We Are Church Ireland Protest

Cabaal

So listening to Today FM news this morning and they mentioned this group http://wearechurchireland.ie/, its a group of Catholics who want to change the Catholic Church from within because of the church's utterly disgraceful handling of the rape and abuse of children in its history.

I must say I find this refreshing to see catholics actively, openly trying their best to recover whats good from the church and that needs to happen because the leaders of the church are doing a poor job of it.

Sure we hear the church apologise for the rape of children in the past but its evident from the church's actions that for the most part this is only lip service and they aren't really that interested in changing unless forced by the law. The fact that they systematically covered up abuse and had guidelines for doing so shows that the children are very far from the most important people in their view.

Anyway, today the organization will parade an actor dressed up as a disgraced Bishop through Grafton Street, Dublin. As per their website " We ask for cardinals and bishops guilty of covering up clerical abuse to be brought to justice.".

I'd love to see more Catholics actively campaign like this, we all get outraged by the catholic church but its disappointing to see the good that some in the church has done ruined by those that caused the abused, covered it up and who continue to improperly deal with the victims to this day.

Thinkingaboutit

The abuse scandal has only superficially been dealt with, and Pope Francis has not been as strong on it, as he should. However, the objectives seem to be doubling down on the 'Spirit of Vatican II' (a liberal left Protestant and European understanding of the Council). Things that have failed like the New Mass with its banal understanding of how the laity participate faithfully in the Mass and doubly banal text (thanks ICEL), the weakening of the priest from alter Christus to a presider at a Communion table, and the resultant vandalism of so many sanctuaries, the lax formation of priests (rather than the frequent removing of seminarians the SSPX practice to keep the Seminary of Ecône sharp and free of future priests with mental or sexual problems).

Pope John Paul II provided notably bad leadership in how the handled the paedophile and embezzler (and serial donor to the Vatican) Marcial Maciel Degollado. Pope Benedict did improve things a great deal, but his indifferent record as Cardinal Ratzinger during JPII's time stands. Pope Francis appointed to a synod body a Belgian Cardinal who personally advised a victim not to report an abuser bishop and had introduced a truly sordid textbook for relationships and sexuality education. He transferred a Chilean army bishop Barros to a territorial diocese despite direct testimony from victims of coverup, and worse, as Bp Barros was notably close to the paedophile Fr Karadima. Pope Francis was mocking towards Chilean Catholics who visited Rome to protest at this appointment. Probably Benedict was okay, but it is a lamentable record overall. Lay people have suffered notably in the US. They have seen churches and school go through decisions to coverup which were not of their making.

Cabaal

Don't worry, I don't for a second think the current pope's handling of the abuse has been very good, John Paul's handling was frankly shocking and sickening and during his time Vatican officials outright told abuse victims they were lying!

This is why I find this groups protest refreshing, that they recognize that the catholic church has failed at handling the abuse.
Many others will often say Francis is progressive and perhaps he is, but most of the progressive comments come from comments he's made and he has taken very little progressive action. Words in this case are worth nothing.

Given the Vatican's handling of abuse in the past number of decades I honestly feel very sorry for many Catholics because the Vatican has betrayed them

Michael G

Cabaal, not being a Catholic you wouldn't know who these We Are Church people are. They are a small clique of ageing survivors from the Woodstock/Vatican II generation who are of no importance whatever in the wider Church. The Association of Catholic Priests could be said to be their clerical wing. Only the Irish Times would take them seriously.

feargale

@Cabaal. Yes, I find it strange too that one who is apparently atheist should be so concerned for the wellbeing of Christianity/Catholicism.

Michael G wrote: »

Cabaal, not being a Catholic you wouldn't know who these We Are Church people are. They are a small clique of ageing survivors from the Woodstock/Vatican II generation who are of no importance whatever in the wider Church. The Association of Catholic Priests could be said to be their clerical wing. Only the Irish Times would take them seriously.

By the same token, could you give us some names of people who attended Woodstock and are members of this group? Or the names of Vatican II delegates who attended Woodstock? Could you enlighten us more on their age profile? What studies have been done?

Cabaal

feargale wrote: »

@Cabaal. Yes, I find it strange too that one who is apparently atheist should be so concerned for the wellbeing of Christianity/Catholicism.

Its not possible for me to care about my fellow humans? Since when does a person having a religious faith mean an atheist can't give a crap about them?
:rolleyes:

It concerns me (as it should anyone) because currently the church teaches division and hatred towards women and LGBT people in Ireland. The church claims peace, love and acceptance but its actions do not support this.

I'm not happy to live in a country that has organizations that teach division and hatred towards groups. This is why I would see this groups aims as positive.

Michael G

feargale wrote: »

By the same token, could you give us some names of people who attended Woodstock and are members of this group? Or the names of Vatican II delegates who attended Woodstock? Could you enlighten us more on their age profile? What studies have been done?

You are taking, or pretending to take, a metaphor literally. But I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a member of "We Are Church" or a leading light of the ACP who is under sixty.

Mrs OBumble

Michael G wrote: »

You are taking, or pretending to take, a metaphor literally. But I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a member of "We Are Church" or a leading light of the ACP who is under sixty.

It wouldn't, actually.

Under 40, maybe.

Under 60, absolutely not.

feargale

Michael G wrote: »

You are taking, or pretending

Rashly judged, young man.

Michael G wrote: »

to take, a metaphor literally.

The word metaphor never occurred to me. Of course metaphors and poetry generally are easier ways to discredit those we disagree with than pesky rational discourse which can be challenged.

Michael G wrote: »

But I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find a member of "We Are Church" or a leading light of the ACP who is under sixty.

Would I be equally rash if I thought I detected a hint of agism in your post? Would the absence of under sixties from the ACP have anything to do with their general absence from the priesthood, without getting into the reasons for that? ( bearing in mind that we have absolved ourselves from quoting figures. )

Michael G

I know a good few priests in their thirties, forties and fifties. None of them would have anything to do with the ACP. This is an illustration of what is called the "biological solution".

Benny_Cake

It's a pity that people feel the need to take a shot at the ACP on the grounds of their age, or by implying that they are nothing other than a bunch of ageing hippies. My impression of the ACP is that they are a group of men who have given their lives in the service of their church and of others. If they need to have a forum where they can support one another and express their concerns, I'm glad they have it as they certainly can't go home in the evening and talk to the wife about it. It would be far worse if they were too jaded and cynical to care.

Michael G

No one could grudge them a private forum where they could share their thoughts and support one another. It's when they express collective dissent and disobedience that the ACP becomes objectionable.

Michael G

Cabaal wrote: »

It concerns me (as it should anyone) because currently the church teaches division and hatred towards women and LGBT people in Ireland.

No it doesn't.

Cabaal

Michael G wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Oh so it see's women as equal?

Great!
Now, point me to the nearest Catholic Priest thats a women, assuming the church see's women as equal and just as important to men that shouldn't be a problem.

While you're at it find me the Vatican's statement on its acceptance and happiness when the Irish government passed marriages for gay couples. If it teaches acceptance this shouldn't be a problem at all,

Michael G

Cabaal wrote: »

Now, point me to the nearest Catholic Priest thats a women, assuming the church see's women as equal and just as important to men that shouldn't be a problem.

That is not about equality. It is based on a theological understanding of the nature of the Mass and the role of the priest. You could argue that the theology is wrong; many do.

Cabaal wrote: »

While you're at it find me the Vatican's statement on its acceptance and happiness when the Irish government passed marriages for gay couples. If it teaches acceptance this shouldn't be a problem at all,

Again, we're talking theology not equality. The Church preaches tolerance and love for homosexuals, but maintains that the nature of marriage excludes same-sex couples. In other words, gay marriage is a category error and a legal fiction.

Cabaal

Michael G wrote: »

That is not about equality. It is based on a theological understanding of the nature of the Mass and the role of the priest. You could argue that the theology is wrong; many do.

If you want to use that as an excuse then grand, you and the church keeps on seeing women as inferior to men.

The Church preaches tolerance and love for homosexuals,

Only if they actually stop having sex, then it accepts them.
:rolleyes:

but maintains that the nature of marriage excludes same-sex couples. In other words, gay marriage is a category error and a legal fiction.

State marriage has zip to do with the church, it doesn't affect them one bit. But even though it has no effect on them they were against it.

The catholic church does not have a monopoly of marriage, it existed before the catholic church did and it'll likely exist long after it.

To call it fiction and an error is laughable,

feargale

Michael G wrote: »

No one could grudge them a private forum where they could share their thoughts and support one another. It's when they express collective dissent and disobedience that the ACP becomes objectionable.

Disobedience? Yes, father. Tell us, father, what we should think of the obedience of those princes of the church, based in Rome, who loudly preached unquestioning obedience to the Papacy when JPII was Pope, including an admonition not to speak of women priests, and, Francis having taken a very different tack, are now doing their damnedest to undermine him.

Michael G

feargale wrote: »

... Francis having taken a very different tack, are now doing their damnedest to undermine him.

If you mean the stuff about women deacons, once again it appears the Pope has been misinterpreted ⎯ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/pope-francis-did-not-say-hed-ordain-women-deacons-spokesman-says/.

feargale

Michael G wrote: »

If you mean the stuff about women deacons, once again it appears the Pope has been misinterpreted ⎯ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/05/16/pope-francis-did-not-say-hed-ordain-women-deacons-spokesman-says/.

No. I'm talking about unquestioning obedience in general, in response to your introduction of the subject of disobedience.

Michael G

Then I'm afraid I must have misunderstood you. Are you saying that some people showed unquestioning obedience to St John Paul, but only because they agreed with what he said; whereas the same people are trying to undermine Francis because they disagree with him?

I don't see any evidence of people trying to undermine Francis. I think some at the liberal end of the spectrum are projecting a lot of their hopes on to him, and are encouraged to do so by his somewhat careless and ambiguous way of expressing himself.

feargale

quote="Michael G;99738152"]No one could grudge them a private forum where they could share their thoughts and support one another. It's when they express collective dissent and disobedience that the ACP becomes objectionable.[/quote]

Or openly express criticism, as in a Boards thread?

Michael G wrote: »

Then I'm afraid I must have misunderstood you. Are you saying that some people showed unquestioning obedience to St John Paul, but only because they agreed with what he said; whereas the same people are trying to undermine Francis because they disagree with him?

Yes. Do some googling if you are unaware of it.

Michael G wrote: »

I don't see any evidence of people trying to undermine Francis. I think some at the liberal end of the spectrum are projecting a lot of their hopes on to him, and are encouraged to do so by his somewhat careless and ambiguous way of expressing himself.

You have gone some way to making my point for me. It is difficult to imagine you or like-minded people making a similar criticism of JPII. If others did so I suspect that we would hear the word disobedience from some quarters, or disloyalty at least.
Due to a prolonged hospital appointment tomorrow I have to finish now. You will be able to answer without refutation from me.

Michael G

feargale wrote: »

Due to a prolonged hospital appointment tomorrow I have to finish now. You will be able to answer without refutation from me.

May all go well with you tomorrow. If you would like to post again when you are better, I shall be glad to continue this discussion. God bless.

feargale

Michael G wrote: »

May all go well with you tomorrow. If you would like to post again when you are better, I shall be glad to continue this discussion. God bless.

Thank you. That's kind of you. It's not too serious.

feargale

@ Cabaal. I don't go much to A &A threads anymore, and have very rarely gone to Christianity threads, other than to perhaps enquire about something historical. I have an abiding impression that there is wider latitude to argue and debate in Christianity threads, and less trigger happy modding. I wonder what those of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire and Rousseau would make of that.
And that's before we even begin to talk about standards of courtesy.

Cabaal

feargale wrote: »

@ Cabaal. I don't go much to A &A threads anymore, and have very rarely gone to Christianity threads, other than to perhaps enquire about something historical. I have an abiding impression that there is wider latitude to argue and debate in Christianity threads, and less trigger happy modding. I wonder what those of the Enlightenment such as Voltaire and Rousseau would make of that.
And that's before we even begin to talk about standards of courtesy.

Nice,
so rather then continue the on-topic discussion in this thread you'd rather make some vague attempt at attacking other posters, poor form indeed.

feargale

Cabaal wrote: »

Nice,
so rather then continue the on-topic discussion in this thread you'd rather make some vague attempt at attacking other posters, poor form indeed.

Ok. I'm back.
Relax, man. I wasn't attacking you personally. I vaguely recall your username in A&A, but I have no recollection of your modding style, good, bad or indifferent. My comments about this and other matters were general ones. And I'm not necessarily saying that A&A is the worst forum for modding. You may say with some justification that I should have made these points elsewhere. The trouble is where threads have been opened to tease these issues out discussion is often stifled in them and they are sometimes closed down very fast. Without wishing to stoke the embers I cannot resist saying that I would have thought anyone from A&A would be well used to witnessing attack.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is an interesting one. I haven't read or heard much about We Are Church in recent times. Maybe they didn't take off as anticipated. I can think of possible reasons.

Let the discussion continue.

hinault

The group mentioned in the OP - wearechurchireland.ie - claims to be Catholic is contradicted by at least several of their founding objectives.

Their objectives contradict catholic teaching.

http://wearechurchireland.ie/about-us/

This organisation appears to be protestant in objective and in reality.

feargale

hinault wrote: »

This organisation appears to be protestant in objective and in reality.

Back in the day a distinctive jersey for the goalkeeper and he being allowed to pick the ball off the ground was mooted for Gaelic football ( now a reality ). There was much opposition from conservative quarters on the grounds that " it savours of a foreign game " ( sic ). In other words, although nobody argued that it would not better the game, it reeked of the stench of soccer and that was enough reason to oppose it.
Is there food for thought there?

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Back in the day a distinctive jersey for the goalkeeper and he being allowed to pick the ball off the ground was mooted for Gaelic football ( now a reality ). There was much opposition from conservative quarters on the grounds that " it savours of a foreign game " ( sic ). In other words, although nobody argued that it would not better the game, it reeked of the stench of soccer and that was enough reason to oppose it.
Is there food for thought there?

This would be female goal keepers playing on a men's team?

I presume you read the objectives of the organisation that you cite before posting. Their objectives for female priests for example??

Maybe you didn't actually read the objectives that this group advocates.

Cabaal

Their objectives for female priests for example??

I'd argue that most catholic believers would be in favor of this, many people like to claim that the people make the church and not the Vatican so this belief that women priests should exist is surely a catholic idea? After all its the Catholics that want it.

It seems sort of insulting for you to claim such people are not Catholics,

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd argue that most catholic believers would be in favor of this, many people like to claim that the people make the church and not the Vatican so this belief that women priests should exist is surely a catholic idea? After all its the Catholics that want it.

It seems sort of insulting for you to claim such people are not Catholics,

On who's authority are "most Catholic believers" in favour of this?

Who's authority are these catholics making these claims?

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

On who's authority are "most Catholic believers" in favour of this?

Who's authority are these catholics making these claims?

The Catholics are making those claims, as they make the church what it is the leadership of the church should listen to them.

We can also claim that its accurate to state that most Catholics in Ireland supported marriage equality.

If 82% of Ireland calls themselves Catholic and above 60% of the country votes for marriage equality we can say that most Catholics in Ireland had no issue with marriage equality. The Vatican's stance ignored its followers on this issue and they continue to ignore on women priests and other important issues.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

The Catholics are making those claims, as they make the church what it is the leadership of the church should listen to them.

We can also claim that its accurate to state that most Catholics in Ireland supported marriage equality.

If 82% of Ireland calls themselves Catholic and above 60% of the country votes for marriage equality we can say that most Catholics in Ireland had no issue with marriage equality. The Vatican's stance ignored its followers on this issue and they continue to ignore on women priests and other important issues.

So this group are making these demands on their own authority.

This is the point I'm getting to. If this group were making demands and can point to say Scripture in doing so, I might be inclined to perhaps indulge what they aspire to.

But it appears that this group are making demands because they assume that their own authority suffices.
"I demand XYZ, because I feel I've the authority to do so"

alma73

Michael G wrote: »

Cabaal, not being a Catholic you wouldn't know who these We Are Church people are. They are a small clique of ageing survivors from the Woodstock/Vatican II generation who are of no importance whatever in the wider Church. The Association of Catholic Priests could be said to be their clerical wing. Only the Irish Times would take them seriously.

Oh God.. Those things. Thankfully they are dying out and we have better priests coming.

feargale

hinault wrote: »

This would be female goal keepers playing on a men's team?

No. Female track athletes in the 1950s. Remember that controversy?

hinault wrote: »

Their objectives for female priests for example??

That seems to be your main point of objection to We Are Church. Reasons, please?

hinault wrote: »

Maybe you didn't actually read the objectives that this group advocates.

I did. I did.

hinault

feargale wrote: »

That seems to be your main point of objection to We Are Church. Reasons, please?

We discussed this earlier.

This group that you cite possess no authority, other than their own.

People and groups assuming their own authority were the catalyst for protestantism then and now.
Not my cup of tea.

philstar

why don't they just become protestant,

its not they haven't a choice after all is it??

uck51js9zml2yt

philstar wrote: »

why don't they just become protestant,

its not they haven't a choice after all is it??

Maybe they don't want to be protestants.
I wouldn't want to be one either ( nor for that matter a catholic)

InTheTrees

philstar wrote: »

why don't they just become protestant,

its not they haven't a choice after all is it??

Exactly. The clue is in the name.

feargale

hinault wrote: »

We discussed this earlier.

Ah no. Can you tell us why you are opposed to women priests? And if for no other reason than that your church tells you so, can you enlighten us as to what the church's objection is grounded on?

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Ah no. Can you tell us why you are opposed to women priests? And if for no other reason than that your church tells you so, can you enlighten us as to what the church's objection is grounded on?

A group claiming to be a Catholic group but with an objective for female priests is in direct contradiction of 2,000 years of church teaching.

The Catholic Church founded by Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus bestowed apostolic authority upon a female.

We have discussed this earlier.

feargale

hinault wrote: »

A group claiming to be a Catholic group but with an objective for female priests is in direct contradiction of 2,000 years of church teaching.

Yes, I get what you say, but I'm asking, what is this founded on?

hinault wrote: »

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus bestowed apostolic authority upon a female.

Great. I've finally got an answer.
Can you point to where Scripture bestows this authority on a male?
Can you point to where it specifically denies it to a female?

hinault wrote: »

We have discussed this earlier.

I fail to see where. Anyway you have now gone some way to answering. Thank you, both retrospectively and in anticipation.

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Great. I've finally got an answer.
Can you point to where Scripture bestows this authority on a male?
Can you point to where it specifically denies it to a female?

The New Testament.


Are you a member of wearechurch?

feargale

hinault wrote: »

The New Testament.

Ah damn! I could have guessed that. Could you be more specific please? If you don't know what I'm looking for, and I would have thought I've made it reasonably clear, we could be here till Christmas. Anyway I'm heading for the leaba now. Goodnight.

hinault wrote: »

Are you a member of wearechurch?

No. I am not. I recall reports of their foundation, in Austria, I think, about 20 (?) years ago. I thought the project interesting. Then I read little about them over the years until recently. In the meantime I wondered how they had fared.

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Ah damn! I could have guessed that. Could you be more specific please? If you don't know what I'm looking for, and I would have thought I've made it reasonably clear, we could be here till Christmas. Anyway I'm heading for the leaba now. Goodnight.

Read the New Testament. It'll be worth it

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Read the New Testament. It'll be worth it

Seems strange that you claim the New Testament doesn't allow for women priests yet can't provide verses to back up what you said.

Can you provide verses that state only men can be priests?

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

Seems strange that you claim the New Testament doesn't allow for women priests yet can't provide verses to back up what you said.

Can you provide verses that state only men can be priests?

The NT clearly mentions women as fellow workers with Paul.
Some scholars would suggest one was a fellow apostle.
I'm still in bed so would need to check the reference at some point .
Hi wait with baited breath for your question to be answered!

feargale

hinault wrote: »

Read the New Testament. It'll be worth it

I've read it, thanks. In the context of my two questions could you please point out to me what you've picked up from it that I'm missing?
Alternatively I will have to conclude that you would prefer not to answer the questions, that you would in fact prefer they weren't asked.

uck51js9zml2yt

feargale wrote: »

I've read it, thanks. In the context of my two questions could you please point out to me what you've picked up from it that I'm missing?
Alternatively I will have to conclude that you would prefer not to answer the questions, that you would in fact prefer they weren't asked.

Don't worry feargale , I asked him a question in another thread and he kept deflecting it. I eventually got on his ignore list ‚

Stealthfins

hinault wrote:

The Catholic Church founded by Jesus. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus bestowed apostolic authority upon a female.

Jesus never found any church,he wasn't for organized religion.

That's why the organized religious <snip> nailed him to the cross.

He supposedly was rebellious to the teachings of the Torah.

Catholic Church founded by Jesus what a man made lie....

fryup

philstar wrote: »

why don't they just become protestant,

its not they haven't a choice after all is it??

exactly protestants allow women priests, so why not change over