Bishop says Yoga is not suitable for a parish school

Snow Garden

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/catholic-bishop-warns-against-yoga-and-mindfulness-in-schools-1.4055449

Bishop of Waterford & Lismore Alphonsus Cullinan said yoga was not suitable for school

Yoga is not suitable for a parish school, the Catholic bishop of Waterford & Lismore Alphonsus Cullinan has told schools in his diocese.

In a letter to schools across Waterford, sent on October 10th, he also warned against mindfulness.

Bishop Cullinane pointed out that yoga was “not of Christian origin”

I am sure most school teachers would disagree. There is enough anxiety amongst young children already.

Why don't the Roman church pick their battles a bit better? It's getting harder and harder to see why anyone darkens their doors anymore.

Odhinn

Do western practitioners of yoga even bring (presumably) hinduism into it in the first place?

yerwanthere123

What a c*nt.

biko

He is dictating according to his religion and his pope:

Pope Francis said “practices like Yoga are not capable of opening our hearts up to God”

The schools can just ignore him.

Seamai

I heard something recently where a priest criticised one of his parishioners who told him she had attended a meditation retreat at a Buddhist center in west Cork, the poor woman was very upset. My own Mum who's quite devout practices yoga, I'd like to see some clergyman tell her that yoga wasn't compatible with catholic teachings, she'd wipe the floor with him.

Mrs OBumble

Odhinn wrote: »

Do western practitioners of yoga even bring (presumably) hinduism into it in the first place?

If they have a clue, then yes they do.


It's only ignorant westerners who think they can just grab practices from other cultures and re-purpose them without thinking about the philosophical underpinnings. Cultural rape, in effect.

XsApollo

Well she either is devout or isn’t devout,

Catholicism has a set of practices, ideology and beliefs that I presume a devout would follow.
And judging by the appointed leader comments isn’t a favourable thing to do.

I don’t get the hatred for the Catholic Church anymore.
Nothing they do or say can be a surprise to anybody after what has been shown over the last few decades.

What’s the point in saying the Catholic Church said this or did that or thinks that.
If you don’t like it leave, it’s what most people do when they are tied to something they don’t agree with or a situation they are in, but somehow people don’t seem to apply that logic with the Catholic Church.

If everybody did that they might finally F*** off

youknowitstrue

i imagine the type of school that has yoga teachers also has children with the names Sebastian, Tarquin, Sloan, Jasper, India, Kingsley,Margaux, Brinsley, Orson, Quentin,Francesca and so on, you know the type.
Nothing to see here more on, let them at it, they will all be hooked on antidepressants/coke and the rest by their mid 20's, Yoga will be the lest of their worries

Harry Palmr

Copying this over from Waterford thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055531343&page=30

My own view -

people who complain are maybe missing the point namely the Bish is simply adhering very faithfully (!) to the doctrine of the religion which is his job. It's up to Catholics in the diocese to make their own decision about practicing aspects of Yoga faith and whether it is compatible with their "handed down" faith.

Cookie_Monster

Catholicism in not suitable for school...

youknowitstrue

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Catholicism in not suitable for school...

Catholicism if you like it or not is the reason the West is more advanced/civilized than the rest of the world.

coleen

My yoga class takes place in a convent where nuns still reside. We never had any comment about whether yoga Should be allowed or not

The chan chan man

What a fcuking tool

biko

coleen wrote: »

My yoga class takes place in a convent where nuns still reside. We never had any comment about whether yoga Should be allowed or not

It doesn't mean they agree with the practice. I'm sure there is tons of devout Christians going to yoga and don't even know what stance the pope takes on it (nor, I assume, do they care).

Esel

A course in Transcendental Meditation will help His Grace to chill.

All he needs is an apple and a clean white handkerchief; nothing too spooky about that.

uck51js9zml2yt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If they have a clue, then yes they do.


It's only ignorant westerners who think they can just grab practices from other cultures and re-purpose them without thinking about the philosophical underpinnings. Cultural rape, in effect.

Well put and very true.

Just because a person doesn't know what yoga poses are doesn't negate what they are.

Ask a devout Hindu why they do it.
I'm heading to India soon. My Indian friends are amazed at how the west has adopted it.

The high horse brigade

Says a man who wears a dress

frag420

Let’s see him push for math, science, English etc to be stopped as they are not of Christian origin too...

FirstinLastout

youknowitstrue wrote: »

Catholicism if you like it or not is the reason the West is more advanced/civilized than the rest of the world.

Utter feckin' nonsense!

osarusan

he also warned against mindfulness

Of all the battles to pick! Does he not have any more pressing concerns at all.

decky1

strange this , the church would normally 'bend over backwards' to help.

sk8erboii

youknowitstrue wrote: »

i imagine the type of school that has yoga teachers also has children with the names Sebastian, Tarquin, Sloan, Jasper, India, Kingsley,Margaux, Brinsley, Orson, Quentin,Francesca and so on, you know the type.
Nothing to see here more on, let them at it, they will all be hooked on antidepressants/coke and the rest by their mid 20's, Yoga will be the lest of their worries

Honestly cringing while imagining the kind of person that typed this out.

Catholicism is dead. Thank f*ck. I'll piss on the doorway of the next church I see in Sebastian, Tarquin, Sloan, Jasper, India, Kingsley,Margaux, Brinsley, Orson, Quentin,Francesca's honor.

sabat

Two years ago I would have said he was nuts; today I think he's 100% correct. Primary schools are being turned into New Age indoctrination camps churning out solipsistic, credulous, consumerist drones and the public aren't even noticing. I'm aware how nuts I now sound and that I'll probably get a rolleyes or two replying to this post but I've seen enough evidence to convince me. I expect this issue to blow up in a big way over the next couple of years, firstly at the "nutty fringes" of the internet, then in the mainstream as people begin to realise how we've been swindled.

Padre_Pio

youknowitstrue wrote: »

Catholicism if you like it or not is the reason the West is more advanced/civilized than the rest of the world.

Username not compatible with comment.

joeguevara

Firstly the bishop didn't just think this up. It came from teachings of the Pope. But what is strange is why the Bishop felt the need to write and send the letter when he must have realised what the consequences would be.

At a time when the Catholic Church is struggling to direct schools not to do something as inoffensive as yoga and mindfulness with the reason that it is against the teachings of the Catholic Church does nothing more than alienate an already bemused and struggling audience.

Whatever the origin of yoga, what is being practiced in schools is simply relaxation and exercise with nothing for the religious teachings. His issue with mindfulness is it's being done in religious class but breathing and emptying ones mind is probably the best way of praying.

I'm not sure how Buddhism was raised but you can practice Buddhism and Catholicism. Buddhism is not a religion but spiritualism. It is basically agnostic but teaches goodness. Catholics can be both and if bishops disagree then they are breaking their own churches teaching. While the Pope has a lot of good points he is moving too much to the past which will wreck any positive work he has done.

If the bishop is going to the trouble of writing to schools he should ask for more positive things rather than a don't do that.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Username not compatible with comment.

Nor yours.

It would have been a fairly standard belief system amongst educated people in say the 70s that Catholicism and Christianity was essential for the rise of the west out of the dark ages.

One of the best things you can do is buy it rent the old television series “Civilisation” by Kenneth Clark. It’s a product of a much better educated age.

joeguevara

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Nor yours.

It would have been a fairly standard belief system amongst educated people in say the 70s that Catholicism and Christianity was essential for the ruse of the west out of the dark ages.

One of the best things you can do is buy it rent the old television series “Civilisation” by Kenneth Clark. It’s a product of a much better educated age.

The catholic c hurch claimed scientists like Galileo and claimed them as heretics. Most science such as evolution is seen as blasphemous. Role of women was as servants. Contraception is outlawed.

To say that Catholicism was essential for ciVilisation to evolve is as far from the truth as possible.

How do you think it was essential? As opposed to Greeks assistance with philosophy, culture, etc. Or rome

Padre_Pio

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Nor yours.

It would have been a fairly standard belief system amongst educated people in say the 70s that Catholicism and Christianity was essential for the ruse of the west out of the dark ages.

One of the best things you can do is buy it rent the old television series “Civilisation” by Kenneth Clark. It’s a product of a much better educated age.

3 problems with that statement;

1) The "Dark Ages" began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in late 400's AD. Catholicism was widespead for most of that time. St. Patrick was in Ireland in early 400's AD.

2) The "Dark Ages" were actually quite enlightened. The Carolingian Renaissance occurred only 300 years after the fall of the Western Roman. Plenty of industrial and agricultural improvements and advances were made in Europe.

3) People only apply the "Dark Ages" concept to Europe. Middle East and Asia were in flying form at this time (until to Mongols started killing everyone) and advances in mathematics and logic introduced to Europe.

Total misconception to believe Europe was in the doldrums for centuries until widespread Catholicism raised it up. Definitely a hugely important factor in the development of the modern world, but we we wouldn't still be stuck in mud huts without it.


To your second point, I have not watched Civilisation. Heard it's fantastic. I would be wary of the accuracy of 50 year old documentaries, but it's on Netflix so I'll give it a watch.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

joeguevara wrote: »

The catholic c hurch claimed scientists like Galileo and claimed them as heretics. Most science such as evolution is seen as blasphemous. Role of women was as servants. Contraception is outlawed.

I was talking about an long era prior to Galileo which is over emphasised anyway. Evolution isn’t seen as blasphemous in Catholicism btw. Contraception isn’t science.

To say that Catholicism was essential for ciVilisation to evolve is as far from the truth as possible.

How do you think it was essential? As opposed to Greeks assistance with philosophy, culture, etc. Or rome

It was essential to end the dark ages that Christianity spread, as it spread literacy across the continent. Catholic Christians founded the university systems across Europe.

Why not watch Ken Clarke’s civilisation.

The supposed hostility between science and Christianity is over emphasised as well, of course. The west had a scientific and industrial revolution long before it became majority atheist. And the scientific revolution started, by most accounts, in the 16C, (per wiki) the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. It’s clear then that science originated in a Christian Europe.

He was a canon or priest in the church. Many if not all of the scientists of the “enlightenment” (a bullsh1t term in my view) were Christian, as late as the 19C, Maxwell - the most important 19C physicist - was an elder in the scottish church.

Arguing that science originated in spite of Christianity would mean that Christianity wasnt all that powerful, which isn’t true.

And of course science evolved in Europe and nowhere else, it’s hardly out there to suggest that there’s something in the culture of Europe - in which Christianity plays a large part - that allowed it to develop there and not elsewhere.

Your Face

Thread full of vomit.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Padre_Pio wrote: »

3 problems with that statement;

1) The "Dark Ages" began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in late 400's AD. Catholicism was widespead for most of that time. St. Patrick was in Ireland in early 400's AD.

Christianity largely regressed after the fall of Rome. For instance the Anglo Saxons weren’t originally Christian which means that Britain de- Christianised for a while. The vikings weren’t Christian and were major impediments to civilisational growth given how destructive the raids were. The franks were pagan invaders of Christian Gaul. If these pagan tribes hadn’t Christianised it’s hard to see how Europe would have recovered, unless some kind of Roman Empire re-asserted.

2) The "Dark Ages" were actually quite enlightened. The Carolingian Renaissance occurred only 300 years after the fall of the Western Roman. Plenty of industrial and agricultural improvements and advances were made in Europe.

300 years is plenty long and the Carolingian Renaissance was a Christian Renaissance. I would end the dark ages about there, although there was a regression for a century.

Most of the agricultural improvements were in the later Middle Ages. Clearly agricultural and industrial growth depend on stability not continuous raids.

3) People only apply the "Dark Ages" concept to Europe. Middle East and Asia were in flying form at this time (until to Mongols started killing everyone) and advances in mathematics and logic introduced to Europe.

Total misconception to believe Europe was in the doldrums for centuries until widespread Catholicism raised it up.

This is totally confused. I didn’t say that the rest of the world wasn’t doing well in Europe’s dark ages since I was talking about Europe only and the supposed advances in matematics that came to Europe later on (your timeline is totally confused)
were adopted and improved upon in Christian Europe.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Your Face wrote: »

Thread full of vomit.

Too many big words and history?

Padre_Pio

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

And of course science evolved in Europe and nowhere else, it’s hardly out there to suggest that there’s something in the culture of Europe - in which Christianity plays a large part - that allowed it to develop there and not elsewhere.

Is that sarcasm? I really hope it is.

Science was well established by the Greeks long before Jesus. There are dozens of promient Greek philosophers, mathmeticians and logisticians.
There's also innumerable inventions and discovieries made in the Muslim world too.
Science has developed before, during, after, in the absense of and in spite of Christianity. To say it's in any way dependent on it is woefully untrue.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Is that sarcasm? I really hope it is.

Science was well established by the Greeks long before Jesus. There are dozens of promient Greek philosophers, mathmeticians and logisticians.
There's also innumerable inventions and discovieries made in the Muslim world too.
Science has developed before, during, after, in the absense of and in spite of Christianity. To say it's in any way dependent on it is woefully untrue.

You may want to edit this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

gctest50

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You may want to edit this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

Wasn't Galileo ordered to turn himself in for trial by the Christians ?

joeguevara

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I was talking about an long era prior to Galileo which is over emphasised anyway. Evolution isn’t seen as blasphemous in Catholicism btw. Contraception isn’t science.



It was essential to end the dark ages that Christianity spread, as it spread literacy across the continent. Catholic Christians founded the university systems across Europe.

Why not watch Ken Clarke’s civilisation.

The supposed hostility between science and Christianity is over emphasised as well, of course. The west had a scientific and industrial revolution long before it became majority atheist. And the scientific revolution started, by most accounts, in the 16C, (per wiki) the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. It’s clear then that science originated in a Christian Europe.

He was a canon or priest in the church. Many if not all of the scientists of the “enlightenment” (a bullsh1t term in my view) were Christian, as late as the 19C, Maxwell - the most important 19C physicist - was an elder in the scottish church.

Arguing that science originated in spite of Christianity would mean that Christianity wasnt all that powerful, which isn’t true.

And of course science evolved in Europe and nowhere else, it’s hardly out there to suggest that there’s something in the culture of Europe - in which Christianity plays a large part - that allowed it to develop there and not elsewhere.

Are you honestly saying that science only existed in Europe? Did Egypt not have science?

Did Incas and Aztecs not have it?

Can you define your interpretation of science?

Padre_Pio

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Christianity largely regressed after the fall of Rome. For instance the Anglo Saxons weren’t originally Christian which means that Britain de- Christianised for a while. The vikings weren’t Christian and were major impediments to civilisational growth given how destructive the raids were. The franks were pagan invaders of Christian Gaul. If these pagan tribes hadn’t Christianised it’s hard to see how Europe would have recovered, unless some kind of Roman Empire re-asserted.



300 years is plenty long and the Carolingian Renaissance was a Christian Renaissance. I would end the dark ages about there, although there was a regression for a century.

Most of the agricultural improvements were in the later Middle Ages. Clearly agricultural and industrial growth depend on stability not continuous raids.



This is totally confused. I didn’t say that the rest of the world wasn’t doing well in Europe’s dark ages since I was talking about Europe only and the supposed advances in matematics that came to Europe later on (your timeline is totally confused)
were adopted and improved upon in Christian Europe.

I'm not sure of your argument.

Religion is the main factor during this time that united Western Europe and pushed us in the same direction. Not saying it was a good direction, but it was A direction.
But that's not unique to Christianity. Any widespread religion could have done this. Islam was doing the same in Middle East and North Africa from 500AD to 1000AD as Muslims pushed into N. Africa and Spain.

Who knows how different the world could have been if the Mongols never existed. Quite likely Asia or Middle East would be the most developed regions in the world.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

joeguevara wrote: »

Are you honestly saying that science only existed in Europe? Did Egypt not have science?

Did Incas and Aztecs not have it?

Can you define your interpretation of science?

Yes I am saying that.

My interpretation is the standard one. The scientific revolution started in Europe.

In any case you seem to have abandoned your original argument about the church being anti science to now wondering what science exactly is.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

gctest50 wrote: »

Wasn't Galileo ordered to turn himself in for trial by the Christians ?

Yawn. Seriously. Read a bloody book.

gctest50

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

......


I was talking about an long era prior to Galileo which is over emphasised anyway.

Over emphasised ?

It took the filthy Christians 300 years to apologise





“We order that by a public edict the book of Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited, and We condemn thee to the prison of this Holy Office during Our will and pleasure; and as a salutary penance We enjoin on thee that for the space of three years thou shalt recite once a week the Seven Penitential Psalms.”

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy


.

Padre_Pio

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

You may want to edit this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

Now who's getting their timelines confused.

One moment we're talking about the Dark Ages which you've defined as Fall of Roman Empire to Carolingian Renaissance (late 400'sAD to 800'sAD), the next you're talking about the Scientific Revolution nearly 1000 years later.

EDIT: You have to remember the state of the rest of the "developed" world at this time. Most of Asia and Middle East were dealing with the aftermath of the Mongol's, the largest empire that has ever existed, who had killed 10% of the world's population and had no interest in science or learning. Europe was the only place on earth where science could actually develop.

I would highly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel, which explains why science, art and literature developed where they did. It has very little to do with Christianity.


Anyways, we're WAAAY off topic here.

joeguevara

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Yes I am saying that.

My interpretation is the standard one. The scientific revolution started in Europe.

In any case you seem to have abandoned your original argument about the church being anti science to now wondering what science exactly is.

No I'm not. You said there was no science outside Europe and used it to argue that Catholicism was the reason. Catholicism is essentially anti science and was definitely way more so in the past. Scientists were excommunicated

Also you never defined science. I define it to include chemistry and physics. To say that the pyramids weren't built without physics is wrong. Egypt had embalming techniques which were way before anyone in Europe had.

Just because some scientists were religious doesn't mean that Catholicism was the reason for their discoveries. Also you use Christianity and Catholicism interchangeably.

But the point of the thread and my argument was that the bishop is wrong to say exercise and mediation is anti church.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Now who's getting their timelines confused.

One moment we're talking about the Dark Ages which you've defined as Fall of Roman Empire to Carolingian Renaissance (late 400'sAD to 800'sAD), the next you're talking about the Scientific Revolution nearly 1000 years later.

EDIT: You have to remember the state of the rest of the "developed" world at this time. Most of Asia and Middle East was ruled by the Mongol's, the largest empire that has ever existed. Europe was the only place on earth where science could actually develop.

I would highly recommend the book Guns, Germs and Steel, which explains why science, art and literature developed where they did. It has very little to do with Christianity.


Anyways, we're WAAAY off topic here.

I’m off topic? It’s a response to

Are you honestly saying that science only existed in Europe? Did Egypt not have science?

Did Incas and Aztecs not have it?

Can you define your interpretation of science?

So when I do that my timeline is off. So you’ve gone from science existing prior to Christianity and outside Europe to an excuse as to why it only happened in Europe. These are exact opposite arguments.

I’ve read guns germs and steel. It’s not that useful.

Padre_Pio

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I’m off topic? It’s a response to

Are you honestly saying that science only existed in Europe? Did Egypt not have science?

Did Incas and Aztecs not have it?

Can you define your interpretation of science?

So when I do that my timeline is off.

I’ve read guns germs and steel. It’s not that useful.

They're not exact opposites.

Your arguement is the Chritianity = Science. I'm saying that whether Europe was Christian or not has no bearing on scientific developement. If Europe was entirely Muslim, would we be stuck with 5th century technology?
What your saying still doesn't make sense. Never in the history of the world has scientific advancement been a results of solely Christian influences.

When world events allowed, science was developed everywhere it could. When world events stopped scientific developement in one region, it continued in the other. If the Mongols had trashed Europe in the 14th century, we'd be nowhere near where we are now, regardless of Christianity.

suicide_circus

Snow Garden wrote: »

There is enough anxiety amongst young children already

and why is that? its certainly nothing to do with a lack of yoga.

mvl

But is that part of his role or not ? cause I would have thought it is.
So we can debate as long as we want - but impacted are catholic schools and families from those parishes imo.

Otherwise this is not as bad or diverse as ... hearing about the German story where Muslim parents were trying to influence kindergartens not to serve gummy bears and pork based meals... Now that caused some outrage ...

I note the photo of the bishop used in The Irish Times article. Is everybody sure that somebody with a face like this is *not* taking the piss?

UpBack1234

Actually this smug git correctly calculated that if he says some controversial/verifiably ignorant or stupid thing then he'll get lots of publicity /reactionary comments. It's standard pr practice in right-wing/conservative circles. Truth is that this guy is just some guy in a suit who gets his "authority" from a supernatural being living in the sky and he has no qualifications in education, childcare or yoga. So just let him off.

slave1

Unreal, just unreal

spurious

The Catholic church. Finger on the pulse as usual.

limnam

youknowitstrue wrote: »

i imagine the type of school that has yoga teachers also has children with the names Sebastian, Tarquin, Sloan, Jasper, India, Kingsley,Margaux, Brinsley, Orson, Quentin,Francesca and so on, you know the type.

1993 is looking for you.