Catholicism and the Unborn

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

However I find it very hard to understand why the Irish people put up with this horrible, evil institution continuing to influence law, education and healthcare.

The RCC broadly supported Irish nationalist aspirations during the colonial era, as the colonial power was protestant, so anything that would get up the nose of the brits would be good. Once the country gained independence, the Vatican was one of the first -- perhaps the first? -- "country" to recognise the new republic and to grace its new capital with an "embassy". And when it came time to discard the original Constitution, the RCC was there to ensure that it got pride of place in the new, and decidedly unsecular one, in 1937.

References to Ireland being a "catholic country" buy into the Vatican's pious fiction -- the country is not "catholic". On the contrary, the country has a lot of citizens who self-describe as catholic in the occasional censuses that the state carries out. It's a moot point how many of these self-describers are "catholic" within the Vatican's understanding; probably very few, and probably no more than 10%-20% at the very most (and possibly far lower, if you're prepared to be strict about it).

Anyhow, the Vatican has supported Irish nationalism for so long, that many fools and bumpkins still have very great difficulty in separating the RCC and the Irish nationalism it encouraged, to the extent that somebody who disagrees with the RCC is understood to be fundamentally "anti-Irish".

That and the fact that people don't understand what secularism is. But that's a longer debate.

recedite

Obliq wrote: »

How dare you say that part I've bolded? What is that? Could it be you meant to say "The little women are talking amongst themselves again -

Relax, I'd say its more that people are harping on about RCC and legislation, when constitutional change would be needed to really change things.

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

Relax, I'd say its more that people are harping on about RCC and legislation, when constitutional change would be needed to really change things.

Well, yes. I'm harping on about it quite a lot really - mostly on the Christian forum though. Probably annoying the crap out of folks, but hey....that comes naturally. Still though, at 40yrs old, female, atheist, pro-choice - to have got this far in this country without completely losing the run of myself is an achievement. Gotta give myself that!

Obliq

Nice graph btw :cool:

Galvasean

Obliq wrote: »

Well, yes. I'm harping on about it quite a lot really - mostly on the Christian forum though. Probably annoying the crap out of folks, but hey....that comes naturally. Still though, at 40yrs old, female, atheist, pro-choice - to have got this far in this country without completely losing the run of myself is an achievement. Gotta give myself that!

Haven't checked that forum in ages. Might wander over now and have a looksie. I'd say you, as a poster, get mixed responses there.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

You do realise you just said "Give Youth Defence a break" in front of everybody here, yes?

Well, I've always been a bit of an anarchist.

Obliq wrote: »

Could it be you meant to say "The little women are talking amongst themselves again - we'll let 'em off for a bit and then rip their arguments apart with our manly intellects? "
Certainly comes across that way.

I don't remember saying anything about letting them off for a bit.

And I haven't seen much advanced by way of argument, either.

Lucy8080

Any legitimate reason on why my post was removed?

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Any legitimate reason on why my post was removed?

Yes. On many previous occasions, you'd been politely asked, asked, then less politely warned, that any content-free posts would be deleted or that you'd be carded. Yesterday's post was particularly vacuous, so it was deleted. Similarly vacuous future posts will earn you a card. I explained this at some length last week.

If you would like to continue this conversation, please do so by PM. Any public posts discussing forum moderation will be deleted without comment.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I've always been a bit of an anarchist.I don't remember saying anything about letting them off for a bit.

And I haven't seen much advanced by way of argument, either.

At this point I'll see you one anarchist and raise you a nihilist altogether. :mad: :cool:
Yeah, there's not much serious argument there - that's why I'm here, but it has it's purpose. There are many, many people who genuinely think that they have fully researched an issue when they sign their avaaz petition and pop it on their fb page. However, it's hearts&minds, isn't it? - they will more than likely vote the same way they "like" stuff on fb.

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

Haven't checked that forum in ages. Might wander over now and have a looksie. I'd say you, as a poster, get mixed responses there.

Hmmm....just a little bit! Seem to have been messing with a few heads alright - unintentionally btw - just putting forth my views

pH

I know dates like "the 1600s" have been mentioned, but surely the catholic church's about face is much later than this.

Aren't there lots of horror stories from the very recent past of how miscarriages and still births were treated by the church (and how they forced the community to act) - none of it giving even the slightest impression that the church gave a damn about unborn children.

this sort of sickening stuff etc.
http://www.paddydoyle.com/they-buried-our-baby-for-5-and-nothing-more-was-said/

PopePalpatine

I always assumed that the Church opposed abortion and contraception on the grounds that large families = large armies for religious wars.

Galvasean

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I always assumed that the Church opposed abortion and contraception on the grounds that large families = large armies for religious wars.

Nowadays that is less to do with wars and more to do with having more votes for democratic elections/referendums.

mathepac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No Mathepac it is the same position. ...

No it's not. Your first post stated it as an indisputable fact, the second has it downgraded to a "belief".

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... There are obviously complexities that I don't fully understand in the relationship between Ireland and the Catholic church. However I find it very hard to understand why the Irish people put up with this horrible, evil institution continuing to influence law, education and healthcare....

The reason the Church has influence over education and healthcare is that the Church in Ireland financed the building of schools and hospitals when Ireland was an impoverished country occupied by a foreign power whose stated objectives were the eradication of our language, culture and our chosen religion and to keep the native population in a permanently impoverished state by denying them the rights to own property, the right to be educated or vote.

You are correct, there are complexities here you don't fully understand.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... I knew Ireland was a Catholic country, I wrongly assumed it were Catholic like England is Anglican. In other words I didn't expect it to have any impact on our day to day life or influence publicly funded institutions like schools and hospitals. ...

Clearly there's a lot you don't understand about the Church of England too.

As Head of State, the Monarch is the Head of the Church of England, which is why there is a furore when a potential Monarch gets divorced, marries a "commoner", coverts to another religion, commits adultery, etc.

The Head of the Church of England has the final say over the appointment of Bishops. These Bishops, Lords of the Church, automatically get seats in the House of Lords, where they may vote and hold sway over secular matters.

Thankfully in Ireland we haven't reached the stage where Church and State, legislature and religion are as intertwined as in England (Britain).

Kiwi in IE

No Mathpac the word 'belief' was used to explain my use of the word 'promote'. I believe that promote was an appropriate word to use. Others may think 'facilitate' which the RCC is also guilty of, to be more appropriate.

As for your crack at the Anglican religion in regard to the monarchy of England, I think you will find the days of Wallis Simpson are over, Charlie is on marriage number 2 and Will's future queen is a commoner.

Are you implying that the RCC is less involved in the state here than the COE in the UK? Are 92% of English schools COE run? Is medical treatment denied in the UK because of the beliefs of the COE? I think not. While I do not believe the teachings of any religion, the COE at least presents as a religion that has some ability to move (albeit slowly) with the times, unlike the RCC who are still preaching against contraception in vulnerable countries like the Philippines.

Hotblack Desiato

The UK may have an established religion with a monarch at the head of it, but it's a far more secular state in practice than ours is.

Hotblack Desiato

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

While I do not believe the teachings of any religion, the COE at least presents as a religion that has some ability to move (albeit slowly) with the times, unlike the RCC who are still preaching against contraception in vulnerable countries like the Philippines.

Many if not most Catholics (including those who attend mass) are now quite Protestant in their beliefs, they just don't know or won't admit it.
Transubstantiation (eucharist as flesh and blood, or representing flesh and blood) ?
Papal absolute authority and infallibility, or not?
Divorce?
Homosexuality?
Female clergy?
(although the last 3 are controversial to a greater or lesser extent among Anglicans)

But they were brought up in their RCC indoctrination schools to believe that Irish = Catholic :rolleyes:

Many baptised Catholics (including myself) have long turned their back on religion either actively and decisively, or passively (ticking RCC on census but never going to church etc), many others continue on with some sort of religious belief and practice but are actually far closer to a Protestant faith than a Catholic one. They'd be shocked to be told this.

They'd also be shocked to learn that the Church of Ireland describes itself as a 'Catholic and Reformed' church...

mathepac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No Mathpac the word 'belief' was used to explain my use of the word 'promote'. I believe that promote was an appropriate word to use. Others may think 'facilitate' which the RCC is also guilty of, to be more appropriate.....

or so you believe.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

...
As for your crack at the Anglican religion in regard to the monarchy of England, I think you will find the days of Wallis Simpson are over, Charlie is on marriage number 2 and Will's future queen is a commoner. ...

I had no crack at the Anglicans, I merely stated the facts in relation to the entanglements between Church and State that posters like yourself conveniently ignore when accusing Ireland of having a Church dominated State. England has it in spades. Case proven, even to those in obvious thrall to the Monarchy.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... Are you implying that the RCC is less involved in the state here than the COE in the UK? ...

I'm implying nothing. I made a clear statement that Church and State are one and the same thing in England (Britain / UK) The representative of the Head of the Church of England signs new legislation into law.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

... Are 92% of English schools COE run? Is medical treatment denied in the UK because of the beliefs of the COE? I think not. While I do not believe the teachings of any religion, the COE at least presents as a religion that has some ability to move (albeit slowly) with the times, ...

In a wealthy country like England it was not necessary to build schools on parish land with parish funds in times past and to depend on the local Church to finance them an on-going basis as the local authorities / central Government took care of those functions; in Ireland the Government was committed to keeping the majority of the people uneducated. The Church-funded schools were replacements for the "hedge schools", literally schools run in fields and behind hedges by dedicated teachers and priests who risked severe penalties if they were found educating "the peasantry".

Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentary.

Obliq

mathepac wrote: »

Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentary.

I think she's learning pretty fast, and that's beside the point. Kiwi is a new arrival to life in Ireland and her observations on how the RCC permeates aspects of modern Irish society does not require a history lesson (except in terms of how it is still allowed to happen by the Irish people), it only requires eyes, ears and brain.

Hotblack Desiato

mathepac wrote: »

Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentary.

why didn't you mention the secular and inclusive national school system established by the British, and hijacked by the RCC and the more extreme Protestants and turned into sectarian indoctrination?

pH

mathepac wrote: »

Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentary.

Rewriting history for your current political purposes isn't anything new I guess, but in your case I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose you're really just ignorant of the facts rather then deliberately falsifying them.

The basis of a state funded national system with a goal of providing funds for a secular integrated and non denominational national school systems was instigated in 1831 by Lord Stanley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Letter

This system had been attacked and manipulated and fought against by the catholic church ever since (and indeed protestant churches too) resulting in the apartheid system we have today.

fisgon

My impression more and more through this debate is that Catholicism is engaged in a bizarre kind of foetus-worship, like the Egyptians used to worship the sun.

They ascribe qualities (full humanity, child-status) that the worshipped being does not in fact possess, and are incapable of looking at the real nature of embryos and foetuses, or even talking about them in a rational, balanced manner.

They really give the impression at times that if they could give the foetus more rights than the pregnant woman, they would. It's pretty bizarre. A case in point is a letter from some priest in the Irish Times last week, who made one point, ie. that there were two people who died in the Halapannavar tragedy (of course including the foetus), and that that shouldn't be forgotten. The intention, of course, being, to minimize the importance of the life of the mother, and to deflect the attention back on to the foetus. As if they were equivalent.
Bizarre foetus worship.

ShooterSF

fisgon wrote: »

They really give the impression at times that if they could give the foetus more rights than the pregnant woman, they would. It's pretty bizarre.

Not really; After all, there's a 50%(ish) chance the foetus will be male so it makes sense for them to give it more rights!

Kiwi in IE

mathepac wrote: »

or so you believe.

I am finding the above argument pedantic and tiresome at best. It appears others understood my meaning.

I had no crack at the Anglicans, I merely stated the facts in relation to the entanglements between Church and State that posters like yourself conveniently ignore when accusing Ireland of having a Church dominated State. England has it in spades. Case proven, even to those in obvious thrall to the Monarchy.

Have I at any stage implied I am in thrall of the monarchy? I was simply pointing out facts to dispute your incorrect statement that the COE does not accept second relationships and marriage to commoners for royalty.


I'm implying nothing. I made a clear statement that Church and State are one and the same thing in England (Britain / UK) The representative of the Head of the Church of England signs new legislation into law.

I am aware of this, however the fact remains that in the UK human rights are not denied on the basis of religious beliefs.


In a wealthy country like England it was not necessary to build schools on parish land with parish funds in times past and to depend on the local Church to finance them an on-going basis as the local authorities / central Government took care of those functions; in Ireland the Government was committed to keeping the majority of the people uneducated. The Church-funded schools were replacements for the "hedge schools", literally schools run in fields and behind hedges by dedicated teachers and priests who risked severe penalties if they were found educating "the peasantry".

And in order to show appropriate gratitude toward this new oppressor it was deemed appropriate to sacrifice the children of Ireland to it for the next 100 years?


Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentanty.

Perhaps it is time that what belongs in history were left there!

mathepac

pH wrote: »

Rewriting history for your current political purposes isn't anything new I guess, but in your case I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose you're really just ignorant of the facts rather then deliberately falsifying them. ...

Far from it in fact and your condescending tone is noted.

You very conveniently produced Stanley without giving his schools letter and proposals a context.

The Catholic Relief Act of 1829, while regarded by many as a triumph for O'Connell and Catholic Emancipation, it was in fact a pyrrhic victory for Irish Catholics.

While it granted Catholics certain freedoms, it also had the immediate effects of :

• reducing the overall number of Catholic voters
• forcing Catholics to pay tithes to the Anglican Church

Against this background Stanley's letter struggled to find acceptance.

ninja900 wrote: »

why didn't you mention the secular and inclusive national school system established by the British, and hijacked by the RCC and the more extreme Protestants and turned into sectarian indoctrination?

See above.

mathepac

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Perhaps it is time that what belongs in history were left there!

A wiser man than me once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Kiwi in IE

mathepac wrote: »

Far from it in fact and your condescending tone is noted.


See above.

mathepac wrote: »

Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentary.

Interesting!

Kiwi in IE

mathepac wrote: »

A wiser man than me once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I did not say the past should be forgotten.

Allowing the RCC to continue to have a stranglehold over the country in the 21st century, because they were the preferred oppressor in the early twentieth, does not make a lot of sense.

recedite

mathepac wrote: »

In a wealthy country like England it was not necessary to build schools on parish land with parish funds in times past and to depend on the local Church to finance them an on-going basis as the local authorities / central Government took care of those functions; in Ireland the Government was committed to keeping the majority of the people uneducated. The Church-funded schools were replacements for the "hedge schools", literally schools run in fields and behind hedges by dedicated teachers and priests who risked severe penalties if they were found educating "the peasantry".

Learn some Irish history before deciding you can dish out criticism and out of context solutions and commentary.

The early schools in England were church or privately run schools, the same as in Ireland.

Also, the worst of the penal laws effectively ended in 1778 with The Papists Act.
Then with further reforms in 1791 and 1793 RC schools were allowed to be set up, and in 1829 there was full Catholic Emancipation.
In 1831, with the Stanley Letter, the British govt. tried to set up secular schools to fully integrate the divided population.

Yet somehow, you have convinced yourself that these were "bad things" cunningly designed to subjugate the humble "Irish Catholic".

swampgas

Funnily enough, I remember a distinct anti-English dimension to the demonisation of contraception, divorce and abortion when I was young (back in the 70s and 80s). It was often implied that as these were evils practiced by the evil godless English, not only would it be immoral to introduce such practices to Ireland, it would be downright unpatriotic as well.