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

thebullkf

awec wrote: »

In response the TDs should threaten to remove the tax loopholes that allow the churches to get away with contributing nothing to society despite raking in the cash

If they want to stoop to such levels and get involved in politics then hit them where it will hurt them the most, in their pocket. Tax them with every tax imaginable.

i am in no way religious but that part is pure bollocks.... shows the mindset of the boards society:rolleyes::rolleyes: fed and clothed the poor and educated the masses- not all religious folk/church members are child abusers. In fact the vast majority were lay people (90 odd %) The short sightedness of some people beggars belief.


Salvation Army- St Vincent de Paul, Jesuits-franciscans - all helping out the less fortunate.

should be ashamed of yourselves- (and i fooking hate the church!)


Why aren't we jailing the bankers,bertie's and fingeltons of this world??? where's the outrage and the thanks whoring then????

Hypocritical to the nth degree.

and yes i do believe they have too much power and influence but to paint them all in a purely poor light is lazy and ignorant.

Rant over.:)

garhjw

Sean Brady, should this not be with the rolfhaaris and ken roache threads? Serious waste of effort

garhjw

Stuart hall.. Would prefer to hear what he has to say

Busted Flat.

These representatives of sex abusers should not be given the time of day. Brady covered up for Brendan Smith while he was riding children, or put it nicely child abuse. Brady is a very well educated man, and moved up the ranks knowing that his soldiers were raping children. He now speaks out about abortion, how does he compare that to destroying children's lives by his cronies raping children. Does he think it is better for children to be born, and sent to his outfits homes, and to leave them at the mercy of his soldiers of his god.

jimd2

greenpilot wrote: »

Just heard this on RTE. Is this the last gasp of a dying church?

Hey OP, you were asked several times on this thread for a link or something to back up your claim here. You didn't do it. You mentioned the radio - well what was the programme or time? I would be very interested in EXACTLY what was said.

It is very easy and cool to throw whatever crap you can at the Catholic Church, like the cool guys at school bullying. You get people thanking our post even though there seems to be no substance to it.

I await your response though I won't hold my breath as you seem to be more interested in starting threads than subsequently participating in the threads you start.

On the subject in question, I believe that the TDs should be allowed a free vote and , on balance, the abortion law should be passed. However, the church still represent a huge number of people in the country many of those not on boards.ie and they are allowed express their position. The communion rule would be odd and that is why I am interested in where it is coming from.

Call me Al

jimd2 wrote: »

Hey OP, you were asked several times on this thread for a link or something to back up your claim here. You didn't do it. You mentioned the radio - well what was the programme or time? I would be very interested in EXACTLY what was said.

It is very easy and cool to throw whatever crap you can at the Catholic Church, like the cool guys at school bullying. You get people thanking our post even though there seems to be no substance to it.

I await your response though I won't hold my breath as you seem to be more interested in starting threads than subsequently participating in the threads you start.

On the subject in question, I believe that the TDs should be allowed a free vote and , on balance, the abortion law should be passed. However, the church still represent a huge number of people in the country many of those not on boards.ie and they are allowed express their position. The communion rule would be odd and that is why I am interested in where it is coming from.

Here you go jmd....

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/vatican-chief-justice-pro-abortion-politicians-must-not-receive-holy-communion

Some light reading for you on what someone in the Vatican has to say on the matter.
BTW the interview with the Archbishop was on drivetime yesterday. I didn't hear it all, just snippets but he was asked about communion. I can't recall what his response was though.

There are plenty other links if you want to google.

RebelSoul

That's not very christian of them

the culture of deference

kylith wrote: »

In the middle ages abortion wasn't seen as a big deal at all, at least until the soul entered the foetus, i.e. when the baby started to kick. Even in the bible it's only punishable by a fine. Exodous 22-23

As I posted before
With the development of highly sensitive assays for hCG levels that can detect an early pregnancy even prior to the expected next period (menstruation), researchers have been able to show that around 60% to 70% of all pregnancies (recognized and unrecognized) are lost. Because the loss occurs so early, many miscarriages occur without the woman ever having known she was pregnant.

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm

St.Spodo wrote: »

The Catholic Church is explicitly anti-abortion, seeing it as murder(most here including me won't agree, but that's besides the point), so it's a logical step to take action against those who are committing in their eyes one of the mortal sins.

So a church that has no problem actually murdering people has a problem with potential cell destruction.

lazygal wrote: »

And I would applaud him for doing so. I'm getting mighty sick of men with collars who believe in supernatural beings having a national platform to spread their misogyny and be given air and TV time for pronouncements like this.

And the david quinns and B.O.B.s of the this world

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They aren't going anywhere imo, a worldwide religion with over 1 billion followers.

Almost 1 billion of their followers live in Africa or South America

jimd2 wrote: »

Hey OP, you were asked several times on this thread for a link or something to back up your claim here.
It is very easy and cool to throw whatever crap you can at the Catholic Church, like the cool guys at school bullying.

Have you been living on a different planet for the last 50 years.

JJayoo

Makes sense for the church to do this. Less unwanted children = less prey

jimd2

JJayoo wrote: »

Makes sense for the church to do this. Less unwanted children = less prey

And you believe that's the reason for their objection:rolleyes:

I suppose it is after hours.

jimd2

Call me Al wrote: »

Here you go jmd....

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/vatican-chief-justice-pro-abortion-politicians-must-not-receive-holy-communion

Some light reading for you on what someone in the Vatican has to say on the matter.
BTW the interview with the Archbishop was on drivetime yesterday. I didn't hear it all, just snippets but he was asked about communion. I can't recall what his response was though.

There are plenty other links if you want to google.

Thanks, I will check out Drivetime to see if there is any validity to the thread.

Then again this can't be what the disappearing OP was referring to as the thread was started in early afternoon.

isn't it amazing that any obscure anti Catholic Church thread will get such support on boards.ie - there seems to be a bitterness there and I just wonder why some people are just so bitter. Are people as bitter with their parents for bringing them to mass when they were younger or is all the vitriol reserved for priests the vast majority of whom are good people? Some evil ones of course some who entered in order to abuse but it is wrong to tar all of the church with the same brush.

jimd2

thebullkf wrote: »

i am in no way religious but that part is pure bollocks.... shows the mindset of the boards society:rolleyes::rolleyes: fed and clothed the poor and educated the masses- not all religious folk/church members are child abusers. In fact the vast majority were lay people (90 odd %) The short sightedness of some people beggars belief.


Salvation Army- St Vincent de Paul, Jesuits-franciscans - all helping out the less fortunate.

should be ashamed of yourselves- (and i fooking hate the church!)


Why aren't we jailing the bankers,bertie's and fingeltons of this world??? where's the outrage and the thanks whoring then????

Hypocritical to the nth degree.

and yes i do believe they have too much power and influence but to paint them all in a purely poor light is lazy and ignorant.

Rant over.:)

Very well put......fair play.

bnt

If true, that's silly of the Church. I imagine it needs the TDs more than the TDs need it. They have enough trouble getting bums on pews these days, should they be shunning members of the Government?

DEFTLEFTHAND

bnt wrote: »

If true, that's silly of the Church. I imagine it needs the TDs more than the TDs need it. They have enough trouble getting bums on pews these days, should they be shunning members of the Government?

It's not true.

jimd2

the culture of deference wrote: »

As I posted before
With the development of highly sensitive assays for hCG levels that can detect an early pregnancy even prior to the expected next period (menstruation), researchers have been able to show that around 60% to 70% of all pregnancies (recognized and unrecognized) are lost. Because the loss occurs so early, many miscarriages occur without the woman ever having known she was pregnant.

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm



So a church that has no problem actually murdering people has a problem with potential cell destruction.



And the david quinns and B.O.B.s of the this world

N

Almost 1 billion of their followers live in Africa or South America



Have you been living on a different planet for the last 50 years.

Just because I have a different opinion to you I have to be living on a different planet. Says a lot more about you than me.

And your point about detection of pregnancy early on is mind numbingly naive. Early stage miscarriages happen - We didn't need your post to confirm that. Of course the woman may not know She had been pregnant in some cases.

It is the deliberate ending of the life of a foetus that the church is objecting to. Myself, on balance, I agree with the legislation but I respect the right of the church to voice it's opinion on the matter.

Posts like the above make me a little concerned about the mentality and lack of openness to other viewpoints that seems to be much more prevalent now than in the past. Perhaps it is the ease in which points can be made anonymously and an excess of spare time that people have.

Grayson

jimd2 wrote: »

Posts like the above make me a little concerned about the mentality and lack of openness to other viewpoints that seems to be much more prevalent now than in the past. Perhaps it is the ease in which points can be made anonymously and an excess of spare time that people have.

Tolereance does not mean you have to be tolerant of irrational or untolerant opinions. People may be entitled to an opinion, but we are all entitled to call bullsh1t when it's wrong. If you can't handle people doing this, then maybe a safe place like the internet isn't for you.

In my opinion the church is wrong and it should get back in the closet (where all the priests are) (to mix a bad metaphor)

UCDVet

I don't mean any disrespect when I say this, but I know it's a touchy subject....still....

I don't understand the conflict people have with their religions. It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too. They take parts of the religion they like, then ignore the parts they don't....but they get upset if anyone objects to it.

I know some religions aren't quite so structured, but really, if the Catholic church says 'X' and you call yourself Catholic, it really seems to me the implication is that you support 'X'. That's the whole point of calling someone Catholic.

Taking communion means *something*. You're signing up for a very particular set of beliefs. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a church to say, 'This is reserved for people who share our beliefs - act appropriately or do no participate'.

If people want to pick and choose their own beliefs - that's great. Personally, I think that's the better option, but don't call yourself X if you aren't X. If I make up a sport that is 'kinda like' Tennis but with some new rules I like and without some rules I don't like; it's probably not wise to tell people I play Tennis. I don't. I play SOMETHING ELSE. It might be BETTER than tennis - but it's not tennis. And if I want to play 'Not Tennis' I shouldn't go to a tennis tournament; those people want to play tennis and my 'not tennis' is just going to detract from their good time.

Cody Pomeray

Does anyone else find the headline and the OP, and most of the subsequent responses amazingly misleading?

I find it amazing how an idea can catch on and take hold and assume an authority of truth, even when the proposal is actually visibly untrue for anyone to see.

One Cardinal, based outside of Ireland, has said that priests should refuse communion

Seán Brady refused to say that on the 1 o'clock news yesterday. Given the time the OP was posted, I presume that interview is what the OP was referring to.

This thread is amazing exercise in confirmation bias. It should be printed out and looked over by marketing students.

Mr Tibbs

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Does anyone else find the headline and the OP, and most of the subsequent responses amazingly misleading?

I find it amazing how an idea can catch on and take hold and assume an authority of truth, even when the proposal is actually visibly untrue for anyone to see.

One Cardinal, based outside of Ireland, has said that priests should refuse communion

Seán Brady refused to say that on the 1 o'clock news yesterday. Given the time the OP was posted, I presume that interview is what the OP was referring to.

This thread is amazing exercise in confirmation bias. It should be printed out and looked over by marketing students.

I wonder did this Cardinal based outside Ireland demand that all those clergy men who abused children be denied communion. Trying to preach from the moral high ground now after all that these men knew about the abuse that was going on for years is a bit sickening. I seem to remember wasn't a certain Bishop demanding that his teenage girlfriend take the boat to England when she told him she was pregnant.

Cody Pomeray

Mr Tibbs wrote: »

I wonder did this Cardinal based outside Ireland demand that all those clergy men who abused children be denied communion. Trying to preach from the moral high ground now after all that these men knew about the abuse that was going on for years is a bit sickening. I seem to remember wasn't a certain Bishop demanding that his teenage girlfriend take the boat to England when she told him she was pregnant.

Well yes I agree about their hypocrisy and selective morality, but that's a different issue.

The idea that TDs will not be able to receive Communion is absolutely not true in the sense that the Irish Bishops have never actually said this.

This thread just lost the run of itself.

I Heart Internet

o1s1n wrote: »

Wow, you think the catholic church can't stoop any lower and then you hear something like this.

Talk about disgusting meddling behaviour. I really wish they'd just **** off.

Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Cardinal Brady (or the other Irish Bishops) did not suggest this. In fact, it was put to him by reporters and he said it won't be happening (for now): "There would be a great reluctance to politocise the eucharist" was his response. So he didn't even raise it. It's a perfect story for the Sunday papers on a bank holiday weekend though. A fantasy argument and excuse not to actually address the substance of the Bishops' response.

This has happened in the US regarding pro-abortion politicians though.

It is nothing new and not a "last gasp of a dying church" as the OP suggests.

jimd2

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Does anyone else find the headline and the OP, and most of the subsequent responses amazingly misleading?

I find it amazing how an idea can catch on and take hold and assume an authority of truth, even when the proposal is actually visibly untrue for anyone to see.

One Cardinal, based outside of Ireland, has said that priests should refuse communion

Seán Brady refused to say that on the 1 o'clock news yesterday. Given the time the OP was posted, I presume that interview is what the OP was referring to.

This thread is amazing exercise in confirmation bias. It should be printed out and looked over by marketing students.

I agree. The OP seems to have a hobby in starting threads. No effort to give a link or back it up.

And then you have the idiots that give all their high and mighty responses criticising the church and others thanking the OP!

jimd2

Grayson wrote: »

Tolereance does not mean you have to be tolerant of irrational or untolerant opinions. People may be entitled to an opinion, but we are all entitled to call bullsh1t when it's wrong. If you can't handle people doing this, then maybe a safe place like the internet isn't for you.

In my opinion the church is wrong and it should get back in the closet (where all the priests are) (to mix a bad metaphor)

Grayson, my opinions were neither irrational nor intolerant and some of the comments here were beyond normal discussion.

By the way you say the church is wrong, what are you referring to? You do realise that the OP has failed to back up the claim in the thread or did you just join the herd and believe any rubbish written about the church?

pablomakaveli

jimd2 wrote: »

isn't it amazing that any obscure anti Catholic Church thread will get such support on boards.ie - there seems to be a bitterness there and I just wonder why some people are just so bitter. Are people as bitter with their parents for bringing them to mass when they were younger or is all the vitriol reserved for priests the vast majority of whom are good people? Some evil ones of course some who entered in order to abuse but it is wrong to tar all of the church with the same brush.

Are you serious? You really dont seem to grasp why people are angry with the church.

The years of abuse of children by priests and the subsequent cover ups and the lack of remorse shown by the church in the half hearted apologies issued.

Then we have the Magdaline laundries and all the torture and suffering that was inflicted there.

Also we can count all the political interference from the church throughout this states history as another reason.

When you look at all that it should hardly be surprising that people are angry and that people have had enough of the church in Ireland.

Its not some petty bitterness as you like to paint it but genuine anger at an organization that has done a lot of serious damage to this country and its people.

Tonto86

A high percentage of the voting population is the god fearing elderly. TD"s are well aware that if they're seen as anyway exiled from the church it would greatly effect their chance of reelection.

Typical scumbag bully church tactics.

I Heart Internet

Tonto86 wrote: »

Typical scumbag bully church tactics.

Yet not mentioned by the Irish church. Just dropped into the debate by reporters.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Its not some petty bitterness as you like to paint it but genuine anger at an organization...

Yes genuine anger, deserved anger.

But nothing to do with the thread or the OP's claims.

And yet we still have responses like this, below!

People are just point blank refusing to look at evidence that the OP misunderstood the Sean Brady interview.

Tonto86 wrote: »

Typical scumbag bully church tactics.

CommanderC

Chucken wrote: »

They're the rules!

There are other instances where you cant receive communion too.

Its not a 'last gasp', the Church are just reminding them of the rules.

Were members of the catholic church following 'the rules' when they were beating and sodomising little children ?

Were other members of the catholic church following 'the rules' when they were covering up these perverse acts ?

pablomakaveli

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes genuine anger, deserved anger.

But nothing to do with the thread or the OP's claims.

And yet we still have responses like this, below!

People are just point blank refusing to look at evidence that the OP misunderstood the Sean Brady interview.

Thats true but we still have the church trying to stick their nose in Irish politics with Brady getting involved with the issue.

Cody Pomeray

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Thats true but we still have the church trying to stick their nose in Irish politics with Brady getting involved with the issue.

Any group or organization is entitled to 'stick their nose in Irish politics'.

That's a normal feature of democracy.

I'd be more curious as to why RTE dedicated the first 20 minutes of the 1 o'clock news (News at One) to the Bishops' statement and an interview with the Cardinal.

Of course, if they ring, or show up at the Conference, he's going to speak to them.

But he wasn't exactly banging a path down to RTE to speak to Cathal Mac Coille. They came to him.