Pure in heart abstinence only education

JRant

Before you know it they'll be coming out with ridiculous ideas like cotis interuptis next. Oh wait ........

Sulla Felix

catallus wrote: »

Perhaps that's totally correct, I agree on the face of it.

But my point is that he decides to turn that argument into an argument against catholicism generally.

I don't know precisely what the rules against gross generalisation are on this forum. Obviously different from other ones.

You're right of course. On the balance of things, Iona and Pure in Heart are probably better than the Church so we're doing them an injustice.
They agree with a lot of the moral teachings, true, but I think even the inhabitants of 23 Merrion Sq wouldn't countenance and coverup the large scale sexual abuse of children.

To everyone else, come on, I thought better of you than this.

catallus

^^^^^^

If you base your criticism of anything on such a myopic and insular attitude then I sympathise. It must be tough being so narrow-minded.

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

So you conflate the ideas that this organisation has with the ideas of the catholic church, and then decide that there is no difference between the two because "They're run out of the same...."

Nice one. (Sic)

I suppose like with your mislabelling of "intolerance" you're going to come out with some really weird and unjustifiable meaning of "not connected" now, just to try and justify your stance of "yeah, I agree with them completely, but nobody can say I agree with them, because me being seen to be in agreement with this shower makes me look bad" which you seem to be taking on every issue you post here.

I have you pegged catallus [sic].

catallus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I suppose like with your mislabelling of "intolerance" you're going to come out with some really weird and unjustifiable meaning of "not connected" now, just to try and justify your stance of "yeah, I agree with them completely, but nobody can say I agree with them, because me being seen to be in agreement with this shower makes me look bad" which you seem to be taking on every issue you post here.

I have you pegged catallus [sic].

You have nothing "pegged" Brian. You barely understand yourself, let alone anything else. You are so transparent it is laughable.

All you have is your second rate word-play, which is disingenuous at best, hatefully discriminatory at worst, and your sad hatred for modern culture.

And your trivial criticism of the real world situation is pitiable. Really, if you are going to project so amateurishly then you are better off confining it to your own feeble mind. Not likely, given the group-think situation going on in this sub-forum. Hey, maybe it is a win-win, after all.

EDIT: oh, btw: for all of the above: sic

robindch

^^^ catallus has been carded for incivility.

expectationlost

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They are

no they are not. the Iona Institute is not the catholic church.

Nodin

expectationlost wrote: »

no they are not. the Iona Institute is not the catholic church.

That's true. However they are preaching Church doctrine, last I knew.

SmilingLurker

Having legally separate entities espousing your ideas which you can distance your organization from is a great idea. You get all the benefit, none of the hassle, you are not liable for debts or court judgements.

We need laws to control separate legal organizations which have a single point of control to prevent lack of legal recourse. It would be useful in a few criminal cases.

MetalDog

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/11/30/uga-study-higher-pregnancy-rates-in-states-with-abstinence-only-ed-programs-in-schools/


UGA study: Higher pregnancy and birth rates in states with abstinence-only sex ed programs in schools.

“This clearly shows that prescribed abstinence-only education in public schools does not lead to abstinent behavior,” said David Hall, second author and assistant professor of genetics in the Franklin College. “It may even contribute to the high teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. compared to other industrialized countries.”



Who ya gonna call?

expectationlost

Nodin wrote: »

That's true. However they are preaching Church doctrine, last I knew.

they are teaching their own doctrine, only the church can say what is church doctrine

Nodin

expectationlost wrote: »

they are teaching their own doctrine, only the church can say waht is church doctrine

So what are they saying that goes against Church teaching?

TwoShedsJackson

robindch wrote: »

I have one word to add to this debate:

"Speedos"

I believe 'budgie smugglers' is the correct term these days.

Brian Shanahan

expectationlost wrote: »

no they are not. the Iona Institute is not the catholic church.

They are part of it, one of its more vocal mouthpieces, just like Opus dei or the legion of Mary.

expectationlost

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

They are part of it, one of its more vocal mouthpieces, just like Opus dei or the legion of Mary.

the Iona Institute is not part of the Catholic Church, can we just be real for a second rather reply with glib replies.

lazygal

expectationlost wrote: »

the Iona Institute is not part of the Catholic Church, can we just be real for a second rather reply with glib replies.

Do you have proof of that? All the patrons are Catholic, its values sound remarkably similar to Catholic teachings and the website is constantly referencing the Catholic church.

Like, say, this piece: http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3351

Nodin

expectationlost wrote: »

the Iona Institute is not part of the Catholic Church, can we just be real for a second rather reply with glib replies.

It may not be part of official structure, but it espouses church doctrine. If there is something the say that isn't church doctrine, do please point it out.

expectationlost

Nodin wrote: »

It may not be part of official structure, but it espouses church doctrine. If there is something the say that isn't church doctrine, do please point it out.

only the church can say what is and isn't church doctrine

Nodin

expectationlost wrote: »

only the church can say what is and isn't church doctrine

What they teach is the same as church doctrine. Were they not in tune with catholic teaching, they'd be disowned by the church. I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you're trying to be slippery on this. They clearly preach catholic sexual ethics, as laid down by the Church.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

They clearly preach catholic sexual ethics, as laid down by the Church.

"Laid" is possibly the wrong word to use in that context.

expectationlost

Nodin wrote: »

What they teach is the same as church doctrine. Were they not in tune with catholic teaching, they'd be disowned by the church. I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you're trying to be slippery on this. They clearly preach catholic sexual ethics, as laid down by the Church.

im not being slippery, i think all over exaggerating the importance of the iona institute

Sarky

The mere mention of the iona institute massively overinflates its importance.

Nodin

expectationlost wrote: »

im not being slippery, i think all over exaggerating the importance of the iona institute

I have made no statement on it's importance. My remarks are fairly clear in what they refer to. They re-iterate church doctrine on sexual ethics. You've offered no real refutation of this, just this weaseling '"only the church...." nonsense

AerynSun

I think some of the confuddlement about 'the Church' is the pervasive notion that 'the Church' equals the lads in cassocks over in Rome who make up all the rules and tell everybody else what is/isn't okay. For a great many Catholics, that notion is abhorrent. Catholics of the regular decent-human-being variety have been battling with formal ecclesial structures for decades (since Vatican II) to get the understanding changed, so that the people in the pews actually get more of a say about what 'the Church' believes. They haven't been successful yet, and I don't know if they ever will be.

Yes, I know. Some of the people in the pews are as bad as the boys in cassocks. And sure some of the people in the pews make up their own zealous organisations like the Iona Institute and Pure in Heart and God-knows-how-many-other-abomindable organisations that seek to impose their very limited views on everyone else, and invest a good amount of time and money and zeal in doing it, because they're convinced they're righter than anybody else. That is true, and quite sad. BUT. It is also true that they are not the only kind of Catholic out there, and to suggest that the reprobates ARE the Church, is to ignore a significant (but effectively powerless) portion of the Catholic population who are not all like that and do not agree with aspects of Church teaching.

lazygal

AerynSun wrote: »

I think some of the confuddlement about 'the Church' is the pervasive notion that 'the Church' equals the lads in cassocks over in Rome who make up all the rules and tell everybody else what is/isn't okay. For a great many Catholics, that notion is abhorrent. Catholics of the regular decent-human-being variety have been battling with formal ecclesial structures for decades (since Vatican II) to get the understanding changed, so that the people in the pews actually get more of a say about what 'the Church' believes. They haven't been successful yet, and I don't know if they ever will be.

Yes, I know. Some of the people in the pews are as bad as the boys in cassocks. And sure some of the people in the pews make up their own zealous organisations like the Iona Institute and Pure in Heart and God-knows-how-many-other-abomindable organisations that seek to impose their very limited views on everyone else, and invest a good amount of time and money and zeal in doing it, because they're convinced they're righter than anybody else. That is true, and quite sad. BUT. It is also true that they are not the only kind of Catholic out there, and to suggest that the reprobates ARE the Church, is to ignore a significant (but effectively powerless) portion of the Catholic population who are not all like that and do not agree with aspects of Church teaching.

Could they not join a different club who's rules they agree with?

AerynSun

lazygal wrote: »

Could they not join a different club who's rules they agree with?

That's the eternal struggle for the 'good ones': hang in there and try to change the original thing for the better of all, or walk away and leave the original thing go even more haywire than it already is because there's nobody left to 'temper' it. Loads of good people are hanging in there, and fair play to them. And some of us drew a line and walked away before the cynicism ate us alive.

Still. I think a broader recognition of the complexity of the issues and a willingness to support the good ones who are trying to change things would go a long way towards effecting much-needed change. Telling the good Catholics that they're all the same as the rotten ones... just pushes them into a deeper silence and an even more disempowered place than they're already in.

That's just my 2c anyway.

Sarky

Eternal struggles never end well. Walking away is probably the smarter option.

pauldla

Sarky wrote: »

Eternal struggles never end well. Walking away is probably the smarter option.

Is the highlighted text not one word too long?

Or is the sound I am now hearing that of a joke sailing way over my head?

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

Is the highlighted text not one word too long?

Oh yeah! So it is! Still though...Not sure the 'ordinary catholic' rising up against the vatican management are going to get anywhere anytime soon. They would have to actually rift from the church (and follow Fr. Iggy, or similar), ignoring the fact that he'd be excommunicated immediately and gradually bringing the 'catholic faithful' over to the New Irish Catholic Church. NIC for short. I like it. Do it, people. You have my blessing. :cool:

pauldla

Obliq wrote: »

Oh yeah! So it is! Still though...Not sure the 'ordinary catholic' rising up against the vatican management are going to get anywhere anytime soon. They would have to actually rift from the church (and follow Fr. Iggy, or similar), ignoring the fact that he'd be excommunicated immediately and gradually bringing the 'catholic faithful' over to the New Irish Catholic Church. NIC for short. I like it. Do it, people. You have my blessing. :cool:

Exactly. They should resurrect the Celtic Catholic Church of old. And go back to celebrating Easter at the old time, too.