td's wont be allowed to take communion if they vote for abortion.

nowanathiest wrote: »

Agree, the irony is that the Catholic Church needs women far more than they need it. I have long believed that the ban in contraception is there to ensure their numbers do not dwindle. They need women to have as many babies as possible - they are new recruits.
They further need women to remain in the fold to raise these children in the Catholic faith and ensure the organisation's future.

It's within living memory that a priest would walk into a person's house and suggest to the family that their new TV was a luxury that was a step too far. If they hadn't spent money in that way, they could be supporting more children and it was their duty to provide "souls for the church". I heard that from an old man who asked me about the placard I was carrying on a pro-choice march last year in Galway. You are exactly right, and it is tragically ironic that the women are only needed for child bearing purposes - hence the ongoing attempt to control our sexuality and reproductive rights.

What baffles me is what women get in return? I cannot fathom what benefits there are for women to remain in the catholic church, other than habit and tradition.

Here in rural Ireland, habit and tradition die hard. Why wouldn't it? The community aspect of the church is much stronger here - the precarious nature of any small village, with the young folk leaving in droves since the beginning of the Republic, and before, means that all and every element of community cohesion is clung onto for dear life. To speak out publicly against the church and declare yourself not part of it anymore is tantamount to betrayal of your people.

Young women leave mostly, or stay, get married/have children here and are intimately tied into these traditions whether they like it or not. To extract themselves and their own children from this cycle would take immense strength of will in the face of everyone who knows them disapproving of showing up their families/parents, etc.

It's much easier for these young people to go along with the status quo, and not even approach the subject of their subjugation by the church until they may be forced to by circumstance (such as a crisis pregnancy). Very sad, but it is slowly changing and becoming easier to openly challenge the silence. I am the ONLY person in my small village who is publicly pro choice on facebook - many agree with me privately, many would like to show support, but nobody dares comment on my posts in public. However, I am happy to be able to present a feminist view on these issues. It can only help the tide turn.....slowly.

Obliq wrote: »

It's within living memory that a priest would walk into a person's house and suggest to the family that their new TV was a luxury that was a step too far. If they hadn't spent money in that way, they could be supporting more children and it was their duty to provide "souls for the church". I heard that from an old man who asked me about the placard I was carrying on a pro-choice march last year in Galway. You are exactly right, and it is tragically ironic that the women are only needed for child bearing purposes - hence the ongoing attempt to control our sexuality and reproductive rights.



Here in rural Ireland, habit and tradition die hard. Why wouldn't it? The community aspect of the church is much stronger here - the precarious nature of any small village, with the young folk leaving in droves since the beginning of the Republic, and before, means that all and every element of community cohesion is clung onto for dear life. To speak out publicly against the church and declare yourself not part of it anymore is tantamount to betrayal of your people.

Young women leave mostly, or stay, get married/have children here and are intimately tied into these traditions whether they like it or not. To extract themselves and their own children from this cycle would take immense strength of will in the face of everyone who knows them disapproving of showing up their families/parents, etc.

It's much easier for these young people to go along with the status quo, and not even approach the subject of their subjugation by the church until they may be forced to by circumstance (such as a crisis pregnancy). Very sad, but it is slowly changing and becoming easier to openly challenge the silence. I am the ONLY person in my small village who is publicly pro choice on facebook - many agree with me privately, many would like to show support, but nobody dares comment on my posts in public. However, I am happy to be able to present a feminist view on these issues. It can only help the tide turn.....slowly.

Which is why arguably, mothers have more rights. As breeding cattle and nannies for the state/church women are far more under their insidious controls. That is what I find ironic about father's rights. Don't you get it? Women don't have them either. They are just babysitters that are easier to control.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Women get to sustain their illusions they live in a matriarchal culture.

Do you mean this? I'm sorry, but I've never heard Ireland described as a matriarchal culture before!

Obliq wrote: »

Do you mean this? I'm sorry, but I've never heard Ireland described as a matriarchal culture before!

You have never heard this? Or the more caustic mammy republic?

This is exactly what happens when you allow your country to be run by a religious organisation.

I'm getting this constant sense that I've stepped into the 1950s through one of those subspace anomalies that seem to plague startrek crews !

The other aspect of democracy that could be used is to simply not donate any more money to the Catholic Church.

There's lobbying and there's manipulating. This falls into the latter category.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What does?

See thread title above!

Solair wrote: »

See thread title above!

See the past few pages.

The OP was wrong - no Irish Catholic Bishop or Priest has said this - if anything, Cardinal Brady rejected it.

nowanathiest wrote: »

what has struck me most about your last few posts is the equation with the Muslim community, where women have few rights and dare not voice their personal opinions within their families and communities.

If what you say about the rural environment is your personal experience, then how is the Catholic community any different to a Muslim one, in terms of it's attitudes towards women? Other than you are not required to wear a burkha and may choose your own husband, though it's not that long ago that Irish women were required to wear headscarves or veils in church, and the practice of "churching" married women who had given birth before they were allowed to attend mass, only died out in the 60's.

Scratch the surface and the Irish RC is not all that different. Unless you cherry pick what you practise, it is fundamentalist.

It's ironic that so many defend Islam on boards and slam the Irish RC. Lol...

Seriously what good has this institution ever done? They couldn't give a flying fuck about morals unless they can benefit from them in some way and even then it's a 'pick and choose' mentality when it comes to morality.

The sooner this scum burns down to the ground and is eradicated from society the better, imo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

See the past few pages.

The OP was wrong - no Irish Catholic Bishop or Priest has said this - if anything, Cardinal Brady rejected it.

I was posting on a mobile phone. It's not easy to just randomly go back through pages upon pages of posts sometimes!

It still doesn't take away from the fact that it feels rather like I've stepped into the 1950s. Only with iPhones!

jimd2 wrote: »

Solaris, have you read through this thread? Do you not realise that the thread title is total bullsh!t?

I didn't want to get any more involved in this thread as, frankly, I have more to be doing with my time on a day like today but to see people continue to believe that the thread title is correct is actually funny in some ways. It shows how limited a forum like boards is when it comes to real debate.

I suggested last evening that the thread should be closed but no one did anything about it. I might pm a moderator.

Edit, I just saw your post above. I wasn't trying to have a swipe at you. Just wondering how many others are going to be reading the thread and going off on a rant about the church.

If they haven't said it, then the thread title needs to be changed.
A lot of people don't have the time to read hundreds of posts to get to the facts of a situation. If the title's not accurate, perhaps a mod might modify it ?

1ZRed wrote: »

I still don't like any of the nonsensical bullshit they preach and how they try to force others and the government to abide by their beliefs just because they don't like something, even if it's got nothing to do with them, but that's my opinion.

I hate the preaching too. I find it a shame though how so many in the church will defend those who facilitated the child abuse.

There are so many people on the ground in the church who are doing so many good things world wide to help the needy.

Great men and women who sacrificed their whole lives (including personal well-being, e.g. celibacy) to help others while those in their jewel encrusted hats in Rome are being worshipped as demi-gods; their word being taken as gospel (pun-intended); while at the same time shipping paedophiles from town to town spreading terror and torture.