Is the Catholic Church at an impasse with Catholic laity on relationship issues?

Kiwi in IE

I am interested in the thoughts of Catholics on Archbishop Diarmuid Martins comments in the wake of the referendum. Archbishop Martin has said that the church needs a 'reality check'. He has also commented that despite 12 years of Catholic schooling, many people who are nominally Catholic are not receiving the church's message on marriage.

I began a new thread, rather than using the Gay Megathread, because I don't want to discuss marriage equality in particular, as that is not the only issue. It has to be acknowledged that the church's teachings on relationships in general are simply unpalatable to many people who call themselves Catholic. This includes equal marriage, divorce, contraception and having children out of wedlock. It cannot be denied that many people who are Catholic ignore some, if not all, of the churches teachings on these issues.

So, what I wanted to ask is, what direction/action should the church take in this regard, if any? It seems to be at an impasse, as it is very unlikely that the church is going to be able to change people's views on these issues, and even less likely that it is going to change its own views and teachings. So where to from here? Should the church further alienate the part of its congregation who do not agree with these teachings by taking a harder stance, or should it start to promote that Catholics should follow their own conscience and stop condemning divorce, homosexuality, contraception, sex out of wedlock as 'sin'? Or should it just ignore and continue with business as usual?

I was recently told by a devout family member, that during a mass prior to the referendum in the town where I live, the priest began to talk about homosexuality as sin and urged the congregation to vote no. A significant number of people got up and walked out. In order to have been there in the first place, these people were obviously Catholics to whom religion has some level of importance.

In a population of 4500000, 730000 voted no in this referendum. I acknowledge that many in the total population will not be of voting age yet, but still that is only around 16% who voted no. Approximately 84% of the population of Ireland identify as Catholic, and yet 84% either voted yes, didn't vote or were too young to vote. It also has to be assumed that some who voted no are not Catholic. Whichever way you look at this it has to be acknowledged that a lot of Catholics voted yes and many more did not feel strongly enough to vote against the proposal.

So you think the Catholic Church should ignore this, take a harder stance on the issues and risk loosing members, or change their own stance on what they tell their congregations about personal relationship issues?

I mean no disrespect by this post or the questions, I am just interested in how Catholics feel about it.

hinault

Clearly among the 1.2 million YES voters there were people who consider themselves to be Catholic.

We had clergy in the media trying to justify their decision to vote YES.
These clergy are hirelings.

Each of these hirelings don't care about the people that they're supposed to be leading and will instead lead them to where they prefer rather than to where Scripture says they must be led to.

The Church isn't a democracy. Policy on moral issues has been set 2,000 years ago and until the Author of that policy tells us otherwise, the policy He set is not negotiable.

Large sections of the Irish clergy never had faith in the first place.
If it did clergy who committed crimes of paedophilia would have been dismissed and reported by the Church to civil authorities.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

Clearly among the 1.2 million YES voters there were people who consider themselves to be Catholic.

We had clergy in the media trying to justify their decision to vote YES.
These clergy are hirelings.

Each of these hirelings don't care about the people that they're supposed to be leading and will instead lead them to where they prefer rather than to where Scripture says they must be led to.

The Church isn't a democracy. Policy on moral issues has been set 2,000 years ago and until the Author of that policy tells us otherwise, the policy He set is not negotiable.

Large sections of the Irish clergy never had faith in the first place.
If it did clergy who committed crimes of paedophilia would have been dismissed and reported by the Church to civil authorities.

So what do you feel the church should do about it Hinault? You seem to lean toward a harder stance on these issues being taken? I'm not just talking a out the referendum or equal marriage, although that has produced an obvious result to encourage people to think/talk about the issues. There is also divorce, contraception and having families out of wedlock. It cannot be denied that many Catholics ignore these teachings also.

If you think the church should take a harder line, does the risk that congregations, and the number of people who identify as Catholic, may seriously dwindle concern you?

You say that the clergy must lead people where the scriptures say they must be led. But what of people who are Catholic but don't want to be/refuse to be led there on these particular issues?

eviltwin

The Archbishop needs to remember that a lot of those "Catholics" are not Catholic by choice. Many like myself were baptised against our will, its not what we would have chosen for ourselves. Many of those who went to Catholic school like me and my eldest child did so because there was literally no alternative. He seems to have forgotten that and maybe that's his biggest problem, equating census figures and the number of kids in religious schools as being a sign that people still follow the faith.

hinault

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what do you feel the church should do about it Hinault? You seem to lean toward a harder stance on these issues being taken? I'm not just talking a out the referendum or equal marriage, although that has produced an obvious result to encourage people to think/talk about the issues. There is also divorce, contraception and having families out of wedlock. It cannot be denied that many Catholics ignore these teachings also.

If you think the church should take a harder line, does the risk that congregations, and the number of people who identify as Catholic, may seriously dwindle concern you?

You say that the clergy must lead people where the scriptures say they must be led. But what of people who are Catholic but don't want to be/refuse to be led there on these particular issues?

I think the Church needs to be clear and concise on what the moral teaching is.

And that moral teaching starts with the Hierarchy. If members of the clergy are not prepared to enunciate the moral teaching of the Church, then it follows that the Laity will not adhere to church moral teaching.
Moral teaching in that instance becomes relativist.

Let's take the issue of homosexual marriage. The Catechism is clear. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered. Is it too much to expect clergy to accept this teaching and to oppose homosexual marriage? Apparently it is.

If clergy cannot accept this moral teaching, they should leave the Church or they should be made leave the Church.
The Church needs to take a harder line with clergy who cannot and do not advocate moral teaching.

I'd like to the public excommunication of those "catholics" who contradict moral teaching, by the church.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

The Archbishop needs to remember that a lot of those "Catholics" are not Catholic by choice. Many like myself were baptised against our will, its not what we would have chosen for ourselves. Many of those who went to Catholic school like me and my eldest child did so because there was literally no alternative. He seems to have forgotten that and maybe that's his biggest problem, equating census figures and the number of kids in religious schools as being a sign that people still follow the faith.

Hey Eviltwin, people like yourself are more likely to mark 'no religion' on a census form though, so I'm not including those like yourself with the Catholics I describe in the OP.

The Archbishop should be well aware that many have no choice but to go to a Catholic school, like my own child, but for the purposes of this thread I'm talking about those who really do identify as Catholic, but still ignore/disagree with these teachings, because it seems that there are many in this category. They are in fact Catholic, but reject these teachings whether personally, publicly or both.

You are no more a Catholic than I am

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

I think the Church needs to be clear and concise on what the moral teaching is.

And that moral teaching starts with the Hierarchy. If members of the clergy are not prepared to enunciate the moral teaching of the Church, then it follows that the Laity will not adhere to church moral teaching.
Moral teaching in that instance becomes relativist.

Let's take the issue of homosexual marriage. The Catechism is clear. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered. Is it too much to expect clergy to accept this teaching and to oppose homosexual marriage? Apparently it is.

If clergy cannot accept this moral teaching, they should leave the Church or they should be made leave the Church.
The Church needs to take a harder line with clergy who cannot and do not advocate moral teaching.

I'd like to the public excommunication of those "catholics" who contradict moral teaching, by the church.

Everyone knows the Church's stance on gay relationships. Obviously somewhere along the way the people have decided that they don't concur. Same with contraception, divorce, sex before marriage etc.

Do you not think the Church have lost the battle now on social issues? How do you think they can recover from the changes in society? What should they do with Catholics who clearly don't follow their teachings on such matters?

eviltwin

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hey Eviltwin, people like yourself are more likely to mark 'no religion' on a census form though, so I'm not including those like yourself with the Catholics I describe in the OP.

The Archbishop should be well aware that many have no choice but to go to a Catholic school, like my own child, but for the purposes of this thread I'm talking about those who really do identify as Catholic, but still ignore/disagree with these teachings, because it seems that there are many in this category. They are in fact Catholic, but reject these teachings whether personally, publicly or both.

You are no more a Catholic than I am

I ticked No Religion last time but my husband is a Catholic. He only goes to mass at Christmas, has broken every rule, doesn't believe in half the stuff he's told are fact but still would see himself as the type of person you're talking about. Most people I know who identify as Catholic would be the same as him. There is no way he would ever go back to full Catholic life with all that entails, I can't think of a single person who would.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

I'd like to the public excommunication of those "catholics" who contradict moral teaching, by the church.

Would you be prepared to accept that could bring the Catholic population of Ireland down to less than 30%, and the fallout from this? For example would be very little justification for 90% of schools to remain under the control of the Catholic Church if only 30 odd % of the population are actually Catholic?

Juza1973

eviltwin wrote: »

The Archbishop needs to remember that a lot of those "Catholics" are not Catholic by choice. Many like myself were baptised against our will, its not what we would have chosen for ourselves. Many of those who went to Catholic school like me and my eldest child did so because there was literally no alternative. He seems to have forgotten that and maybe that's his biggest problem, equating census figures and the number of kids in religious schools as being a sign that people still follow the faith.

You are not forced to mark Catholic as your religion in the census even if you are baptised.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

I ticked No Religion last time but my husband is a Catholic. He only goes to mass at Christmas, has broken every rule, doesn't believe in half the stuff he's told are fact but still would see himself as the type of person you're talking about. Most people I know who identify as Catholic would be the same as him. There is no way he would ever go back to full Catholic life with all that entails, I can't think of a single person who would.

I am also married to one of those. Yours is more Catholic though because mine doesn't even go to mass at Christmas!

He in fact intensely dislikes the Catholic Church, doesn't believe in the Christian god (more agnostic about the existence of a god), and I think an excommunication would delight him, but because his parents baptised him, he says that he is Catholic???

Carlos Orange

I do find it odd that people keep identifying as Catholic when they don't seem to be. Why is there such a mental block against identifying as a Christian instead of a Catholic?

autumnrain

Kiwi. i think the reality check is not 'what do we do now' but 'why are we pretending we don't know whats going on'

Bishops and priests through all their pastoral work (including listening to confessions for decades) must be very well aware of how Irish society and relationships have changed over the decades. The international Synod on the family is currently collating loads of responses from parishes and diocese too on very specific questions about relationships, sexuality and morality. There is no doubt that anyone in the hierarchy who wants to know where people are at, has all the information and contacts to hand to be well informed. So any surprise expressed is actually just denial, IMO.
So they know, but have not engaged with any of those changes really. They just kept educating children and blessing adults. Now they are irritated that adults don't know teaching on adult morality ... ? sure how could they.

The question is why they do not engage with reality, and why some appear suddenly hurt and oppressed by issues that have been evident for a long time. One of the arguments i've heard is that 'people don't understand, they aren't asking the deeper questions'. So I suggested to one such despairing catholic that we have those conversations in parishes, only to be told that its too hard to.

Thats the crux to me: trust & despair. ... There are some very smart men in that body (doctorates, life experience, etc). They have some good questions to discuss. (what is the human being? what are we created for? how do we relate with meaning?) ... But they are both afraid to speak and blind/hurt to any challenge. They don't appear to trust themselves, their people or God. Its the epitome of despair and who wants to be part of a movement whose highest aim is to postpone defeat!

Direct action -
(i) get some facilitated conversation or counselling going among themselves and clergy about their despair, hurt and fear. Its in the way, and it needs dealing with. (Its the reason lay people often can't talk about stuff in parishes, cause priests and bishops take fright and change the subject!)
(ii) give every local community simple resources and encouragement to discuss their hopes and fears around relationships. Not as part of a way to get people back to Mass, not just to clarify church teaching. Just cause its good to talk. People will come looking for the teaching, for leadership from people who trust them to talk.
(iii) get some skills (and share them) in discernment. Trust the idea of informed conscience - that adults can get all the info, pray and make an informed choice. Do NOT consult people and then ignore them, its the reason we won't talk to you again.

All basic management stuff. All requires trust, and a system that treats people at 'each level' with respect.

Kiwi in IE

psinno wrote: »

I do find it odd that people keep identifying as Catholic when they don't seem to be. Why is there such a mental block against identifying as a Christian instead of a Catholic?

I'm not sure. It appears to be a cultural phenomenon here. It seems to be common thinking that you are what you were baptised, even if you are not. I know that anyone in New Zealand who doesn't attend church and places no importance on religion, identifies as either no religion or agnostic, despite whether or not they were baptised. Has the Catholic Church historically pushed the line that once baptised a Catholic, always a Catholic? It seems pretty ingrained anyway!

I was baptised Greek Orthodox, not because either of my parents were (both are of no religion), but out of respect to my maternal grand mother who is a Greek war bride. I don't think I've been in a Greek Orthodox church since that day, and I'm no more Greek Orthodox than I am Muslim!

Kiwi in IE

autumnrain wrote: »

Kiwi. i think the reality check is not 'what do we do now' but 'why are we pretending we don't know whats going on'

Bishops and priests through all their pastoral work (including listening to confessions for decades) must be very well aware of how Irish society and relationships have changed over the decades. The international Synod on the family is currently collating loads of responses from parishes and diocese too on very specific questions about relationships, sexuality and morality. There is no doubt that anyone in the hierarchy who wants to know where people are at, has all the information and contacts to hand to be well informed. So any surprise expressed is actually just denial, IMO.
So they know, but have not engaged with any of those changes really. They just kept educating children and blessing adults. Now they are irritated that adults don't know teaching on adult morality ... ? sure how could they.

The question is why they do not engage with reality, and why some appear suddenly hurt and oppressed by issues that have been evident for a long time. One of the arguments i've heard is that 'people don't understand, they aren't asking the deeper questions'. So I suggested to one such despairing catholic that we have those conversations in parishes, only to be told that its too hard to.

Thats the crux to me: trust & despair. ... There are some very smart men in that body (doctorates, life experience, etc). They have some good questions to discuss. (what is the human being? what are we created for? how do we relate with meaning?) ... But they are both afraid to speak and blind/hurt to any challenge. They don't appear to trust themselves, their people or God. Its the epitome of despair and who wants to be part of a movement whose highest aim is to postpone defeat!

Direct action -
(i) get some facilitated conversation or counselling going among themselves and clergy about their despair, hurt and fear. Its in the way, and it needs dealing with. (Its the reason lay people often can't talk about stuff in parishes, cause priests and bishops take fright and change the subject!)
(ii) give every local community simple resources and encouragement to discuss their hopes and fears around relationships. Not as part of a way to get people back to Mass, not just to clarify church teaching. Just cause its good to talk. People will come looking for the teaching, for leadership from people who trust them to talk.
(iii) get some skills (and share them) in discernment. Trust the idea of informed conscience - that adults can get all the info, pray and make an informed choice. Do NOT consult people and then ignore them, its the reason we won't talk to you again.

All basic management stuff. All requires trust, and a system that treats people at 'each level' with respect.

Thanks very much for that response, and I agree that there is a lot of denial. Is the reason for this denial a fear that people will be driven away due to the fact that they are not going to change the way they operate within their families and relationships to suit the churches teachings, and the church is likewise unwilling to change its stance? I see them as very much being at an impasse which they are unlikely to be able to move on from without either loosing masses of people who identify as Catholic, or changing what they teach or the way they teach, on relationship issues.

I think personally that a hard line, Hinnault suggested excommunication, will be disastrous for the Church, but on saying that, it is really the most honest position that they can take. The implications though would undeniably be far reaching within Irish society.

hinault

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Would you be prepared to accept that could bring the Catholic population of Ireland down to less than 30%, and the fallout from this? For example would be very little justification for 90% of schools to remain under the control of the Catholic Church if only 30 odd % of the population are actually Catholic?

Pope Benedict XVI said that the church will become smaller in the future.

I have no difficulty with the church being smaller in the future.

It is far better to have a church containing faithful clergy and laity, than to have a "huge" church containing priests who were living with their housekeepers and having children by them, and clergy turning a blind eye to sexual abuse.

Carlos Orange

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Has the Catholic Church historically pushed the line that once baptised a Catholic, always a Catholic? It seems pretty ingrained anyway!

I'm not sure. Potentially but people seem to have managed to move from the lot of other things I'm sure the church pushed.

I was going to say I'm not sure if I put down atheist or agnostic on the census but I would never put down Catholic or Christian since I'm not. As it turns out the option seem to be no religion so I would have chosen that.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

Pope Benedict XVI said that the church will become smaller in the future.

I have no difficulty with the church being smaller in the future.

It is far better to have a church containing faithful clergy and laity, than to have a "huge" church containing priests who were living with their housekeepers and having children by them, and clergy turning a blind eye to sexual abuse.

I tend to somewhat agree here, but I am coming from a position where I think that the removal of religious influence on civic society is a good thing, where I don't think that you are. Do you think this is what is preventing the church from addressing these issues currently? I have already mentioned the issue of education, and it's probably the most obvious and significant. If for example only 30% of Irish people identify as Catholic, the fact that the Catholic Church controls 90% of Irish schools will be untenable.

Carlos Orange

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If for example only 30% of Irish people identify as Catholic, the fact that the Catholic Church controls 90% of Irish schools will be untenable.

I think the church funds those schools to some extent as well. That isn't really tenable with a shrinking member base and without the level of influence over the schools that they currently have.

barretsimpson

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am interested in the thoughts of Catholics on Archbishop Diarmuid Martins comments in the wake of the referendum. Archbishop Martin has said that the church needs a 'reality check'. He has also commented that despite 12 years of Catholic schooling, many people who are nominally Catholic are not receiving the church's message on marriage.

I began a new thread, rather than using the Gay Megathread, because I don't want to discuss marriage equality in particular, as that is not the only issue. It has to be acknowledged that the church's teachings on relationships in general are simply unpalatable to many people who call themselves Catholic. This includes equal marriage, divorce, contraception and having children out of wedlock. It cannot be denied that many people who are Catholic ignore some, if not all, of the churches teachings on these issues.

So, what I wanted to ask is, what direction/action should the church take in this regard, if any? It seems to be at an impasse, as it is very unlikely that the church is going to be able to change people's views on these issues, and even less likely that it is going to change its own views and teachings. So where to from here? Should the church further alienate the part of its congregation who do not agree with these teachings by taking a harder stance, or should it start to promote that Catholics should follow their own conscience and stop condemning divorce, homosexuality, contraception, sex out of wedlock as 'sin'? Or should it just ignore and continue with business as usual?

I was recently told by a devout family member, that during a mass prior to the referendum in the town where I live, the priest began to talk about homosexuality as sin and urged the congregation to vote no. A significant number of people got up and walked out. In order to have been there in the first place, these people were obviously Catholics to whom religion has some level of importance.

In a population of 4500000, 730000 voted no in this referendum. I acknowledge that many in the total population will not be of voting age yet, but still that is only around 16% who voted no. Approximately 84% of the population of Ireland identify as Catholic, and yet 84% either voted yes, didn't vote or were too young to vote. It also has to be assumed that some who voted no are not Catholic. Whichever way you look at this it has to be acknowledged that a lot of Catholics voted yes and many more did not feel strongly enough to vote against the proposal.

So you think the Catholic Church should ignore this, take a harder stance on the issues and risk loosing members, or change their own stance on what they tell their congregations about personal relationship issues?

I mean no disrespect by this post or the questions, I am just interested in how Catholics feel about it.

A reasoned and well thought out OP and post, unlike most.

Some people like to pigeon hole and categorise others in order to put a more simple and understandable frame on the world for themselves, but nothing is ever that simple. The answer is people, and what they think, and all their reasons for doing so, and their background environments are incredibility complex, individual and diverse. Yes there are some similarities between people, but the differences are numerous.

The Catholic religion in Ireland had a somewhat golden era here from the 1930's until the early 1960's, on the back of a nationalistic wave and temporarily filled the power vacuum left by the rather hasty exist of the previous occupiers of some 800 years. Other than that, its always been turmoil. From the Vikings to the Tudors, to the plantations, to the penal laws, to famine, to the British empire.

The management skills in the Irish Catholic church are for the most part, atrocious. Not helped by the almost as bad Italian style management and civil service in the Vatican.
In my experience in business, over many years, Irish management skills, in particular middle and lower management skills, are atrocious. Combine this with religion, and it's a disaster waiting to happen. Same in Italy, but Roman Rome was once the capital of the world at one point and there we have the historical origins, if early Christianity was to spread, it had to go via Rome and all that went with that. The Church whether it likes it or not, is very unavoidably Italian in many ways.

Most "Catholics" in Ireland have, and perhaps always were, cultural Catholics. In fact you could say this about most Catholics worldwide, especially the Italians. Lead by the most appalling management, who set the worst possible example to their flock, and there you have it.

Having said all that, despite all the odds against them, the small section of the genuine church has produced some remarkable saints, that actually do understand and adhere to the actual teachings of the church rather than the power games and politics that are portrayed as Catholicism by many Catholics and non Catholics alike. The few quite souls that get this, look to these saints for example, and try to get by from day to day, go to mass, help others when they can, try to pass a true faith onto their children and generally keep themselves to themselves.

If God does exist, over a mere human lifetime he sure knows how to demonstrate the wheat and expose the chaff, both Catholic and non Catholic alike that's for sure. Only the genuine shine through in the end.

kippy

I'd have no problem with the catholic church ceasing to exist. There is no place for religion in a modern society as far as I am concerned and if it continues to bend to the will of the people, as it has done over the years its eventually going to lose out anyway.

If people want to believe in or get comfort from a deity for whatever reason, they can well do it without the middleman of the catholic church.

barretsimpson

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I tend to somewhat agree here, but I am coming from a position where I think that the removal of religious influence on civic society is a good thing, where I don't think that you are. Do you think this is what is preventing the church from addressing these issues currently? I have already mentioned the issue of education, and it's probably the most obvious and significant. If for example only 30% of Irish people identify as Catholic, the fact that the Catholic Church controls 90% of Irish schools will be untenable.

The Church is in a bit of a bind over the schools. Quinn wanted the Church to offload them by getting the parents of each school to democratically decide if they wanted a Catholic school or a non denominational one. Eamon Martin was only too keen to abide, and earmarked dozens of schools for handing over. "Catholic" schools are actually for the most part run by lay parent committees, with the local priest having less and less time to have any involvement. Unfortunately as Quinn and Martin soon discovered, the same cultural Catholic parents voted that they wanted to remain a "Catholic" school, for the same vague cultural reasons they tick Catholic on the census form, when most parents are no more Catholic than the man in the moon. It was a failure for Quinn and Martin. So it's back to the drawing board. Once of the reasons, most Irish parents realise, that the only thing more inept and incompetent than a Catholic school, is one run by the Irish state. I wouldn't necessarily send my child to a Catholic school, but I wouldn't let my dog be educated by the Irish state, and even the most anti-Catholic atheist knows this. 150 kids have died in Irish state care in the last 10 years alone. Educate together is a much better solution, any parent that hands their school and children's education over to the Irish state, wants their head read, and has little real experience of them or other state bodies, which are all a disaster.

eviltwin

barretsimpson wrote: »

The Church is in a bit of a bind over the schools. Quinn wanted the Church to offload them by getting the parents of each school to democratically decide if they wanted a Catholic school or a non denominational one. Eamon Martin was only too keen to abide, and earmarked dozens of schools for handing over. "Catholic" schools are actually for the most part run by lay parent committees, with the local priest having less and less time to have any involvement. Unfortunately as Quinn and Martin soon discovered, the same cultural Catholic parents voted that they wanted to remain a "Catholic" school, for the same vague cultural reasons they tick Catholic on the census form, when most parents are no more Catholic than the man in the moon. It was a failure for Quinn and Martin. So it's back to the drawing board. Once of the reasons, most Irish parents realise, that the only thing more inept and incompetent than a Catholic school, is one run by the Irish state. I wouldn't necessarily send my child to a Catholic school, but I wouldn't let my dog be educated by the Irish state, and even the most anti-Catholic atheist knows this. 150 kids have died in Irish state care in the last 10 years alone. Educate together is a much better solution, any parent that hands their school and children's education over to the Irish state, wants their head read, and has little real experience of them or other state bodies, which are all a disaster.

It was a very small sample of schools they used didn't they? Maybe they should try it again but roll it out to all schools.

Benny_Cake

eviltwin wrote: »

It was a very small sample of schools they used didn't they? Maybe they should try it again but roll it out to all schools.

It was a small sample but my understanding is that the sample was chosen based on the areas where it was felt the need was greatest to provide alternatives. Unfortunately it was a failure. I suspect most people are happy with the education their kids are receiving and don't see the need for change. The devil you know and all that. I think that's unfortunate, personally, as in many ways church schools have served the country well but the time for change has come.

barretsimpson

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It was a small sample but my understanding is that the sample was chosen based on the areas where it was felt the need was greatest to provide alternatives. Unfortunately it was a failure. I suspect most people are happy with the education their kids are receiving and don't see the need for change. The devil you know and all that. I think that's unfortunate, personally, as in many ways church schools have served the country well but the time for change has come.

Indeed, and most savvy parents know that the only thing more inept than a so called "Catholic" school in Ireland is anything run by the Irish state. Whatever happens, religion or not, wiser Irish parents will ensure they administer their own schools and children’s education.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

The Church isn't a democracy. Policy on moral issues has been set 2,000 years ago and until the Author of that policy tells us otherwise, the policy He set is not negotiable.
.

Saying the policy was set 2000 years ago would imply that Jesus wrote the bible which clearly untrue. It was written long after he was dead and then edited to suit the morals and dogma of those people. There's evidence that the early church had female priests. The whole anti woman stance of the church was introduce long after Jesus. Jesus also said nothing about homosexuals as far as I know. The bible isn't the word of god, its peoples interpretation of oral storeys passed down to them.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

The bible isn't the word of god, its peoples interpretation of oral storeys passed down to them.

The Bible is the word of God and the gospels are explicit in their moral teachings.

barretsimpson

hinault wrote: »

The Bible is the word of God and the gospels are explicit in their moral teachings.

That depends entirely on who's reading it and their motives . . . .

ShaShaBear

I think a Catholic's reasoning in feeling differently about gay marriage now is that they have more likely had a personal experience with someone who is homosexual. For example, my mother would still consider herself a Catholic. She does not go to church, but does pray at home and does believe in many of the spiritual teachings. However, two members of my family and a very, very close friend of hers have come out as gay over the years, and she voted yes to amend the constitution because while she considers homosexuality to be "wrong", she also accepts that these people have no choice in their sexuality, and their happiness is more important to her as a Christian than being cruel in the name of her religion.
She believes marriage to be a very sacred union, and would consider that sex before marriage and "living in sin" to be a necessary evil in ensuring that the person you marry is truly the person you want to be with. As she accepts that sex is more than just a reason to procreate and believes there should be love and intimacy in all parts of a marriage union. To her, she would rather know I had sex before marriage, and decided upon a life partner that was compatible with me in all ways, than to marry as a virgin who had never lived with my husband and for the marriage to fall apart.
As above, she believes contraception is important as she would think that having a controlled amount of children that you know you are emotionally and financially capable of raising is much better than having too many children and some of them getting neglected as a result.

So I would think for many Catholics, they consider some teachings and rules to be so sacred, they are willing to compromise on others to ensure the more important ones are upheld.

kippy

hinault wrote: »

The Bible is the word of God and the gospels are explicit in their moral teachings.

Really?
Was the word of god originally written in English?

autumnrain

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Thanks very much for that response, and I agree that there is a lot of denial. Is the reason for this denial a fear that people will be driven away due to the fact that they are not going to change the way they operate within their families and relationships to suit the churches teachings, and the church is likewise unwilling to change its stance? I see them as very much being at an impasse which they are unlikely to be able to move on from without either loosing masses of people who identify as Catholic, or changing what they teach or the way they teach, on relationship issues.

I think personally that a hard line, Hinnault suggested excommunication, will be disastrous for the Church, but on saying that, it is really the most honest position that they can take. The implications though would undeniably be far reaching within Irish society.

I think we have to recognise that this will never be black and white but shades of grey (!). People are in very different head spaces, for loads of reasons on this. With Irish people its never a simple 'are you or are you not a catholic'.

I don't think this is about church teachings at all. It won't matter what they say over the next month - but it will matter enormously HOW they speak and with whom.

Bishops are (i'm guessing) getting loads of calls from people this week blaming them for losing the referendum. Very hurt and angry right-of-right people who think the world is gone to pot. They speak loud and threaten to write to the Pope and a hundred Cardinal friends in Rome, and its hard to hear over them. Bishops are also getting hammered from yes voters too. So its tempting to retreat, or to meet among themselves and talk about what they should say.

But the damage was done in the 'saying'. in the one-way statements. ...They were grand statements considering: Kevin Doran did way way more damage in his interview than any pastoral letter. but they were statements. I saw no evidence that any Bishop sat down and consulted with a group in advance of making a statement.
And that's the problem: process is utterly undermining content.
When they speak of families but ignore families: there is a lack of integrity in their words.

Underneath all the doctrine, all the conferences, statements and pastoral letters; is the Vatican II commitment to recognising the baptised as full members. Consultation.

That's no longer a nice idea. Its the only way they (and we, i'm a baptised catholic) can survive now. Together.

hinault

barretsimpson wrote: »

That depends entirely on who's reading it and their motives . . . .

30,000+ protestant denominations.

Benny_Cake

autumnrain wrote: »

I think we have to recognise that this will never be black and white but shades of grey (!). People are in very different head spaces, for loads of reasons on this. With Irish people its never a simple 'are you or are you not a catholic'.

I don't think this is about church teachings at all. It won't matter what they say over the next month - but it will matter enormously HOW they speak and with whom.

Bishops are (i'm guessing) getting loads of calls from people this week blaming them for losing the referendum. Very hurt and angry right-of-right people who think the world is gone to pot. They speak loud and threaten to write to the Pope and a hundred Cardinal friends in Rome, and its hard to hear over them. Bishops are also getting hammered from yes voters too. So its tempting to retreat, or to meet among themselves and talk about what they should say.

But the damage was done in the 'saying'. in the one-way statements. ...They were grand statements considering: Kevin Doran did way way more damage in his interview than any pastoral letter. but they were statements. I saw no evidence that any Bishop sat down and consulted with a group in advance of making a statement.
And that's the problem: process is utterly undermining content.
When they speak of families but ignore families: there is a lack of integrity in their words.

The bishops actually remained quiet enough, all things considered. Kevin Doran's intervention was cack-handed as you said, but the others were fairly mute. I got the feeling that with Diarmuid Martin, in particular, his heart wasn't really in it.

Didn't some of the bishops say that a Catholic could in good conscience vote Yes?

Most of the work on the No side was done by the likes of Iona, not the clergy.

barretsimpson

hinault wrote: »

30,000+ protestant denominations.

A bad catholic is just as bad as a bad prod and a bad atheist and never forget that.

barretsimpson

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I tend to somewhat agree here, but I am coming from a position where I think that the removal of religious influence on civic society is a good thing, where I don't think that you are. Do you think this is what is preventing the church from addressing these issues currently? I have already mentioned the issue of education, and it's probably the most obvious and significant. If for example only 30% of Irish people identify as Catholic, the fact that the Catholic Church controls 90% of Irish schools will be untenable.

You can't remove religious influence from society any more than if some nutter tried to remove the influence of science or the influence of capitalism from society. You can't separate a person from their beliefs no matter how much you suppress and ban them, its impossible. Lots of despots have tried exactly those things. Religion, science, capitalism or whatever your having are not inherently bad, its the user that determines what they are used for. i.e. good or bad. What the majority should strive for to remove is the misuse of religion, science, and capitalism, or whatever ideology is being abused, and let everyone live in harmony in the one community, whatever floats their boat. This country is big enough for all of us.

autumnrain

Ursula Halligan has a short blog in the Tablet today that seems relevant to this. (I'm a 'new user' so can't post the link)

"Therein lies the paradox in the Catholic Church revealed by this referendum. The most faithful of the faithful found ourselves, not just going against Church teaching, but going against it publicly. They included some very prominent Catholics including the former Irish president Mary McAleese, Fr Peter McVerry, Prof Linda Hogan, Sr Stanislaus Kennedy and Fr Gabriel Daly."

"The issue is not how to instruct the faithful, but how to help the faithful address the complexities implicit in embracing its gay members. The institutional Church has conspicuously failed to do that in the past. "

barretsimpson

autumnrain wrote: »

Ursula Halligan has a short blog in the Tablet today that seems relevant to this. (I'm a 'new user' so can't post the link)

"Therein lies the paradox in the Catholic Church revealed by this referendum. The most faithful of the faithful found ourselves, not just going against Church teaching, but going against it publicly. They included some very prominent Catholics including the former Irish president Mary McAleese, Fr Peter McVerry, Prof Linda Hogan, Sr Stanislaus Kennedy and Fr Gabriel Daly."

"The issue is not how to instruct the faithful, but how to help the faithful address the complexities implicit in embracing its gay members. The institutional Church has conspicuously failed to do that in the past. "

Of course all that depends entirely on your definition of faithful and who's claiming it. Things are rarely so simple and clear cut. People and issues are more complicated in reality, whether we like it or not. Popular views are easy to hold . . unpopular . . not so much. None of which says which is the 'correct' view. For many years, same sex civil partnerships were and still can be very unpopular in the most nonreligious of countries. Sometimes democracy works, sometimes not, it all depends who's wielding it and why. Many decisions are kept away from the people. Cover scams like Irish water and 300 billion euros in bailouts for wealthy billionaire speculators, paid for by the ordinary people over the next 40-50 years, were never put before the Irish people in referendum, and never will be. Some things that are not in the constitution should be, but the Irish people will never be allowed the democratic decision to do so. We are the puppets of those who we elect, whether we like it or not, they will never share the peoples views, except when it suits them.

homer911

hinault wrote: »

30,000+ protestant denominations.

Oops, havent prayed for you in a while..

mach1982

Jesus said that one of two most important commandments is "Love thy neighbour" , and when the disciples asked who is your neighbour Jesus said everyone , doses that not include the homosexuals , the laws of the Church were written by men, who are fallible, not by God who is infallible. I did vote no, and not for religious reasons, mainly because I did not approve of amending Article 41, I thought and still do that it better to have a new Article that defined what marriage is. The Church need to adapt , can sacraments be given at any age ? If so maybe leave baptism till later allow the child to decide.

hinault

autumnrain wrote: »

Ursula Halligan has a short blog in the Tablet today that seems relevant to this. (I'm a 'new user' so can't post the link)

"Therein lies the paradox in the Catholic Church revealed by this referendum. The most faithful of the faithful found ourselves, not just going against Church teaching, but going against it publicly. They included some very prominent Catholics including the former Irish president Mary McAleese, Fr Peter McVerry, Prof Linda Hogan, Sr Stanislaus Kennedy and Fr Gabriel Daly."

"The issue is not how to instruct the faithful, but how to help the faithful address the complexities implicit in embracing its gay members. The institutional Church has conspicuously failed to do that in the past. "

I think Halligan is contradicting herself there.

A Catholic either accepts church teaching - as set out in the Catechism - or doesn't.

Halligan is suggesting above that a Catholic can support the YES referendum and be the "the most faithful of the faithful" at the same time.

Halligan is being wilfully blind.

am946745

I think the Catholic church does not understand all the dimensions of Gay partnership or "marriage" as we have it. They are focused on one aspect. I think its healthy for a gay man to have someone to share their life with, travel with, eat with, watch telly with, talk to.

If you take the catholic teaching by the letter then its really a lonely life.

Not everything in a gay relationship is bad from a Catholic teaching point of view. Its better than the past where men had to hide.

My brother is gay and always said if he could choose to be no gay he would, he can't and he is happy with himself and being out to people. I don't see anything wrong with accepting yourself and being honest and coherent.

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

I think the Catholic church does not understand all the dimensions of Gay partnership or "marriage" as we have it. They are focused on one aspect. I think its healthy for a gay man to have someone to share their life with, travel with, eat with, watch telly with, talk to.

If you take the catholic teaching by the letter then its really a lonely life.

Not everything in a gay relationship is bad from a Catholic teaching point of view. Its better than the past where men had to hide.

My brother is gay and always said if he could choose to be no gay he would, he can't and he is happy with himself and being out to people. I don't see anything wrong with accepting yourself and being honest and coherent.

It takes sexual intercourse to consummate a marriage between man and woman.

I don't know how a SSM could be consummated.

The Catechism is clear on the issue. Homosexual (sexual) acts are sinful.

Two homosexuals living together for companionship and both living a chaste life would not be in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

P_1

hinault wrote: »

It takes sexual intercourse to consummate a marriage between man and woman a couple according to traditional religious views, none of which apply to civil marriage.

I don't know how a SSM could be consummated.

You pretty much answered your question.

Again the referendum was not on changing the rules of your church, we are a democracy and such a thing would never be done in a democracy unless it was harming others.

The_Valeyard

I'm surprised this thread is so civilised considering Kiwi and Evil Twins open hostility to the Catholic church in other threads. :P

am946745

hinault wrote: »

It takes sexual intercourse to consummate a marriage between man and woman.

I don't know how a SSM could be consummated.

The Catechism is clear on the issue. Homosexual (sexual) acts are sinful.

Two homosexuals living together for companionship and both living a chaste life would not be in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Correct but even that most catholics won't accept. And we are pretty hipocritical when there are millions of straight couples who are not married.

am946745

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'm surprised this thread is so civilised considering Kiwi and Evil Twins open hostility to the Catholic church in other threads. :P

All catholics are duty bound to support and love gay people.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

It takes sexual intercourse to consummate a marriage between man and woman.

I don't know how a SSM could be consummated.

The Catechism is clear on the issue. Homosexual (sexual) acts are sinful.

Two homosexuals living together for companionship and both living a chaste life would not be in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

But obviously gay people and unmarried people cannot be expected to remain celebate because their parents baptised them Catholic as babies. So should the age of baptism be held off until a person can make an informed decision?

hinault

am946745 wrote: »

Correct but even that most catholics won't accept. And we are pretty hipocritical when there are millions of straight couples who are not married.

I agree. Thousands upon thousands of people live in sin in this country.

kippy

hinault wrote: »

I agree. Thousands upon thousands of people live in sin in this country.

Sin according to your rules. Getting on with life according to mine.

am946745

hinault wrote: »

I agree. Thousands upon thousands of people live in sin in this country.

Yes, but there are levels and degrees of sin. If we really believe we need to lead by example. We don't believe in a religion, we follow a person. Christ would not have condemned a gay man, he would have said sin not more and follow me.

am946745

kippy wrote: »

Sin according to your rules. Getting on with life according to mine.

Sin according to Christ.