Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Diarmuid Martin, lapsed Catholics should have the maturity to leave the church.

245

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,145 ✭✭✭the culture of deference


    John Doe1 wrote: »
    How about all catholics are rounded up and given their own island of the coast of greenland

    how many real catholics are left in ireland judging by what diarmuid classes as a true catholic


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    FWIW, I've always thought Diarmuid Martin to be a good man and I'm not knocking him. However, the fact that you become a R.C. member as a baby and cannot leave when you have the intellectual capacity to form an opinion on theology and the merits of the R.C. organisation does no-one any favours. They don't want me and I don't want them, therefore, I should be allowed leave at will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,790 ✭✭✭slavetothegrind


    John Doe1 wrote: »
    How about all catholics are rounded up and given their own island of the coast of greenland

    feck that! by their own register i'd be included!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,210 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
    Would ya's get a grip FFS. If you don't want to be part of a church, any church, well then don't go near it. There's more important things going on in this world!:mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Biggins wrote: »
    His statement is full of holes given that people can't leave!
    With the crap he's once again coming out which CLEARLY conflicts with actual reality, it show once again just what an out of touch tool he is!

    As one other poster to the paper said:

    I don't think you're being the most rational about this.

    I'm simply considering the contents of what he has said. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in it, and I think he's quite reasonable in coming out and saying it. He's challenging people to earnestly think about what they believe, or indeed what they don't believe.

    I regard that as entirely fruitful, and it could end up being more beneficial for the RCC if such a policy was taken further.

    Calling someone a "tool", a "bollox", an "arrogant bastard" or that he's talking "****e" isn't a starting point for reasonable conversation about this.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    philologos wrote: »
    I don't think you're being the most rational about this.

    I'm simply considering the contents of what he has said. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in it, and I think he's quite reasonable in coming out and saying it. He's challenging people to earnestly think about what they believe, or indeed what they don't believe.

    I regard that as entirely fruitful, and it could end up being more beneficial for the RCC if such a policy was taken further.

    Calling someone a "tool", a "bollox" or that he's talking "****e" isn't a starting point for reasonable conversation about this.

    If is going to say crap like this - and it subsequently CANNOT BE DONE - and he should know this (!) - he's gonna be judged by the public for his stupidity.

    Its your opinion he's a nice guy.
    Its my opinion he's a god-damn tool - and stupid one at that.

    We can agree to differ.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Biggins wrote: »
    :mad:



    From a post someone else says after the news item.

    Lovely bit of double speak here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
    Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

    So even though the 'club' has suspended your membership - you are still a member as you may see the error of your ways and follow the rules. Besides which - once you join - membership of for life.
    Only option is to join another 'club' - one that is easy to leave.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Did you even bother reading my previous posts on this thread Biggins?

    I fail to see how Diarmuid Martin is "stupid" for stating something so reasonable. If you have beef with the Vatican about their policy on leaving the RCC it might be better if you actually criticised the Vatican rather then Diarmuid Martin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,791 ✭✭✭up for anything


    Biggins wrote: »
    What does it take to get excommunicated then? I'll fcuking do it!

    Excommunication doesn't mean that you're out!
    The Catholic Church
    See also: List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church
    In Roman Catholic canon law, excommunication is a censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, to repent and return to full communion.[1] It is not an "expiatory penalty", designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, still less a merely "vindictive penalty", designed solely to punish.
    Excommunication can be either latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offence for which canon law imposes that penalty); or it can ferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[2]
    Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[3] However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired.[4] In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
    Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive the Eucharist, but is not barred from attending Mass). They are also forbidden to exercise any ecclesiastical office or the like.[5] If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, stricter effects follow, such as the obligation on others to prevent the excommunicated person from acting in a ministerial capacity in the liturgy or, if this proves impossible, to suspend the liturgical service, and the invalidity of acts of ecclesiastical governance by the excommunicated person.[6]
    In the Catholic Church, excommunication is normally resolved by a declaration of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offence involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicated person, and the lifting of the censure (absolution) by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. "The absolution can be in the internal (private) forum only, or also in the external (public) forum, depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant."[7] Since excommunication excludes from reception of the sacraments, absolution from excommunication is required before absolution can be given from the sin that led to the censure. In many cases, the whole process takes place on a single occasion in the privacy of the confessional. For some more serious wrong-doings, absolution from excommunication is reserved to a bishop or other ordinary or even to the Pope. These can delegate a priest to act on their behalf.
    Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: the excommunicate was either a vitandus (shunned, literally "to be avoided", by other Catholics), or a toleratus (tolerated, allowing Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicated person). This distinction no longer applies.
    In the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were sometimes accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out — hence the idiom "to condemn with bell, book and candle". Such ceremonies are not held today, but the effect is the same.
    Interdict is a censure similar to excommunication. It too excludes from ministerial functions in public worship and from reception of the sacraments, but not from the exercise of governance.[8]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    philologos wrote: »
    Did you even bother reading my previous posts on this thread Biggins?

    I fail to see how Diarmuid Martin is "stupid" for stating something so reasonable. If you have beef with the Vatican about their policy on leaving the RCC it might be better if you actually criticised the Vatican rather then Diarmuid Martin.

    I have, repeatedly.
    Directly to their local door, to Rome, I even reported one of them for assaulting my wife at our own front door.
    I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. Its one huge org filled with a shower of corrupt, two faced fcuks!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,299 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
    Would ya's get a grip FFS.

    Why don't you get a grip "ffs"? :rolleyes:

    It's valid criticism of a corrupt, criminal organisation that protected child rapists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
    Would ya's get a grip FFS. If you don't want to be part of a church, any church, well then don't go near it. There's more important things going on in this world!:mad:

    But the OP wouldn't have anything to do if he couldn't start one of these every five minutes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Archbishop Martin also said the church was anxious to start parting ways from some of its Catholic schools.

    "It can't be done overnight. There is still a very strong demand for Catholic education."

    No, there is a very strong demand for education, but you people have a monopoly. It could be easily done overnight, but how will you trick people into believing in you if you don't start them at age 5?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Biggins: My point is that I'd like to discuss about what has actually been said by Diarmuid Martin rather than emotions about what people think of anyone who happens to be involved in some way with the Roman Catholic Church.

    Stuff like your wife being assaulted at your front door would probably be best off reported to the Gardaí. Other feelings about the RCC aren't the most relevant to the discussion either.

    God forbid, but I want to try look at the topic a little more closely.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    philologos wrote: »
    ...God forbid, but I want to try look at the topic a little more closely.
    (It was said to the cops)

    Then lets do so.

    He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.
    I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    gerryo777 wrote: »
    Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
    Would ya's get a grip FFS.

    If one says a bad initial is one supposed to go to confession ?
    Excommunication doesn't mean that you're out!

    I suppose assualting the pregnant mother of the popes child to the extent hat she sufferes a miscarriage might do the trick but one would need a good lawyer and an understanding judge.
    how many real catholics are left in ireland judging by what diarmuid classes as a true catholic

    About three fiddy ?
    Biggins wrote: »
    I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!

    At the end of the day I dunno of any legal process to prevent a private club to whom one has longsince ceased paying membership dues continuing to list ones name on their membership register unless one can convince a jury that it constitutes defamation ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,210 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Biggins wrote: »
    (It was said to the cops)

    Then lets do so.

    He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.
    I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!
    It's a free country, consult a solicitor and challenge it then.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Biggins wrote: »
    He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.
    I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!

    I fail to see what the point of that would be. I suspect that any such attempt would ultimately fail on the basis that the Vatican are a separate State. No other faith in the world has that scale of legal protection.

    For all intents and purposes you're not a Roman Catholic if you don't attend that church.

    If I were in a position where I left the Roman Catholic church I wouldn't particularly care whether or not I happened to be on some form of list. I agree with you and others that it seems to be a little bit like "Hotel California" and that it should be changed, but I don't see it happening any time soon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    philologos wrote: »
    God forbid, but I want to try look at the topic a little more closely.

    Diarmuid Martin is right. That's pretty much all there is to it.

    Populist rants containing mince oaths aside, if people had been paying attention then they'd have noticed that second paragraph describes the problem, and Diarmuid Martin's solution is perfectly valid.
    If you're only turning up for big events like getting married, having your child baptised or for their 1st holy and not turning up at other times, then you'd be better off just growing up and just not attending at all.

    Whining about "but I can never leave!" is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with this. If you're already a committed to never going to church then this message isn't for you.

    Jesus wept......


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 686 ✭✭✭headmaster


    If what Dr Martin said, was that A La Carte members should leave the church, then I agree with him 100%. It's shocking to see these hypocrites turning up at xmas mass and easter, but not a sight of them all year long. The same with people who want to get married in the church and all the other sacraments. You're either a practising Catholic or you're not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    philologos wrote: »
    His statement is good. The RCC's position on people leaving is daft.
    Actually I kinda find myself agreeing with philologos on this one, the statement is sensible BUT the Archbishop is tiptoeing around the excommunication issue for fear of being seen as critical of canon law.
    Fr Michael Drumm, from the Catholic Schools Partnership, said the church would be getting firmer with parents looking to have their children baptised as a Catholic.
    This is the statement I have more problems to be with, if the Church didn't control so many schools then many parents wouldn't see the need to have their kids baptised.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,626 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Biggins wrote: »
    (It was said to the cops)

    Then lets do so.

    He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.

    Do you consider yourself to be part of the RCC? Why place so much credence and importance in the fact that your name is present in some dusty old book in Rome?

    Presumably, you didn't identify yourself as a Catholic in the census, and I'm sure that you don't financially support the church in any way?

    Those are the only things that matter, ultimately.

    I'm an atheist and I'm not overly bothered about officially leaving the church.. mainly because I never considered myself to be a part of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,325 ✭✭✭ItsAWindUp


    I wonder will anyone take a case to the European Court of Human Rights or something to get this ridiculous rule changed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Right right hold on how about this for a wheeze: set up your own religion, have people that want to leave the RCC join it, charge them €50 for the membership, send the local padre a form indicating that the former member of their flock is now among the hallowed brethren of Genghis Khan's toenail clippings, then fire them out of it upon completion.

    You don't even have to pay taxes on your earnings!

    Move over L Ron Hubbard!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 57,077 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    philologos wrote: »
    Did you even bother reading my previous posts on this thread Biggins?

    I fail to see how Diarmuid Martin is "stupid" for stating something so reasonable. If you have beef with the Vatican about their policy on leaving the RCC it might be better if you actually criticised the Vatican rather then Diarmuid Martin.

    he might be stupid for opening his mouth about this issue in the first place. Then again some people might see him as arrogant because he is not addressing the more pressing issues of why he and others were so silent for so long regarding the abusive priests and then coming out with popular opinions when things were boiling over. Where was he when someone outspoken was really needed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Whining about "but I can never leave!" is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with this. If you're already a committed to never going to church then this message isn't for you
    Actually it has everything to do with it. Telling people to stay away yet still counting them as 'faithful' Catholics is hypocritical at best.

    If I'm still a member of the club, I deserve all the benefits of it as well. Otherwise kick me out.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    ...At the end of the day I dunno of any legal process to prevent a private club to whom one has longsince ceased paying membership dues continuing to list ones name on their membership register unless one can convince a jury that it constitutes defamation ?
    Defamation?
    More like being involuntarily press-ganged into an org that one does not wish to be in.
    philologos wrote: »
    I fail to see what the point of that would be. I suspect that any such attempt would ultimately fail on the basis that the Vatican are a separate State. No other faith in the world has that scale of legal protection.

    For all intents and purposes you're not a Roman Catholic if you don't attend that church.

    If I were in a position where I left the Roman Catholic church I wouldn't particularly care whether or not I happened to be on some form of list. I agree with you and others that it seems to be a little bit like "Hotel California" and that it should be changed, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

    It makes a HUGE difference when you are being buried, where and under what conditions.
    As I am probably older and probably closer to death than most young lads/lassies here, it means a great deal to me.
    Do you consider yourself to be part of the RCC? Why place so much credence and importance in the fact that your name is present in some dusty old book in Rome?

    Presumably, you didn't identify yourself as a Catholic in the census, and I'm sure that you don't financially support the church in any way?

    Those are the only things that matter, ultimately.

    I'm an atheist and I'm not overly bothered about officially leaving the church.. mainly because I never considered myself to be a part of it.

    ...And thats fair enough.
    I myself, however wish to leave officially for a number of reasons.

    I might just go about looking for free legal aid - but I suspect that a lot of solicitors will not touch my case with a barge-pole.
    So far my appeals for help has fallen on deaf ears.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    Where can I sign my release forms.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    If an excommunication-seeker printed out "95 reasons while Catholicism is a pile of steaming horseshyte" and pinned it to the door of the nearest convenient chapel would that work in this day and age ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    At the end of the day I dunno of any legal process to prevent a private club to whom one has longsince ceased paying membership dues continuing to list ones name on their membership register unless one can convince a jury that it constitutes defamation ?
    I think in those cases, you waive those rights with signed consent form, T&Cs, etc, as a grown adult not as a baptised infant or a young child taking communion/confirmation.


Advertisement
Advertisement