not be tolerated much more. They're stealing the resources of the church to peddle heresy.

The Christian church started as a grass root movement of people focused and committed to teaching salvation by Jesus Christ and Him alone. I wonder what happened to that sometimes.

Estebano

philologos wrote: »

The Christian church started as a grass root movement of people focused and committed to teaching salvation by Jesus Christ and Him alone. I wonder what happened to that sometimes.

Anyone of good health can become a priest/nun/monk/etc. You don't need aristocratic blood in you - just a calling to God. That's pretty grassroots if you ask me. Similarly, no man or woman - thief, beggar, murderer - is turned away from the church gate.

God chose his disciples based on their abilities. The Church needs able people to show leadership and preach the Gospel, not self-centered people who pick and chose what suits them.

The Brigadier

Estebano wrote: »

We are all equal in many senses. But "equality" is not absolute. It's a loaded word with many liberal/socialist connotations and I try to avoid the word wherever possible. I also grit my teeth when I hear people banging on about "equality" as if there's an assumed universal liberal understanding.

Just to you know the official Catholic position is that men and women are equal.

Estebano

The Brigadier wrote: »

Just to you know the official Catholic position is that men and women are equal.

I understand this. Thanks.

The Brigadier

Estebano wrote: »

I understand this. Thanks.

OK, this post confused me.

Estebano wrote: »

We're not all equal - we are all dealt a hand. We all have our talents and we all have our crosses to bear.

This is worth people reading ....

Catechism of the Catholic Church wrote:

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.

Estebano

The Brigadier wrote: »

OK, this post confused me.

We are not equal in an absolute sense - some of us are born with birth deficiencies, some of us stutter and can't speak properly, some of us are bad leaders, etc. For example: it is disingenuous to pretend that people with Down's Syndrome can go on to run successful multinational companies. Maybe it is possible, but for most with Down's Syndrome, their reality is very different.

We're equal before God. Equal in that we're all going to die. Equal in terms of potential to tarnish our souls. Equal in many other ways.

But we are not biologically equal - man and woman are biological reciprocals of each other. We are not financially equal - there are rich and poor. But to be rich is not necessarily evil as wealth can be used for great good. We are not physically equal - a boxer can get into a brawl with an office worker and kill him, that's not to say his strength is a bad thing. We are not sexually equal - a homosexual union is not equivalent to a normal marriage between a man and a woman.

Onesimus

Estebano does make a good point though. hmmm.