td's wont be allowed to take communion if they vote for abortion.

padd b1975

murraykil wrote: »

I think what some of the clergy did was really sick also, but each to their own. :rolleyes:

FYP.

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

It would be nothing compared to the stampede of aethists if they were convinced it was the real deal;)

I'd expect most atheists can be proud of having lead a good life where they tried their best to be good people and used their best judgement rather than listening to people who put their own self interests ahead of innocent children.

Where do the limbo babies fit into this for you? So sad for the ones that didn't make the cut-off. :rolleyes:

Birroc

Smidge wrote: »

Why do you want the thread closed?

The truth hurts some people.

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

FYP.

Cody Pomeray

padd b1975 wrote: »

As far as the families were concerned it was either the laundries or the gutter.

I think it's reasonable to hold the Catholic Church to a different standard to individual families.

Individual family members are not a well resourced organization claiming to have a monopoly on morality. They are humans, they err. The Church not only claims to be an authority on morality, it claims to have spiritual guidance to that end, and is staffed by people whose job it is, day in, day out, to help determine 'the common good' for their membership.

Rightly or wrongly, individual family members placed trust in that well resourced, wealthy 'moral authority'. Unlike the heads of those institutions, most of those family members were probably very poor, uneducated and essentially subjects of that organisation.

And while they did put their daughters and sisters into those institutions, we know that many of them got more than what they had anticipated, or could have known about.

Cody Pomeray

Smidge wrote: »

Why do you want the thread closed?

the OP was totally wrong.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think it's reasonable to hold the Catholic Church to a different standard to individual families.

Individual family members are not a well resourced organization claiming to have a monopoly on morality. They are humans, they err. The Church not only claims to be an authority on morality, it claims to have spiritual guidance to that end, and is staffed by people whose job it is, day in, day out, to help determine 'the common good' for their membership.

Rightly or wrongly, individual family members placed trust in that well resourced, wealthy 'moral authority'. Unlike the heads of those institutions, most of those family members were probably very poor, uneducated and essentially subjects of that organisation.

And while they did put their daughters and sisters into those institutions, we know that many of them got more than what they had anticipated, or could have known about.

Many families were left with little choice with the Mother and Child Scheme; exactly as planned by the church?

padd b1975

murraykil wrote: »

The fact that being called over an insulting and unfair generalisation amuses you really says a lot about the bigoted and sectarian attitude you have displayed on this thread.

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

The fact that being called over an insulting and unfair generalisation amuses you really says a lot about the bigoted and sectarian attitude you have displayed on this thread.

No I'm amused at the fact that you edited my post under the guise of fixing my post because you seem to have misinterpreted what I though was very basic English. I can understand though, the English language is very flexible so if you needed the word 'some' added for you to understand what I meant. I am very surprised that it was possible to make this mistake as you have been quoting previous posts so you must be following the thread. But thanks, there might be others who have difficulty with English also.

Or then again, are you trying to be deceitful and trying to attribute something to me which I did not say or mean? That would not be nice.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

No I'm amused at the fact that you edited my post under the guise of fixing my post because you seem to have misinterpreted what I though was very basic English. I can understand though, the English language is very flexible so if you needed the word 'some' added for you to understand what I meant. I am very surprised that it was possible to make this mistake as you have been quoting previous posts so you must be following the thread. But thanks, there might be others who have difficulty with English also.

Or then again, are you trying to be deceitful and trying to attribute something to me which I did not say or mean? That would not be nice.

You didn't qualify your statement by saying "some of the clergy".

murraykil wrote: »

I think what the clergy did was really sick...

Nobody here is a mind reader. It's a perfectly fair correction for him to make.

You can't make this sort of error and then propose that the problem is with other users' grasp of the language.

Smidge

padd b1975 wrote: »

Whats really sick is that a great number of these young women were placed in these institutions on the consent of their own families.

As far as the families were concerned it was either the laundries or the gutter.

These women would not have been committed to these laundries and asylums had it not been for the POWER the RCC had over the community and society as a whole in Ireland.

Not only the woman would have been shunned but the family and anyone else who associated with this woman, would have been outcast and tormented.

People were called from the pulpit for less.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You didn't qualify your statement by saying "some of the clergy". Nobody here is a mind reader. It's a perfectly fair correction for him to make.

You can't make this sort of error and then propose that the problem is with other users' grasp of the language.

It's not an error and yes it is a very poor grasp of English; this is in fact how English is commonly used.

On Friday, Israel hit what unidentified officials told The Associated Press was a shipment of ground-to-ground missiles bound for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Do you need clarification here what is meant by Israel or do you think it means that every man woman and child in Israel was part of the military operation?

Kiwi in IE

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

The church has been through bigger challenges in her 2000 year history.

You do know about history, don't you? (assuming you get the chance to get away from porn, social media and cat videos on the internet)

Hmmmmmmmmm one who believes in virgins giving birth, little wafers magically turning to the flesh of a person who died 2000 years ago, that water once blessed by a priest gains magical powers, etc, questioning the intelligence of others? Nice.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

It's not an error and yes it is a very poor grasp of English; this is in fact how English is commonly used.



Do you need clarification here what is meant by Israel or do you think it means that every man woman and child in Israel was part of the military operation?

Sorry I'm not a grammar nazi, but if you must argue this point then I have no choice.

When used in the context the clergy..., the definite article is a synsemantic word which indicates the entire collective of that body of individuals under reference. It denotes all of the membership.

This is a very simple point. I don't believe you can really want to contest this point of English grammar... do you?

hatrickpatrick

Read through the first several pages of this to no avail, does anyone have an actual link to any article or interview which directly quotes someone in the church directly threatening excommunication as the title suggests?

Note: I believe it's true and I'm no fan of the church's behavior, but I'm trying to show this to my dad who's skeptical that someone made these remarks and it's pretty frustrating when someone posts a thread like this with no sauce...

Sarky

Alas, the threat was implicit rather than direct. Brady certainly refused to rule it out. He hinted that everyone knew how canon law deals with these cases. He's a contemptible sack of sh*t but he's smart enough to know that if he'd answered yes or no, he'd have lost.

1ZRed

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read through the first several pages of this to no avail, does anyone have an actual link to any article or interview which directly quotes someone in the church directly threatening excommunication as the title suggests?

Note: I believe it's true and I'm no fan of the church's behavior, but I'm trying to show this to my dad who's skeptical that someone made these remarks and it's pretty frustrating when someone posts a thread like this with no sauce...

I agree, sauce is always welcomed. Apple would be good right now

Cody Pomeray

Sarky wrote: »

Alas, the threat was implicit rather than direct.

Except the Bishops didn't raise it in their meeting.

Richard Crowley raised it.

Brady replied saying he didn't want to politicize the Eucharist..

I don't think the Cardinal has the authority to change Church teaching. Powerful and all as he is like, I'm sure... but please don't let the facts concern you.

murraykil

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read through the first several pages of this to no avail, does anyone have an actual link to any article or interview which directly quotes someone in the church directly threatening excommunication as the title suggests?

Note: I believe it's true and I'm no fan of the church's behavior, but I'm trying to show this to my dad who's skeptical that someone made these remarks and it's pretty frustrating when someone posts a thread like this with no sauce...

The thread title in not correct according to what Brady said.

According to the Kildare Nationalist his exact words were: "There would be a great reluctance to politicise the Eucharist".

He is a highly educated man; I believe he chose his words very carefully and was deliberately vague so as to leave a threat; he followed up with: "I say that they (politicians) have an obligation to oppose the laws that are attacking something so fundamental as the right to life and they would have to follow their own conscience."

He did not say "he didn't want to politicise the Eucharist" or that he would not politicise the Eucharist.

http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/

FoxT

disingenuous thread title is disingenuous.

Proper quote please, or GTFO.

murraykil

It would be fine to change the word "won't" to "might not".

Had Brady said "We will not politicise the Eucharist" the thread might not have started! :pac:

Weathering

What about all the priests that raped young girls and left them pregnant. I bet they're still woofling down communion

snouts

Weathering wrote: »

What about all the priests that raped young girls and left them pregnant. I bet they're still woofling down communion

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

murraykil

snouts wrote: »

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

Exodus 11:5

Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

What were the first born sons of the slaves guilty of?

Weathering

snouts wrote: »

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

What?? My comment was nothing to do with abortion it was highlighting the hypocrisy of priests.

I think raping minors and being hid/shielded from justice by an organisation which bases itself on living a good life is a lot worse than a crime against faith. You're deluded

snouts

murraykil wrote: »

What were the first born sons of the slaves guilty of?

Are you aware of the context of what you have just quoted? If you're trying to justify abortion by way of Exodus 11:5 (Protestant version), then you are stupider than I gave you credit for.

murraykil

The all powerful God described by Moses could not think of a better way to convince the Pharaoh to free the Israelis so he decided on killing children who I think were innocent. Since the intentional killing of innocent human life is such a moral ill I don't see why the children were killed. Surely an all powerful God as described by Moses could have come up with a better way?

Had this all powerful God the vision of Lincoln or Ghandi who knows how many lives would have been spared.

snouts

murraykil wrote: »

The all powerful God described by Moses could not think of a better way to convince the Pharaoh to free the Israelis so he decided on killing children who I think were innocent. Since the intentional killing of innocent human life is such a moral ill I don't see why the children were killed. Surely an all powerful God as described by Moses could have come up with a better way?

Had this all powerful God the vision of Lincoln or Ghandi who knows how many lives would have been spared.

What riveting and rigorous insight.

murraykil

It seems that noone can make sense of it! But . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

ScumLord

snouts wrote: »

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

I don't see why it would be, when people are killed they get to go to god don't they? The worse crime would be to make someone suffer through their lives.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

Worst to who? Crimes against the faith are victimless crimes.