Fr Flannery Press Conference

greenpilot

Hi, I'm surprised there isn't a mention if this here? Here's the heads up anyway. Interesting to see what he has to say. Fair play to him. The man has a pair.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0120/breaking8.htm

El_Duderino 09

greenpilot wrote: »

Hi, I'm surprised there isn't a mention if this here? Here's the heads up anyway. Interesting to see what he has to say. Fair play to him. The man has a pair.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0120/breaking8.htm

As a non catholic, I can see why you would applaud this guy from a 21st century point of view which values equality. On the other hand I have to ask whether equality is part of catholicism.

According to the article they want him to sign a statement declaring his opinion that women can never be ordained. That is the party line and it is not of the 21st century. So is the religion he is talking about catholicism or is this guy a catholic at all?

georgieporgy

When doctors and lawyers get struck off their professional registers for misdeeds we the public applaud those governing bodies for taking the necessary steps to protect us.

Why not give the same praise to the CDF?

totus tuus

Much prayer is in order for this priest!

strobe

georgieporgy wrote: »

When doctors and lawyers get struck off their professional registers for misdeeds we the public applaud those governing bodies for taking the necessary steps to protect us.

Why not give the same praise to the CDF?

Sorry Georgie, whats's CDF stand for?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Doctor DooM

georgieporgy wrote: »

When doctors and lawyers get struck off their professional registers for misdeeds we the public applaud those governing bodies for taking the necessary steps to protect us.

Why not give the same praise to the CDF?

Because most people believe equality is a good thing, and not a "misdeed"?


EDIT: Oh, and a lot of people have a problem with censorship too, which it appears the CDF is trying to engage in.

totus tuus

Philippians 3:17-19

17 Be ye followers of me, brethren, and observe them who walk so as you have our model.
18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ;
19 Whose end is destruction; whose God is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things.

http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/Philippians_3:17-19

tommy2bad

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As a non catholic, I can see why you would applaud this guy from a 21st century point of view which values equality. On the other hand I have to ask whether equality is part of catholicism.

According to the article they want him to sign a statement declaring his opinion that women can never be ordained. That is the party line and it is not of the 21st century. So is the religion he is talking about catholicism or is this guy a catholic at all?

Might not be part of catholicism but it's definitely part of Christianity.
The CDF? used to be the inquisition before they rebranded.

Keylem

A good ol' dose of Excommunication is in order. Instead of trying to change the CC, dissidents should leave and join a church that better suits their flavour!

Kiwi in IE

Refusal to change and adapt when necessary leads to extinction!

georgieporgy

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Refusal to change and adapt when necessary leads to extinction!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_institution_in_the_world


The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest continuously operating entity with an identifiable structure existing in the world. So the track record is pretty good so far.:pac:

totus tuus

georgieporgy wrote: »

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_institution_in_the_world


The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest continuously operating entity with an identifiable structure existing in the world. So the track record is pretty good so far.:pac:

Abolutely!

tommy2bad

totus tuus wrote: »

Abolutely!

Some would say it's the Roman Empire rebranded. So that makes it even longer running.

El_Duderino 09

Keylem wrote: »

A good ol' dose of Excommunication is in order. Instead of trying to change the CC, dissidents should leave and join a church that better suits their flavour!

I agree. If what he is preaching is not catholicism, then they should just cut him loose.

One solution is where Rome let everyone know that what he is preaching is not catholicism. He is free to carry on preach what he is preaching now under a different name letting people know he is not preaching catholicism.

greenpilot

totus tuus wrote: »

Abolutely!

Really? Tell that to the Chinese, or Islamists, or Hindus...etc, etc,

tommy2bad

Chinese had a few empires all long gone, Islam is a late starter, time will tell, Hindus? never had an empire. All the rest are gone so etc etc is redundant.

Kiwi in IE

Excommunication for showing tolerance, fairness and being a reasonable human being? Were all known paedophiles excommunicated immediately upon being discovered? How can you expect people to continue to accept this church being involved in matters of State?

georgieporgy

People who hate the catholic church seem to like Fr Flannery. What are we to make of that ? :rolleyes:

Kiwi in IE

Why do people hate the Catholic Church? Why weren't paedophiles in the midst excommunicated immediately? Personally I feel much less hostile toward religion when it manages to present without hypocrisy, intolerance, sexism and archaic, outdated attitudes toward personal freedoms.

totus tuus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why do people hate the Catholic Church? Why weren't paedophiles in the midst excommunicated immediately? Personally I feel much less hostile toward religion when it manages to present without hypocrisy, intolerance, sexism and archaic, outdated attitudes toward personal freedoms.

You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind Excommunications. The following link will give you some info.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/strong-medicine


Paedophelia though a heinous act and a grave sin, it is not an excommunicatable offense. However, heresy is, which is what Fr. Flannery was promoting!

Kiwi in IE

Interesting! I have learned a new word to describe myself 'apostate'. Being same, along with throwing wafers in the bin, is apparently a greater 'sin' than the sexual, mental and physical abuse of the vulnerable. Flannery is also guilty of a worse crime; publicly expressing tolerance and views that are fitting for his time.

Where does hypocrisy fit on the 'sin' scale?

hinault

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why do people hate the Catholic Church? Why weren't paedophiles in the midst excommunicated immediately? Personally I feel much less hostile toward religion when it manages to present without hypocrisy, intolerance, sexism and archaic, outdated attitudes toward personal freedoms.

As a Roman Catholic, I would welcome the immediate ex-communication of clergy found to have abused children.
Those clergy committed a grave and mortal sin and they abused the special trust placed in them by the Church and wider society.
These people should be ex-communicated without question.

However, I also disagree with a lot of what Fr.Flannery advocates.

Kiwi in IE

totus tuus wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the reasoning behind Excommunications. The following link will give you some info.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/strong-medicine


Paedophelia though a heinous act and a grave sin, it is not an excommunicatable offense. However, heresy is, which is what Fr. Flannery was promoting!

Do you ever question the reasoning behind excommunication?

totus tuus

Excommunication doesn't mean that the person excommunicated is no longer a member of the Church. It is essentially meted out for remedial purposes.

Excommunication:

In Roman Catholic canon law, excommunication is a censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behavior or attitude, repent, and return to full communion.[1] It is not an "expiatory penalty" designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, much less a "vindictive penalty" designed solely to punish.
Excommunication can be either latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offense for which canon law imposes that penalty) or ferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[2]
Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[3] However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired.[4] In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.

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

totus tuus

hinault wrote: »

As a Roman Catholic, I would welcome the immediate ex-communication of clergy found to have abused children.
Those clergy committed a grave and mortal sin and they abused the special trust placed in them by the Church and wider society.
These people should be ex-communicated without question.

However, I also disagree with a lot of what Fr.Flannery advocates.

What about others who are in positions of trust, such as teachers, sports coaches, scouts
leaders etc., do you feel they should also be excommunicated?

im invisible

So it must be possible to be de-excommunicated?

What happens when you go back to your old ways, are you un-deexcommunicated?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

As a Roman Catholic, I would welcome the immediate ex-communication of clergy found to have abused children.
Those clergy committed a grave and mortal sin and they abused the special trust placed in them by the Church and wider society.
These people should be ex-communicated without question.

However, I also disagree with a lot of what Fr.Flannery advocates.

In general, if an act is a crime under civil law, it’s not also a crime under canon law, and doesn’t attract canonical penalties like excommunication.

The main purpose of canon law is to codify and regulate the affairs of the church - how dioceses and parishes are erected, who appoints bishops and pastors, what’s the relationship between a religious order and a diocese, that kind of thing.

Specifying offences, and the penalties for them, is a fairly minor part of the code, and it’s only done on a needs basis. In general, if something is a crime in civil law, and attracts punishment from the civil courts, then it is not also a crime under canon law, with a canonical penalty. There’s no need. So assault, robbery, fraud, theft etc are not canonical crimes, while heresy, schism, etc are. This doesn’t mean either that the Catholic church thinks that assault, etc, is not wrong, or that they are less wrong than heresy, etc.

You can argue that rape, abuse, etc committed by a cleric has an additional dimension of horror that isn’t adequately addressed by canon law, and that these acts ought to attract a canonical as well as a civil penalty. But it would be a mistake to think that, because they currently don’t, therefore they’re not considered serious.

im invisible wrote: »

So it must be possible to be de-excommunicated?

Yes. In fact, that’s probably the usual outcome. It’s certainly the one the church hopes for.

im invisible wrote: »

What happens when you go back to your old ways, are you un-deexcommunicated?

You can be, yes.

El_Duderino 09

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Interesting! I have learned a new word to describe myself 'apostate'. Being same, along with throwing wafers in the bin, is apparently a greater 'sin' than the sexual, mental and physical abuse of the vulnerable. Flannery is also guilty of a worse crime; publicly expressing tolerance and views that are fitting for his time.

Where does hypocrisy fit on the 'sin' scale?

It makes sense. Both the victim and abuser can still be good catholics after experiencing sexual, mental and physical abused so no need to act unless there is massive external pressure to act. If you 'throw the wafer in the bin' you are setting a dangerous precedent which must be acted upon immediately. See now?

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

In general, if an act is a crime under civil law, it’s not also a crime under canon law, and doesn’t attract canonical penalties like excommunication.

The main purpose of canon law is to codify and regulate the affairs of the church - how dioceses and parishes are erected, who appoints bishops and pastors, what’s the relationship between a religious order and a diocese, that kind of thing.

Specifying offences, and the penalties for them, is a fairly minor part of the code, and it’s only done on a needs basis. In general, if something is a crime in civil law, and attracts punishment from the civil courts, then it is not also a crime under canon law, with a canonical penalty. There’s no need. So assault, robbery, fraud, theft etc are not canonical crimes, while heresy, schism, etc are. This doesn’t mean either that the Catholic church thinks that assault, etc, is not wrong, or that they are less wrong than heresy, etc.

You can argue that rape, abuse, etc committed by a cleric has an additional dimension of horror that isn’t adequately addressed by canon law, and that these acts ought to attract a canonical as well as a civil penalty. But it would be a mistake to think that, because they currently don’t, therefore they’re not considered serious.

OK - then canon law needs to be amended to take account of illegal behaviour of those clergy deemed to have committed a crime.

Those clergy and any one else for that matter, should be defrocked/disbarred/expelled from the Roman Catholic Church.
These people have no place in the Church as far as I'm concerned.

Benny_Cake

Let's keep discussion of the clerical sex abuse scandals on the megathread which was set up for that purpose, please.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

OK - then canon law needs to be amended to take account of illegal behaviour of those clergy deemed to have committed a crime.

Those clergy and any one else for that matter, should be defrocked/disbarred/expelled from the Roman Catholic Church.
These people have no place in the Church as far as I'm concerned.

Careful now. You are speaking out against catholic doctrine. There's no room in doctrine for your opinion. If you're not careful you could find yourself out in the cold with fr Flannery.

Kiwi in IE

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Let's keep discussion of the clerical sex abuse scandals on the megathread which was set up for that purpose, please.

In fairness Bennycake it is being used as a comparison of reasons for excommunication to highlight how unreasonable the proposed excommunication of this man is! It's not completely off topic.

Kiwi in IE

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It makes sense. Both the victim and abuser can still be good catholics after experiencing sexual, mental and physical abused so no need to act unless there is massive external pressure to act. If you 'throw the wafer in the bin' you are setting a dangerous precedent which must be acted upon immediately. See now?

Not sure if the above post is toungue in cheek! If not, then no, I am very sorry but I do not see! And I'm not sure how the Catholic Church expects that any logical, rational minded person would 'see'.

A priest who has been found to be a paedophile can 'continue to be a good Catholic'? Tony Flannery, who has expressed views of tolerance fitting with the year 2013 cannot?

The RCC would do well to listen to Tony Flannery, because his views reflect the views of the majority in First World Countries, including many who identify with Catholicism. Ireland is the last man standing in in the Western World, from a Christian point of view when it comes to Church being involved in State affairs. The views Tony Flannery is rebelling against, are the same views that have had religion removed from state affairs in every other Western country. The views of the RCC on matters such as abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce, marriage etc are no longer appropriate to life in our time. Gender inequality is completely unacceptable, and as people are educated to question and think for themselves, blatant hypocrisies (as mentioned above) are obvious to most people.

Yes, the RCC has survived for the past 2000 years, but human knowledge has greatly increased in the last 150 odd years. What we know about ourselves and our environment has increased through scientific means, and social attitudes have changed. Priests like Tony Flannery accept and embrace this, while the RCC continues to bury its head in the sand. The RCC will survive but only in third world and developing countries where people can be bribed with better social conditions in exchange for conversion to Catholicism.

tommy2bad

Thing is Kiwi, the rcc knows this and keeping a doctrine that apeals to the third world is their aim, the rcc has abdicated the developed western world. It's happy to cater for die hards while expanding into the southern hemisphere.

greenpilot

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thing is Kiwi, the rcc knows this and keeping a doctrine that apeals to the third world is their aim, the rcc has abdicated the developed western world. It's happy to cater for die hards while expanding into the southern hemisphere.

I believe this has hit the nail on the head. With regard to excommunication. So what if one becomes excommunicated...you can still practice your faith. A bolt of lightening will not strike you from above. You're just not a member of only one of many purveyors of Christian belief.

Peregrinus

greenpilot wrote: »

I believe this has hit the nail on the head. With regard to excommunication. So what if one becomes excommunicated...you can still practice your faith. A bolt of lightening will not strike you from above. You're just not a member of only one of many purveyors of Christian belief.

You certainly are. Excommunication does not, in the Catholic understanding, mean that you cease to be a member of the church. An excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

totus tuus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You certainly are. Excommunication does not, in the Catholic understanding, mean that you cease to be a member of the church. An excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

Exactly!!!

An excommunicated Catholic is also obliged to attend Mass, and until such time as the excommunication is lifted, cannot partake of the Holy Eucharist, participate in the readings, liturgy etc.

Silvio.Dante

In fairness Tony would be far more cofortable if he joined the Methodist community.

He's so far distanced from Catholic teaching he's really taking the piddle at this stage.

I've alot of time for Tony and his thoughtful contributions..

lazygal

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

In fairness Tony would be far more cofortable if he joined the Mathodist community.

He's so far distanced from Catholic teaching he's really taking the piddle at this stage.

I've alot of time for Tony and his thoughtful contributions..

What branch of Christianity are the Mathodists......?

Silvio.Dante

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not sure if the above post is toungue in cheek! If not, then no, I am very sorry but I do not see! And I'm not sure how the Catholic Church expects that any logical, rational minded person would 'see'.

A priest who has been found to be a paedophile can 'continue to be a good Catholic'? Tony Flannery, who has expressed views of tolerance fitting with the year 2013 cannot?

The RCC would do well to listen to Tony Flannery, because his views reflect the views of the majority in First World Countries, including many who identify with Catholicism. Ireland is the last man standing in in the Western World, from a Christian point of view when it comes to Church being involved in State affairs. The views Tony Flannery is rebelling against, are the same views that have had religion removed from state affairs in every other Western country. The views of the RCC on matters such as abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce, marriage etc are no longer appropriate to life in our time. Gender inequality is completely unacceptable, and as people are educated to question and think for themselves, blatant hypocrisies (as mentioned above) are obvious to most people.

Yes, the RCC has survived for the past 2000 years, but human knowledge has greatly increased in the last 150 odd years. What we know about ourselves and our environment has increased through scientific means, and social attitudes have changed. Priests like Tony Flannery accept and embrace this, while the RCC continues to bury its head in the sand. The RCC will survive but only in third world and developing countries where people can be bribed with better social conditions in exchange for conversion to Catholicism.

If Tony want his Church to change and evolve with a majority view if society there's always the Anflican Church...:)

Truth remains truth despite differing social opinion and trends...

Silvio.Dante

lazygal wrote: »

What branch of Christianity are the Mathodists......?

Are you always so jumpy when some posts a typo..?

Amended now..;)

tommy2bad

lazygal wrote: »

What branch of Christianity are the Mathodists......?

Their the ones who use a + sign, not great believers in imaginary numbers but open to change if evidence is a theorem of great beauty.

lazygal

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Are you always so jumpy when some posts a typo..?

Amended now..;)

Its just how I roll....!

two wheels good

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The CDF.
Previously know as The Inquisition. Headed by Joseph Ratzinger during the 80s and 90s

Silvio.Dante

two wheels good wrote: »

The CDF.
Previously know as The Inquisition. Headed by Joseph Ratzinger during the 80s and 90s

And..?

tommy2bad

Inquisition/CDF Snikers/ Marathon, changing the name changes nothing their still full of nuts

lmaopml

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not sure if the above post is toungue in cheek! If not, then no, I am very sorry but I do not see! And I'm not sure how the Catholic Church expects that any logical, rational minded person would 'see'.

To be honest Kiwi, many a very rational minded person doesn't understand rules once it challenges them at all - and that doesn't only go for a religious life - that's just 'life'!

Rules are for the most part 'good' and have good consequences - sometimes rules are a learning curve too..with bad consequences, or hard things, nonetheless we all no matter whom in life have some kind of 'rules' of conduct, whether they start at base in the family or whether they are extended outward socially to interact with others.

A priest who has been found to be a paedophile can 'continue to be a good Catholic'? Tony Flannery, who has expressed views of tolerance fitting with the year 2013 cannot?

Tony Flannery is still a Catholic Priest, and as one may observe has a 'voice' otherwise we wouldn't be chatting at all.

The RCC would do well to listen to Tony Flannery, because his views reflect the views of the majority in First World Countries, including many who identify with Catholicism. Ireland is the last man standing in in the Western World, from a Christian point of view when it comes to Church being involved in State affairs.

I wouldn't be quite so confident of that The State has morphed - it's not exactly a democracy, it's not exactly a dictatorship, it's simply bought lately... needs do what needs must etc. and all that crap. Tony Flannery is simply selling a few articles for a few journalists - He is 'part' of the Church, but he is not the Church - Christ doesn't change, and he is the head.

The views Tony Flannery is rebelling against, are the same views that have had religion removed from state affairs in every other Western country. The views of the RCC on matters such as abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce, marriage etc are no longer appropriate to life in our time.

Well, that's really descriminating. Thanks and really 'ouch' - you think that real life Roman Catholics are full of hatred for those who are different? I don't think so, and I think that history reflects otherwise too...what a shameful thing to even think that we promote hatred as opposed to challenging popular opinion...Terrible!

Gender inequality is completely unacceptable, and as people are educated to question and think for themselves, blatant hypocrisies (as mentioned above) are obvious to most people.

Gender inequality is a problem in working and social issues in life - I guess you wouldn't know about Roman Catholic women who are socialists with a twist, or feminists etc?

It's a pretty huge network of women - and I might add women who don't like being categorised, and tagged and bagged, and gagged either by anybody who believes that women should only conform to one understanding of reality if they are 'bright' - there are plenty of bright women and very strong, salt of the earth young women who don't believe that their value is soley what society confers on them, it comes from inside. Just like our male counterparts. We don't just live in the century and it's popular opinions always....

[qoute]Yes, the RCC has survived for the past 2000 years, but human knowledge has greatly increased in the last 150 odd years. What we know about ourselves and our environment has increased through scientific means, and social attitudes have changed. Priests like Tony Flannery accept and embrace this, while the RCC continues to bury its head in the sand. The RCC will survive but only in third world and developing countries where people can be bribed with better social conditions in exchange for conversion to Catholicism.[/QUOTE]

I am a young Catholic woman, I embraced my value long before I ever embraced any mistakes I made, and I made plenty, just like every other contemporary I know - I am not a weakling, I am strong, and I demand that society embrace me and my child and my mistakes too - and not only that my freedom of religion.

So how will you deal with that?

You want to use an eraser?

I don't think so.

Kiwi in IE

To be honest Kiwi, many a very rational minded person doesn't understand rules once it challenges them at all - and that doesn't only go for a religious life - that's just 'life'!
Rules are for the most part 'good' and have good consequences - sometimes rules are a learning curve too..with bad consequences, or hard things, nonetheless we all no matter whom in life have some kind of 'rules' of conduct, whether they start at base in the family or whether they are extended outward socially to interact with others.

I am not implying that people shouldn't have to follow rules. However in order for people to follow rules without rebelling, they need to reflect what is in the best interests of individuals or promote a greater good. The rules Of the RCC that Tony Flannery is rebelling against do neither. In fact they reflect attitudes that are harmful to individuals and society.



Tony Flannery is still a Catholic Priest, and as one may observe has a 'voice' otherwise we wouldn't be chatting at all.

The RCC is attempting to silence Tony Flannery by threatening him with excommunication. They hope he will choose to be quiet to avoid same. This is the same institution that covered up abuse and did not excommunicate the perpetrators. Do you not see any hypocrisy in this? Are Tony Flannery's 'crimes' worse than those of people who used their positions to abuse vulnerable people?



I wouldn't be quite so confident of that The State has morphed - it's not exactly a democracy, it's not exactly a dictatorship, it's simply bought lately... needs do what needs must etc. and all that crap. Tony Flannery is simply selling a few articles for a few journalists - He is 'part' of the Church, but he is not the Church - Christ doesn't change, and he is the head.

I seem to be completely missing the point you are trying to make in the above paragraph. I will say though, that if you want to follow the rules of your religion then that is your choice and you are free to do so. A state having 'freedom of religion' however, does not apply when it is only granted to one particular group. Freedom of religion means everyone is free to practise and observe any religion or no religion. This cannot happen so long as the rules of one particular religion are legislated for and they are involved in state institutions.

Tony Flannery is challenging rules of the RCC which even many Catholics find outdated, to ensure that the church dosn't become irrelevant by insisting on unrealistic and undesirable options for it's members. The RCC as an institution appears hellbent on this course.



Well, that's really descriminating. Thanks and really 'ouch' - you think that real life Roman Catholics are full of hatred for those who are different? I don't think so, and I think that history reflects otherwise too...what a shameful thing to even think that we promote hatred as opposed to challenging popular opinion...Terrible!

The RCC is discriminating! A man does not fall in love with another man because he is following 'popular opinion'. And choosing to discriminate against him because of his sexual orientation is not 'challenging popular opinion'. And no, I do not think most real life Catholics are full of hatred. In fact I think the majority of 'real life' people who call themselves Catholics do not follow exactly what the Vatican demands from them on the above issues. So why is Tony Flannery wrong if he is reflecting the views and lifestyles of a huge percentage of people who identify with Catholicism? Can you tell me not one of your Catholic friends have used contraception, had sex prior to marriage or been divorced? I would be suprised. Someone must be using contraception anyway because Catholic families with 14 children are very rare these days!

As for history showing that the RCC (the institution as opposed to Catholic people) is not full of intolerance and hatred? Really?




Gender inequality is a problem in working and social issues in life - I guess you wouldn't know about Roman Catholic women who are socialists with a twist, or feminists etc?
It's a pretty huge network of women - and I might add women who don't like being categorised, and tagged and bagged, and gagged either by anybody who believes that women should only conform to one understanding of reality if they are 'bright' - there are plenty of bright women and very strong, salt of the earth young women who don't believe that their value is soley what society confers on them, it comes from inside. Just like our male counterparts. We don't just live in the century and it's popular opinions always....

Catholic women who are feminists are clearly not adhering to precisely what the RCC dictates, and are therefore in the same boat as Tony Flannery!

[qoute]Yes, the

I am a young Catholic woman, I embraced my value long before I ever embraced any mistakes I made, and I made plenty, just like every other contemporary I know - I am not a weakling, I am strong, and I demand that society embrace me and my child and my mistakes too - and not only that my freedom of religion.

So how will you deal with that?

You want to use an eraser?

I don't think so


Freedom of Religion? You are lucky to have it. I don't!

totus tuus

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Matthew 5:29)

I think that Fr. Flannery needs to be 'cut off' if he continues to apostatise.

A snippet from the linked article:

However, not only does Fr Flannery reject the Church’s doctrines concerning Catholic priesthood and reject the authority of Humanae Vitae he also promotes through his writings fornication and adultery. In 2009 Fr Flannery wrote:


“The second basic change would be to break the inherent connection, long part of traditional Catholic teaching, between sexual activity and marriage. To continue to hold that sex outside marriage is always sinful is in my view a mistake……. we break the rigid connection between sexual activity and marriage, allowing for appropriate sexual relationships between people who are not married when the quality of the relationship merits it. ”

http://protectthepope.com/?p=6530&replytocom=87268

Kiwi in IE

totus tuus wrote: »

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (Matthew 5:29)

I think that Fr. Flannery needs to be 'cut off' if he continues to apostatise.

A snippet from the linked article:

http://protectthepope.com/?p=6530&replytocom=87268

Do you advocate the same for 'lay' Catholics who refuse to live by the RCC's rules too? For example they use contraception, are divorced, gay, had sex when they weren't married? I think it's a great idea. The amount of Catholics in the next census will be reduced by 80% and the RCC can be removed from State affairs once and for all!