ohnonotgmail wrote: » you forgot (a) the state should not criminalise adultery If someone says that adultery is wrong from their religious perspective but they don't think it is the states business from a criminal perspective then I don't see how that isn't secular.
smacl wrote: » Depends whether you consider secularism to be limited to the laws of the land or whether you also consider it to form part of a social or personal philosophy and/or moral framework. Personally, I'd go with the latter. So if person tells me to behave in a certain way as failing to do so would contradict their religious beliefs, I consider it anti-secular. As an example of this, myself and herself had our kids long before getting married, and she got a bit of flak from one of her aunts over it. When asked, 'would I not make an honest woman out of her' I pointed out that she already was an honest woman and suggested that perhaps they too should go forth an multiple. Though not it so many words Your religious beliefs may instruct you how to behave but when talking to anyone else they amount to no more than opinion, one that may well be considered objectionable or even obnoxious.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » exactly. There will always be people with different opinions to you. you give those opinions as much weight as you think they deserve. Once they do not infringe on your life or liberty I dont see the issue.
smacl wrote: » The problem here is presenting an opinion as fact and instructing others to act on that basis. For example, saying 'adultery is wrong and you definitely shouldn't do it because it violates a commitment you made' is presenting an opinion as fact and making an instruction on that basis. Specifically, 'adultery is wrong' is an opinion, saying 'you definitely shouldn't do it' is an instruction based on that opinion, and qualifying this by stating 'it violates a commitment you made' is unqualified speculation. While seemingly innocent, you could replace 'adultery' with other more dubious Catholic dogma, e.g. gay sex, contraception, sex outside marriage, gay marriage, abortion and end up with something far more objectionable. Just my opinion, but I think we should actively avoid instilling prejudice where ever possible. So while I personally might agree entirely with Peregrinus' statement on adultery, I think it needs to be framed as opinion rather than fact.
smacl wrote: » Simply believing it to be a higher bar doesn't make it true though does it? The implication that Catholics act with a greater degree of integrity having sworn on a bible than atheists who make a solemn declaration is specious and somewhat insulting.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » That's exactly what I was talking about. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, just whether the jury thinks it is.No way would I affirm in an Irish court if I was the defendant in a jury trial.
Irish Times wrote: A 66-year-old Cork woman has been jailed for the weekend for her defiance in refusing to wear a mask in court. Margaret Buttimer of The Cottage, St Fintan’s Road, Bandon appeared before Clonakilty District Court earlier this week for refusing to wear a mask at Dunnes Stores in the town on February 12th. [...] The judge said that Ms Buttimer had turned up in the body of the court “without a mask, but worse still a smile on her face as if this is something to laugh about”. Ms Buttimer was an “enigma” and her family were deeply concerned about her, the judge said. He found her to be in contempt of court and remanded her in custody for the weekend. She will appear before Bandon District Court again on Monday for sentencing. The judge said Ms Buttimer was moving from defiance to “openly challenging the courts and the country”. Defence solicitor Plunkett Taaffe said that he was conscious of the age of his client. Mr Taaffe emphasised that Ms Buttimer’s family were concerned about her. He spoke briefly to his client at the end of her case. She did not put on a mask and was remanded in custody for the weekend. She will also appear in court in relation to other similar charges on June 14th. The judge told her she was entitled to her relationship with God, but not to the detriment of society.
It is what she wants to flee that makes The Turning [podcast] so fascinating. [Mary] Johnson spent 20 years in Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity before leaving through official channels in 1997. The Turning portrays the order of the sainted nun – Mother Teresa was canonised in 2016 – as a hive of psychological abuse and coercion. It raises the question of whether the difference between a strict monastic community and a cult lies simply in the social acceptability of the operative faith.
What makes The Turning unique is its focus on the internal life of the Missionaries of Charity. The former sisters describe an obsession with chastity so intense that any physical human contact or friendship was prohibited; according to Johnson, Mother Teresa even told them not to touch the babies they cared for more than necessary. They were expected to flog themselves regularly – a practice called “the discipline” – and were allowed to leave to visit their families only once every 10 years. A former Missionaries of Charity nun named Colette Livermore recalled being denied permission to visit her brother in the hospital, even though he was thought to be dying. “I wanted to go home, but you see, I had no money, and my hair was completely shaved – not that that would have stopped me. I didn’t have any regular clothes,” she said. “It’s just strange how completely cut off you are from your family.” Speaking of her experience, she used the term “brainwashing”. “I didn’t bring up the word ‘cult’,” Erika Lantz, the podcast’s host, told me. “Some of the former sisters did.” This doesn’t mean their views of Mother Teresa or the Missionaries of the Charity are universally negative. Their feelings about the woman they once glorified and the movement they gave years of their lives to are complex, and the podcast is more melancholy than bitter.
robindch wrote: » In today's Irish Catholic, independent Clare TD, Michael McNamara, incidentially Chair of the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Response, seems to have urged the church to ignore public health guidelines and hold whatever religious services it wants, including communion and confirmation, regardless of the pandemic. The screenshot below comes from the freely available front page, but I think it's safe to infer the contents of the remainder of the article.
Peregrinus wrote: » That's not really fair, Robin. Based on what you've posted McNamara is clearly talking about what the State should not, not about what the Church should do. You may think it's "safe to infer" that in the remainder of the article he goes on to urge the church to hold services in breach of the guidelines, but I really don't think it is.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Our least favourite dead nun is back in the news:
MT was bitterly opposed to contraception and abortion, the more "souls" born into short lives of abject poverty and misery the better, as far as she was concerned.
June 16, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – In recent decades, there has been a major decline in the formerly strong Catholic faith of the Irish people. As a result, anti-life and anti-family forces have been making dramatic gains that no one thought could be possible in Ireland. Human Life International, Ireland realized something dramatic was needed to try to save the nation from moral and spiritual ruin. Executive Director Patrick McCrystal undertook a Holy Face of Jesus program that has shown great promise to help re-awaken the Irish people to what they have lost and must regain. He realized that a spiritual effort had to be his pro-life organization’s highest priority while still of course continuing with all their other pro-life efforts.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » More hot breaking Holy Face news from 2016 (in fairness, the billboard I saw on Abbey Street was in bits)https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/hli-irelands-astonishing-holy-face-project etc. :rolleyes:
British prime minister Boris Johnson was allowed marry Carrie Symonds, also Catholic, in Westminister Cathedral on Saturday as his two previous marriages were not seen as valid by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Westminster said that, while they did not comment on specific situations, “in general terms, a baptised Catholic who has contracted a marriage recognised in civil law but without observing the requirements of Catholic canon law is not recognised as validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.” Mr Johnson, who is Britain’s first Catholic prime minister, and his wife “are both parishioners of the Westminster Cathedral parish and baptised Catholics,” an archdiocese spokesperson said, and that “all necessary steps were taken, in both Church and civil law, and all formalities completed before the wedding.” Mr Johnson had been married twice before with his first marriage annulled and the second ending in divorce. Neither marriage took place in a Catholic setting. Ms Symonds is a practising Catholic and their son Wilfred, born in April 2020, was baptised in the Catholic Church. Mr Johnson’s mother Charlotte Fawcett is Catholic and had him baptised into that denomination as a child. His godmother is Lady Rachel Billington, daughter of the late Lord Longford, a Catholic. However, as a teenager and while attending Eton, Mr Johnson became and was confirmed as a member of the Church of England. The archdiocese spokesperson pointed out that, according to the Catholic Church’s canon law, and despite Mr Johnson’s reception of Church of England confirmation at school, he remained a Catholic as it is not possible to formally defect from the Church. This was underlined in a decree by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009.
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: » That's interesting. It is said that Blair felt it expedient to wait until he was out of office before he converted, because of potential issues (perceived or otherwise) a Catholic PM would result in. Opinion on Boris aside, it is a very welcome development, historically noteworthy, that a Catholic is and can be PM, given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.
smacl wrote: » I'm not sure Catholicism is an issue for many if any British people in this day and age. Now if the elected a Muslim PM on the other hand, that would be more rather more interesting.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Given a pope once issued a Bull declaring any Catholics who followed the laws laid down by a ruling monarch of England would be excommunicated,and called for the overthrow of a reigning queen. Another pope not only gave backing for an invasion of England but also supplied troops and money so it's fair to say there was provocation. Indeed, the most stringent measures were specifically taken against Jesuits who it was felt were interfering in the peace of the realm by fomenting rebellion - a belief the primary sources support. So interfering were the Jesuits that at various points in time the French, Spanish, and Portuguese also expelled them. It is also worth noting that the Penal Laws as enacted in all the constituent parts of the eventual United Kingdom were aimed at all non-Anglicans - Protestant dissenters were just as restricted as Roman Catholics. That's the kind of thing that tends to happen when there's an official State religion. In summary - Realm with official State religion penalised those who are members of other religions, and Roman Catholics were viewed with distrust after the Pope calls on them to overthrow the monarch leading to a serious rebellion by RC nobles. In this same realm a Roman Catholic monarch had hundreds of Protestants burned to death. Bit more nuanced then you are claiming.
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: » Try living in certain areas of Scotland or the six counties It is a significant development because it bookends and signifies that what you said is true, that the Catholic faith of the PM is not an issue. It would have been an impossibility for a long time, and even Blair decided to wait until he was no longer PM. Of course it is something that is historically noteworthy. It signifies and symbolises progress away, indeed the end, of centuries of state-led and imposed religious persecution of the most severe kind. A Catholic being PM of that same state is far more historically significant than, for example, a Catholic being president of the USA which was very significant when it happened for the first time (albeit Boris is no JFK except perhaps in the womanising department!)
smacl wrote: » Reading the beeb coverage of it, there seems to be rather more interest in the Catholic church agreeing to the marriage of a man who has already divorced twice and the double standards therein.
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: » No double standards, as far as the Church is concerned he was never married. One assumes that Boris would have gone to confession before his marriage. At least Boris can be assured of no leaks there
Father Paul Butler, the Church of England rector of St Paul’s in Deptford, tweeted: “Always one canon law for the rich and one for the poor.”
smacl wrote: » Or rather more likely, from the Guardian
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: » given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: » :pac::pac: This is your take? It would be funny if it were not so serious. I am sure that bigots in the north of Ireland or Scotland, or indeed any other place in the world where Catholics are still subject of discrimination or oppression (indeed, sadly, martyrdoms in certain parts of the world are almost routine) would also claim that there is "provocation", "interference" and that papists are disloyal. Try reading what you wrote again - a fairly innocuous statement noting that it is significant that a member of a minority religion which was historically horrendously oppressed in Britain is now PM has prompted justification and equivocation about that past treatment. Did you offer similar thoughts when a black man was elected president of the USA?
No - it is not my 'take'. I was responding to a specific comment you made - I have quoted it in bold above - regarding the so-called "horrendous discrimination ... for hundreds of years" by pointing out some historical facts which played a large role in why Roman Catholics were looked at with suspicion in England. It is a matter of historical record -Regnans in Excelsis 1570 excommunicated Elizabeth I and called for her Catholic subjects to disobey her. This came a year after The Revolt of the Northern Earls had sought remove Elizabeth from the throne. The later Ridolfi Plot sought to replace Elizabeth with the Catholic Mary Stuart.
Mary I had 280 Protestants burnt at the stake. You are big on claiming RC martyrdom but silent when it is the Catholics who were creating the martyrs.
Yes, it is noteworthy if the UK has a Roman Catholic PM - and it will be interesting to see how his Unionist allies react. However - it was you who decided to interject a comment about historical "discrimination" and, while not denying there was, simply pointed out that such discrimination did not exist in a vacuum. From a strictly security of the realm perspective there were serious issues with Papal interference.
Draven Savory Supernova wrote: » With your comments you are engaging in what was and is one of the common traits of the bigot, holding an entire group of people responsible for actions and statements of their leaders.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4add94d94e8d71b85e7bef1cbc23bc90.svg)
