Maynooth

Fleawuss

Dear Sisters and Brothers, I am curious as to what the wonderful subculture of this forum makes of the Maynooth situation.
I am delighted that the hypocrisy of the church is dragged into the light again. The abhorrence of the gay sub culture is ridiculous to us but for a bunch of people who are committing their lives to an anti gay anti woman anti rationality backward looking lifestyle supposedly approved of by their version of "god" then it does make sense. You really only want the most backward in that line of work. No self respecting gay should be there in the first place.

What say you?

J_E

Fleawuss wrote: »

No self respecting gay should be there in the first place.

Not sure how to respond to that statement really. If someone genuinely feels that vocation and they're willing to undergo the chastity required, then fine. I don't feel so comfortable with a religious figure talking about Grindr though.

baby and crumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

Dear Sisters and Brothers, I am curious as to what the wonderful subculture of this forum makes of the Maynooth situation.
I am delighted that the hypocrisy of the church is dragged into the light again.
The abhorrence of the gay sub culture is ridiculous to us but for a bunch of people who are committing their lives to an anti gay anti woman anti rationality backward looking lifestyle supposedly approved of by their version of "god" then it does make sense. You really only want the most backward in that line of work. No self respecting gay should be there in the first place.

What say you?

Can I ask why you chose to use the word "subculture" twice in your post to refer to the LGBTQ community?

I also don't think a person cannot be gay and religious, or gay and Catholic. The two things are not mutually exclusive once you take the "Church" out of it.

I don't know all the "ins and outs" (if you'll pardon the pun) of the whole situation nor do I really care (I'm not Catholic and always thought the celibacy requirement was wrong and bizarre anyway).

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

Can I ask why you chose to use the word "subculture" twice in your post to refer to the LGBTQ community?

I also don't think a person cannot be gay and religious, or gay and Catholic. The two things are not mutually exclusive once you take the "Church" out of it.

I don't know all the "ins and outs" (if you'll pardon the pun) of the whole situation nor do I really care (I'm not Catholic and always thought the celibacy requirement was wrong and bizarre anyway).

Of course you can. Because it was used in the public discussion on the topic. Can I ask why you chose to ask that question?

No self respecting gay person can belong to any religion which teaches as the revealed word of "God" that they are inferior humans and should be stoned, thrown off buildings, put to death, discriminated against in shops. It is not open to followers to set aside the "revelation" of "God".

baby and crumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

Of course you can. Because it was used in the public discussion on the topic. Can I ask why you chose to ask that question?

Because "subculture" cold be seen as de-legitimising the community. It's an odd choice of word in my opinion.

Fleawuss wrote: »

No self respecting gay person can belong to any religion which teaches as the revealed word of "God" that they are inferior humans and should be stoned, thrown off buildings, put to death, discriminated against in shops. It is not open to followers to set aside the "revelation" of "God".

Again, there is a big big difference between faith, spirituality and religion. Religion is very much man-made. Having no respect for others spiritual/religious beliefs is just as bad as those who don't respect me because I'm a lesbian. I know many many "religious" people, many practising Catholics who voted yes in the referendum, who campaign for trans equality, etc. My fiancees' local parish priest has offered to bless our marriage if we would like- he's a gay man himself.

It's a lazy generalisation that "all" religious people want me dead.

bonyn

There's enough catholic bashing in the atheism forum without bringing it here. You've a very nasty attitude and it's coming across in your post.

I think the bishop has a point about the seminary being an unhealthy environment for such subcultures anyway.

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

Because "subculture" cold be seen as de-legitimising the community. It's an odd choice of word in my opinion.

A wonderfully silly theoretical piece of tosh. There are lots of subcultures in the wider culture: the gay one is much less insular than it was but it is still a subculture. When I watch Shamrock Rovers and roar them on I'm part of that subculture too. The only oddity is reading illegitimacy into that word.

baby and crumble wrote: »

Again, there is a big big difference between faith, spirituality and religion. Religion is very much man-made. Having no respect for others spiritual/religious beliefs is just as bad as those who don't respect me because I'm a lesbian. I know many many "religious" people, many practising Catholics who voted yes in the referendum, who campaign for trans equality, etc. My fiancees' local parish priest has offered to bless our marriage if we would like- he's a gay man himself.

It's a lazy generalisation that "all" religious people want me dead.

Indeed it would be a lazy generalization if I had made it. Your local parish priest will have his priestly faculties suspended if you want to make known his willingness to bless homosexual marriages.

Finally in regard to respect for others beliefs: those beliefs have to have credibility to be due respect.

bonyn

Fleawuss wrote: »

No self respecting gay person can belong to any religion which teaches as the revealed word of "God" that they are inferior humans and should be stoned, thrown off buildings, put to death, discriminated against in shops. It is not open to followers to set aside the "revelation" of "God".

That's not catholicism you're describing anyway. The bible says very little about homosexuality, and doesn't prescribe any treatment if gays as you seem to imply
As for discriminated against in shops, i assume you're referring to the mischievous gay cake orders? Nasty behaviour by nasty, vindictive people.

Fleawuss

bonyn wrote: »

That's not catholicism you're describing anyway. The bible says very little about homosexuality, and doesn't prescribe any treatment if gays as you seem to imply
As for discriminated against in shops, i assume you're referring to the mischievous gay cake orders? Nasty behaviour by nasty, vindictive people.

A simple Google will bring you your answer as to the RC attitude to gay.

baby and crumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

Your local parish priest will have his priestly faculties suspended if you want to make known his willingness to bless homosexual marriages.

He came out during the Marriage referendum and has been vocal about his sexuality and his moral views. It's not exactly a secret.

What was the point of your post if not to whip up anti-catholic rhetoric in here? You dismiss my posts as "tosh" and don't listen to anyone telling you you are factually wrong.

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

He came out during the Marriage referendum and has been vocal about his sexuality and his moral views. It's not exactly a secret.

What was the point of your post if not to whip up anti-catholic rhetoric in here? You dismiss my posts as "tosh" and don't listen to anyone telling you you are factually wrong.

You are not listening to the facts. If he is living a chaste life as a homosexual he is regarded as a disordered person who should be tolerated in charity by those who actually know and follow Church teaching. If he is engaging in sexual activity he is regarded by those as morally disordered. If he publishes his willingness to bless homosexual marriages he will have his faculties suspended. Those are all sad facts.

The point of my post is very clear to anyone who read it with an open mind.

baby and crumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

You are not listening to the facts. If he is living a chaste life as a homosexual he is regarded as a disordered person who should be tolerated in charity by those who actually know and follow Church teaching. If he is engaging in sexual activity he is regarded by those as morally disordered. If he publishes his willingness to bless homosexual marriages he will have his faculties suspended. Those are all sad facts.

The point of my post is very clear to anyone who read it with an open mind.

Ok, let's take a step back here.

You are tarring ALL Catholics with the one extremist brush. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists, nor are all politicians corrupt, nor are all men violent, nor are all women emotionally manipulative, nor... do you see where I'm going with this? You are assuming that all religious people follow dogma without question.

The mere fact that there is an out gay priest who is vocal about his opinions and sexuality (and has been out for over a year and whose parishioners like and respect) means your premise is fundamentally flawed.

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

Ok, let's take a step back here.

You are tarring ALL Catholics with the one extremist brush. Just like not all Muslims are terrorists, nor are all politicians corrupt, nor are all men violent, nor are all women emotionally manipulative, nor... do you see where I'm going with this? You are assuming that all religious people follow dogma without question.

The mere fact that there is an out gay priest who is vocal about his opinions and sexuality (and has been out for over a year and whose parishioners like and respect) means your premise is fundamentally flawed.

I am afraid you don't get it: a Catholic has no choice about which parts of Church teaching they subscribe to. What you are describing are decent human beings who don't actually follow RC teaching. There are many of them. It would be far better if they actually accepted that they are not really RC and walked away.

My premise is based in the teaching of the RC itself.

baby and crumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

I am afraid you don't get it: a Catholic has no choice about which parts of Church teaching they subscribe to. What you are describing are decent human beings who don't actually follow RC teaching. There are many of them. It would be far better if they actually accepted that they are not really RC and walked away.

My premise is based in the teaching of the RC itself.

I think you don't get the difference between dogma and faith.

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

I think you don't get the difference between dogma and faith.

Your faith is in the dogmas. If you claim to set aside the magisterium and make your own teaching you are not in communion with the RC church.

That's the deal.

L.Jenkins

MOD NOTE: Keep the conversation civil. Any more personal attacks and members will be given a brief holiday from the forum.

Annasopra

Fleawuss wrote: »

Of course you can. Because it was used in the public discussion on the topic. Can I ask why you chose to ask that question?

No self respecting gay person can belong to any religion which teaches as the revealed word of "God" that they are inferior humans and should be stoned, thrown off buildings, put to death, discriminated against in shops. It is not open to followers to set aside the "revelation" of "God".

Lots of gay people do belong to religions. Lots of religious people are LGBT+

I have no problem with that. It's freedom of association. I do have a problem with people telling them they can't.

Annasopra

Fleawuss wrote: »

You are not listening to the facts. If he is living a chaste life as a homosexual he is regarded as a disordered person who should be tolerated in charity by those who actually know and follow Church teaching. If he is engaging in sexual activity he is regarded by those as morally disordered. If he publishes his willingness to bless homosexual marriages he will have his faculties suspended. Those are all sad facts.

The point of my post is very clear to anyone who read it with an open mind.

To be honest I think your posts come across as closed minded telling us all that LGBT+ people cannot be self respecting and religious

Fleawuss

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Lots of gay people do belong to religions. Lots of religious people are LGBT+

I have no problem with that. It's freedom of association. I do have a problem with people telling them they can't.

Then you need to explain why you think any gay person with self respect would belong to a group whose self definition as a group condemns them.

PS I have a serious problem with anyone saying that it is ok to join a group that condemns you. It's a sure route to ill health mentally.

Fleawuss

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be honest I think your posts come across as closed minded telling us all that LGBT+ people cannot be self respecting and religious

To be equally honest I haven't seen your posts address any of the issues I have pointed out with religions particularly RCism and its teachings in relation to gay people. Why is that?

Annasopra

Fleawuss wrote: »

Then you need to explain why you think any gay person with self respect would belong to a group whose self definition as a group condemns them.

PS I have a serious problem with anyone saying that it is ok to join a group that condemns you. It's a sure route to ill health mentally.

I don't need to explain anything. I've already explained LGBT people are religious and religious people are LGBT.

I don't believe in dictating to people what their choices should be.

Annasopra

Fleawuss wrote: »

To be equally honest I haven't seen your posts address any of the issues I have pointed out with religions particularly RCism and its teachings in relation to gay people. Why is that?

Cause I haven't posted any and I don't have to justify my own posts.

Fleawuss

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Cause I haven't posted any and I don't have to justify my own posts.

In that case and your contribution above I'll disregard your posts as adding nothing to the thread.

L1011

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Lots of gay people do belong to religions. Lots of religious people are LGBT+
.

In the case of Catholicism (and many others), it involves them ignoring huge issues including - most importantly - the actual "rules" of the religion they're a member of, though.

I always find it more than a bit strange that many, many people stay as communicating members of an organisation that specifically disbars them. There isn't any point in trying to argue that with them, though - they've decided to already.

The Groucho Marx quote about not wanting to be in a club that wants you as a member may apply in reverse here - and we do also see people blocked from boards.ie desperately trying to get in!

Annasopra

L1011 wrote: »

In the case of Catholicism (and many others), it involves them ignoring huge issues including - most importantly - the actual "rules" of the religion they're a member of, though.

I always find it more than a bit strange that many, many people stay as communicating members of an organisation that specifically disbars them. There isn't any point in trying to argue that with them, though - they've decided to already.

The Groucho Marx quote about not wanting to be in a club that wants you as a member may apply in reverse here - and we do also see people blocked from boards.ie desperately trying to get in!

Or you also have commited Catholics who try to engage rather than ignore e.g. McAleese and Gay Catholic Voices Ireland for example.

L1011

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or you also have commited Catholics who try to engage rather than ignore e.g. McAleese and Gay Catholic Voices Ireland for example.

With the hierarchy unwilling to change - considering they've had one realistically minor enough set of changes in 400 years and significantly substantive issues (women priests, celibacy) ignored for our lifetimes and more I would not expect any change, ever.

I'd be off out the door in the morning with that level of recalcitrance - not writing it off somehow.

Vojera

I'm not surprised by the newspaper reports - anyone who went to college in Maynooth could have told you that there have been stories going around for years, and about heterosexual hookups as well.

It's no skin off my nose as I don't go to mass anymore but the part that I struggle with is that it seems hypocritical that trainees would engage in what their organisation considers "immoral" behaviour when they plan to go on to guide other people in that moral code. Do as I say and not as I do, and all that jazz.

baby and crumble

Vojera wrote: »

It's no skin off my nose as I don't go to mass anymore but the part that I struggle with is that it seems hypocritical that trainees would engage in what their organisation considers "immoral" behaviour when they plan to go on to guide other people in that moral code. Do as I say and not as I do, and all that jazz.

Perhaps they want to change the system and don't believe in the dogma but believe in the basic messages of Christianity? Perhaps they, as priests would encourage their parishioners to look past it all.

Change has to come from somewhere.

J_E

You have to awkardly laugh and cringe at this delightful little footnote in the Independent's 6 (6!) page spread and giant headline on the issue (with nothing but speculative talk from these clergymen who suddenly seem very clued up on sexual matters:

"...Users can save men as favourites and block ones that aren't their type. They can also identify as a member of a 'tribe' on the app that best describes their 'sexy type', including Bear, Daddy, and Jock"

All this from a woman who I presume has never used the app, only looked and probably chuckled!

http://i.imgur.com/k7oRWzg.jpg

Smondie

Lgbt people can be celibate too. So what if they are trainees, as I understand it they haven't taken the vow when training so they are as free as anyone else to explore thier sexuality.

J_E

Smondie wrote: »

Lgbt people can be celibate too. So what if they are trainees, as I understand it they haven't taken the vow when training so they are as free as anyone else to explore thier sexuality.

I think it's a matter of principle. It's not looking very good if you're hooking up if you're supposedly committing yourself to that kind of life! Even then, I think this whole speech from the clergymen is bizarre and intrusive, something strange about it all.

Smondie

J_E wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Lgbt people can be celibate too. So what if they are trainees, as I understand it they haven't taken the vow when training so they are as free as anyone else to explore thier sexuality.

I think it's a matter of principle. It's not looking very good if you're hooking up if you're supposedly committing yourself to that kind of life! Even then, I think this whole speech from the clergymen is bizarre and intrusive, something strange about it all.

Not looking good to who? At the end of the day, they are human and have not taken any vows. It really is a non issue.

J_E

Smondie wrote: »

Not looking good to who? At the end of the day, they are human and have not taken any vows. It really is a non issue.

I guess it's like saying you're going to sleep with someone else the day before your wedding because you're not married yet and it's all good.

Smondie

J_E wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Not looking good to who? At the end of the day, they are human and have not taken any vows. It really is a non issue.

I guess it's like saying you're going to sleep with someone else the day before your wedding because you're not married yet and it's all good.

when you get engaged you are asking to be exclusive with your partner. In that instance you are decieving your partner. Who is the trainee priest engaged to? Who is the third person they are deceiving?

If not engaged, then you are free to sleep with whoever as long as the partners haven't committed to each other and all parties (partners and the third person) are all aware of whats going on, then yes, work away.

Fleawuss

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or you also have commited Catholics who try to engage rather than ignore e.g. McAleese and Gay Catholic Voices Ireland for example.

Incorrect. By definition you are not a committed RC if you don't accept the teachings. You are an a la carte RC, to use the term that is applied to them. They disagree with particular rules and ignore them. To change them would require a theological miracle in that you would be setting aside the inspired word of God and the consistent teaching of the magisterium over hundreds of years.

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

Perhaps they want to change the system and don't believe in the dogma but believe in the basic messages of Christianity? Perhaps they, as priests would encourage their parishioners to look past it all.

Change has to come from somewhere.

The basic message of Christianity is Christ: unpack that and the whole 2000 year teaching spills out. There is no "message" independent of the dogmas. The dogmas are the message. What you are describing is a la carte RCism.

Smondie

Fleawuss wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or you also have commited Catholics who try to engage rather than ignore e.g. McAleese and Gay Catholic Voices Ireland for example.

Incorrect. By definition you are not a committed RC if you don't accept the teachings. You are an a la carte RC, to use the term that is applied to them. They disagree with particular rules and ignore them. To change them would require a theological miracle in that you would be setting aside the inspired word of God and the consistent teaching of the magisterium over hundreds of years.

You seem very well up in the word of God.

Can you quote the bits about codeming homosexuality, stoning them and throwing them off buildings that the rcc follow?

bonyn

Smondie wrote: »

You seem very well up in the word of God.

Can you quote the bits about codeming homosexuality, stoning them and throwing them off buildings that the rcc follow?

I think that's the Religion of Peace™, not Christianity

Fleawuss

Smondie wrote: »

You seem very well up in the word of God.

Can you quote the bits about codeming homosexuality, stoning them and throwing them off buildings that the rcc follow?

If you read my earlier posts I linked that to religions. Plural. For RCism look to Genesis 19:13 and Ezekiel 16:50. Leviticus 18:22 also applies. Romans 1:26-28 throws further light.

It took me 30 seconds to Google that. You will find a great deal of this online because it is as old as the hills. The point is that there are good people who want the comfort of religion but they must face the poison for gay people at the heart of their faith.

Annasopra

Fleawuss wrote: »

Incorrect. By definition you are not a committed RC if you don't accept the teachings.

Tell Mary McAleese she is not a commited Catholic then

Ten of Swords

Fleawuss I'm not taking sides here, I can see the thread has become factionalised already, but I'm curious how you would view the people that identify as catholic on the census. Are they not catholic enough or just paying lip service? They couldn't all be devout.

Fleawuss

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Tell Mary McAleese she is not a commited Catholic then

That's funny. Met her once and we took an instant dislike to each other. Mary Robinson was my hero.

She is perfectly well aware she doesn't support RC teaching in all areas and that by definition means she's committed to just her version of RCism. I'd have no trouble telling her that.

Fleawuss

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Fleawuss I'm not taking sides here, I can see the thread has become factionalised already, but I'm curious how you would view the people that identify as catholic on the census. Are they not catholic enough or just paying lip service? They couldn't all be devout.

It has become factionalized. I started it about Maynooth and wanting to hear what people thought of that but I feel I've had to fight my corner too much.

To answer your question RC on the census is made up of the tribal, the habitual, the lazy, the devout and the deluded. I doubt most of them know what they're supposed to believe and if they thought about it would see how daft it is.

Smondie

Fleawuss wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

You seem very well up in the word of God.

Can you quote the bits about codeming homosexuality, stoning them and throwing them off buildings that the rcc follow?

If you read my earlier posts I linked that to religions. Plural. For RCism look to Genesis 19:13 and Ezekiel 16:50. Leviticus 18:22 also applies. Romans 1:26-28 throws further light.

It took me 30 seconds to Google that. You will find a great deal of this online because it is as old as the hills. The point is that there are good people who want the comfort of religion but they must face the poison for gay people at the heart of their faith.

If it's as old as the hills, then i'm sure you don't need me to point out the glaring, obvious errors witj what you've posted there.

Fleawuss

Smondie wrote: »

If it's as old as the hills, then i'm sure you don't need me to point out the glaring, obvious errors witj what you've posted there.

There are none.

finooola

Smondie wrote: »

Lgbt people can be celibate too. So what if they are trainees, as I understand it they haven't taken the vow when training so they are as free as anyone else to explore thier sexuality.

Yeah, I think the whole Grindr issue is missing the point. The problem isn't what seminarians are involved in, even though it makes for fun headlines, it is that when those same guys were going to their mentors for advice (perhaps on issues of finding their upcoming celibacy vows a challenge, perhaps about something else entirely) they were being asked personal and sexual questions by those mentors for their own reasons. And this was being hushed up and brushed under the carpet by the higher uppers, as per. So that as I see it is the issue. Not whether an unusual amount of the young recruits are having a dalliance with Grindr or any other such app.

Vojera

baby and crumble wrote: »

Perhaps they want to change the system and don't believe in the dogma but believe in the basic messages of Christianity? Perhaps they, as priests would encourage their parishioners to look past it all.

Change has to come from somewhere.

I agree that change needs to happen, I guess I just don't have faith that it'll happen any time soon.

I also think a lot of Irish people would be better suited to a different brand of Christianity. Rather than picking and choosing from Catholicism I often think something like the Anglican church would closer match people's own sentiments. That's a different conversation, really, but makes me wonder why someone would become a Catholic priest if they were more closely aligned to one of the other Christianity flavours.

feardeas

Just want to jump in here. The Maynooth business is odd. The idea that moving them to Rome is the answer is laughable. Anyone with an ounce of gaydar will notice plenty of gay men in clerical garb there. Also I think Archbishop Martin should be more worried about the fact that there's only three seminarians as opposed to anything else.

To the point of being gay and Catholic well I'm one. I go to mass fairly regularly. Why? Maybe it's habit sometimes a sense of solace sometimes compassion. It's an expression of faith I suppose. I'm 34 and was brought up in a rural area. Going to mass was a weekly activity.

Do I agree with the teaching. No. Nor do many people? Does the language used about homosexuality sit easily? No. How could it?

I've squared the circle by thinking about what we're told Jesus did by eating with the hated tax collector and talking to the outcasts. Also the beautiful language in Corinthians about Love being patient, about the great gifts of faith, hope and love and the greatest being love. Of course this can be cancelled out by Leviticus any day or night. Still a hope and belief in God rather than the church helps me and the ritual of mass at times gives expression to that. Would Iona and Co agree with me? No and I don't care. Would God, assuming it might be real? No idea maybe some day in the distant future I'll find out.

baby and crumble

Fleawuss wrote: »

What you are describing is a la carte RCism.

And? Why are you so caught up in the black and white definition? What is so wrong with people thinking "I believe in God, I believe in the teachings in the bible but I don't agree with the Catholic Church's opinion on homosexuality"?

I don't necessarily agree with every law of the land, in fact I think some are stupid but I still class myself as a citizen living within them and then actively try to change the ones I disagree with- I don't plan to move to another country or jurisdiction that has more of the laws and policies I would prefer. How is that any different to a trainee priest who actively believes in God and a large number of the main teachings of the Church wanting to be part of a solution to those issues? Why is being a priest or being Roman Catholic so at odds with sexuality?

Again, I have to put my hands up and state I'm not Catholic, I wasn't brought up Catholic so my knowledge of the inner workings of the Church comes down to my own personal interest and research. But people like you, heaping scorn upon religions and refusing to believe that there are people with very strong faith and who consider themselves Catholic who don't agree with every single little dictate of the Church, are the problem.

You say you want to talk about Maynooth. Yet you're the one who stated in your opening post that no "self-respecting gay person" could be Catholic. I don't think any self-respecting human can be so closed-minded and hateful, but hey, maybe that's just me.

Fleawuss

baby and crumble wrote: »

And? Why are you so caught up in the black and white definition? What is so wrong with people thinking "I believe in God, I believe in the teachings in the bible but I don't agree with the Catholic Church's opinion on homosexuality"?

You have answered yourself but you haven't heard even yourself. You are contradicting yourself if you say you believe in the teachings in the bible and don't agree with the the church's opinion on homosexuality. Those positions are mutually exclusive.

baby and crumble wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with every law of the land, in fact I think some are stupid but I still class myself as a citizen living within them and then actively try to change the ones I disagree with- I don't plan to move to another country or jurisdiction that has more of the laws and policies I would prefer. How is that any different to a trainee priest who actively believes in God and a large number of the main teachings of the Church wanting to be part of a solution to those issues? Why is being a priest or being Roman Catholic so at odds with sexuality?

The answer is easy: it is possible to change human laws through reason and argument and votes. You cannot change what God has decided. The essential problem is that the church's teachings on homosexuality are based on revelation and you can't change what God said simply because you don't like it.
Now I regard that as no sense but a priest to be a priest cannot. A RC must accept the teaching of the church based on revelation. It is simple and it is definitive. Other lesser rules about the length of fast before communion can be changed but not core teaching.

Sexuality and RCism is a bigger issue.

baby and crumble wrote: »

Again, I have to put my hands up and state I'm not Catholic, I wasn't brought up Catholic so my knowledge of the inner workings of the Church comes down to my own personal interest and research. But people like you, heaping scorn upon religions and refusing to believe that there are people with very strong faith and who consider themselves Catholic who don't agree with every single little dictate of the Church, are the problem.

I will repeat: in the eyes of the Church they are not. The problem isn't people who pour scorn on religion and its anti human agenda. The problem is people who don't have the backbone to walk away from an Organisation that despises them and seeks to promote a 3000 year old backward view of humanity as the unanswerable word of God.

baby and crumble wrote: »

You say you want to talk about Maynooth. Yet you're the one who stated in your opening post that no "self-respecting gay person" could be Catholic. I don't think any self-respecting human can be so closed-minded and hateful, but hey, maybe that's just me.

I think when you have to resort to abuse it shows that you don't understand the issue at all. I have repeatedly pointed out the problems with any self respecting gay person belonging to an institution which views them as a lower form of life. By remaining in it gay people enable the condemnation of others. Only when the church is abandoned by right thinking people will it finally be seen as the closed minded hateful institution it is. You seem to think that it's like joining a club to change the rules. You simply don't get it.

Banbh

The RTE 'news' thing is bizarre. I suspect it is little more than gay-outing. Quite a turnaround for the Montrose luvvies!