An_Toirpin wrote: » No you are misquoting me. The Vatican has a role but it is much smaller than people make it out to be. They have the power to remove someones position as a priest but apart from this it is limited
Leroy42 wrote: » Well, I took your direct quotes so I cannot be misquoting you. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you meant, but from my POV it was very clear from the 1st post today that you felt that the Vatican had little to do with how the CC in Ireland was run. So part from setting doctrine, setting out how mass and other sacraments should be carried out, apart from defrocking priests, apart from the centre of Canon Law, apart from having the head of the organisation, apart from proving guidance on church teachings. Yeah I guess you are right, the vatican has very little actual control
Hector Bellend wrote: » Just do something productive or interesting. Have a **** Go to the pub etc
JupiterKid wrote: » Your outright lies and distortions are a massive insult to those damaged by the church and what they did in this country. I've no problem with engaging with any poster that wants to debate those against the church with valid informed opinion but your odious views suggest to me a clear attempt at baiting and trolling. I'm out of this thread for this reason. There is no reasoning whatsoever with posters like you. Absolutely none at all.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool. Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple. As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive. Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool. so it is just a coincidence that the response of the church to abuse was identical in every country that it occurred. nright.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple. As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive. Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
Is cheating on a spouse ok? It is perfectly legal. Is degrading violent porn ok? It is legal. What about computer generated violent rape porn? It is 100% legal. Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.
This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk. Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.
Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right? As long as no non-consenting third party is involved, yes. Is cheating on a spouse ok? It is perfectly legal. Is degrading violent porn ok? It is legal. What about computer generated violent rape porn? It is 100% legal. Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature. If you base your morality on potential events, you start a very slippery slope. This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk. Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong. Their choice. I respectfully and whole-heardly disagree. What is hell? Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through. Corealtion is not causation. No problem with teaching religion, as long as it teaches about ALL faiths without promoting any specific. Or does so with a clear alternative curriculum for opting-out families.
work wrote: » hatrickpatrick wrote: » Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple. As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive. Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them. Kindly ignore the posts of An_Toirpin who is surely a troll. They will warp and twist your post with their serpentine posts.You describe very nicely why we need the church out of our schools.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.
work wrote: » I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are: 1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny 2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie. 3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse 4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education. 5) Anyone that doesn't support cults 6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society. 7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies. 8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men. There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome. Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?
JohnMc1 wrote: » work wrote: » I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are: 1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny 2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie. 3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse 4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education. 5) Anyone that doesn't support cults 6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society. 7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies. 8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men. There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome. Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest? Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views.
An_Toirpin wrote: » It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasn't anyone sued the Vatican by now? The role of bishops to the Vatican is like independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.I dont blame you for not understanding how this works. Mostly church bashers are pretty uninformed in their hysteria. I am a lot younger than you and I have be en told heartbreaking and unsavoury stories of sexual abuse but not a single one is clerical. So I don't buy the notion that abuse is specifically Catholic clerical issue. It is tragically common everywhere and occurs where it is allowed to occur. The sex abuse revelations were a scandal. The others you mention no, especially not symphisiostomy. As for the so called offense that I am causing by being critical, well no one has a right to not be offended.
Graces7 wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasn't anyone sued the Vatican by now? The role of bishops to the Vatican is like independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.I dont blame you for not understanding how this works. Mostly church bashers are pretty uninformed in their hysteria. I am a lot younger than you and I have be en told heartbreaking and unsavoury stories of sexual abuse but not a single one is clerical. So I don't buy the notion that abuse is specifically Catholic clerical issue. It is tragically common everywhere and occurs where it is allowed to occur. The sex abuse revelations were a scandal. The others you mention no, especially not symphisiostomy. As for the so called offense that I am causing by being critical, well no one has a right to not be offended. You are wrong. Hospitals were run by the church and this appalling surgery was encouraged by the church to prevent women being unable to have more babies. Seehttps://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/catholic-church-did-urge-doctors-to-use-symphysiotomy-operation-1.377151 None so blind as those who won't see.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country. This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated. That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though. I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?
Taytoland wrote: » Who is paying for this trip?
An_Toirpin wrote: » Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » An_Toirpin wrote: » Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country. This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated. That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though. I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives? No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics. Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » JohnMc1 wrote: » work wrote: » I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are: 1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny 2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie. 3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse 4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education. 5) Anyone that doesn't support cults 6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society. 7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies. 8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men. There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome. Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest? Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views. Or protest at churches where Catholicism is practiced daily. It's not like all this just showed up last week or only happens when their leader visits.
work wrote: » Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » JohnMc1 wrote: » work wrote: » I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are: 1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny 2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie. 3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse 4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education. 5) Anyone that doesn't support cults 6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society. 7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies. 8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men. There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome. Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest? Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views. Or protest at churches where Catholicism is practiced daily. It's not like all this just showed up last week or only happens when their leader visits. Absoloutely fair points both Catholicism and Islam should be banned from a direct influence in our schools. I would think no religeon should be given custody of any school as it only allows a non proven ideology be thrust upon our children. If people want their kids to grow up in their own blind baseless faith that should be solely their responsibility surely? Regarding this not being new I disagree the pope is the head of the organisation and has not been here for nearly 40 years. Is it not an apt time for people that are unhappy with that specific religeon and it's influence in our country to make their views known? It is The RCC coming that is why it is targeted to him/them I believe all religeon is wrong but deal with the influential one first with an opportunity that may not come in our lives again!!
