nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

greenpilot

Just heard this on RTE. Is this the last gasp of a dying church?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

COYW

I don't get what the big issue is here. The RC church has a set of rules like any other organisation and one of those rules is that they are anti-abortion full stop. By supporting abortion in any form, TDs, well those of the RC faith, are breaking the rules of the church and therefore they are no longer welcome as part of that church.

Before anyone jumps :

1) I am not anti-abortion.
2) I am not a member of the RC church.

Like most of their rules, eg: you are not allowed to cohabit or have sex before marriage, the RC church will turn a blind eye to this when a TD turns up with a few quid looking for a service, wedding or funeral, I'm pretty sure.

I still believe that the potential loss of votes will be the biggest worry for politicians in relation to this issue. Plenty could lose their seat over this. The extremists on both sides are vicious and uncompromising.

efb

Would Sean Brady ever fcuk off!

COYW

efb wrote: »

Would Sean Brady ever fcuk off!

Why? He is the leader of the RC church in the RoI (not sure about this so correct me if I'm wrong) and has a set of rules to govern his people by. 87% of the population in this country, as per the last census, are of that faith, so they chose to include themselves in his church and thus empower him.

efb

COYW wrote: »

Why? He is the leader of the RC church in the RoI (not sure about this so correct me if I'm wrong) and has a set of rules to govern his people by. 87% of the population in this country, as per the last census, are of that faith, so they chose to include themselves in his church and thus empower him.

Moral authority - swearing kids to secrecy??? How many of the 87% want him gone!

Lightbulb Sun

murraykil wrote: »

kildare-nationalist.ie

I wonder is the reluctance to politicise the Eucharist as strong as the reluctance to publicise child abuse.

Ah, so the thread title is a sensationalist untruth then.

Ash.J.Williams

COYW wrote: »

Why? He is the leader of the RC church in the RoI (not sure about this so correct me if I'm wrong) and has a set of rules to govern his people by. 87% of the population in this country, as per the last census, are of that faith, so they chose to include themselves in his church and thus empower him.

I know this may seem mental but a significant percentage of that 87% are pro choice.

stoneill

Jemember the time when a threat from the church was all fire and brimstone and a eternity of pain and suffering.
Miracles were people rising from the dead and bushes on fire talking and apparitions all over the place .

Now, the best they can come up with is no wafer at mass for you and Jesus appears on toast or as a cat's arséhole.

Even if I was told I was excommunicated, that would mean as much to me and my daily life as someone telling me my shoe lace was open.

Sarky

Going by recent polls, a good 80% of that 87% are pro-choice.

murraykil

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

Ah, so the thread title is a sensationalist untruth then.

Untruth, yes it is, but it's very apt when the thread is about a statement made by Cathal Brady.

“I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign,”

Forest Demon

How many were still allowed to give communion when they were known to be child abusers?

Gary Glitter apparently is welcome for communion.

Obliq

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.

I'm presuming that's at me nowanatheist! Hmm, good question and one I would have to agree with Olivia O'Leary on with her Taliban analogy on RTE radio, that sparked off Lucinda Creighton's puritanical backlash. I haven't a link to the podcast, but I found myself cheering along tbh.

I suppose the difference is that we have equality under the law EXCEPT in terms of the 8th amendment. The Catholic heirarchy has, as you know, had to be dragged kicking and spitting feathers through every change in law that has brought about equality for women, as for the LGBT community.

The main difference I see here in rural Ireland is that young women THINK they have equality, and for the most part, that's reflected in law (except in my point above). In that respect, it's a world apart from women living under strict Muslim laws. It's only when they are actually confronted with situations where they are forced into the realisation they are second class citizens that they have to formulate their own morality and square their continued religious beliefs with themselves. So many people living with a massive cognitive dissonance in terms of how their lives are enhanced/sublimated within their religion.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

He did say this however:

Cathal Brday 2009. :rolleyes:

I think most people are offended by a hypocritical facilitator of child abuse being in a position of such authority and influence and thus having his opinion relayed far and wide and respected by so many.

This is very offensive to many, and probably even most members of civilised society.

This thread is amazing.

Every time it is pointed out that Seán Brady, or any other leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, has explicitly not said what the OP is claiming, the discourse immediately shifts to "well yes he didn't say this but here's why I still dislike him".

Yes, there absolutely is a place for criticizing Seán Brady.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that his resignation was rejected. I think Irish Catholics should be ashamed of his previous behaviour.

But for the sake of a sane, rational argument, can it at least be established that this latest news story is entirely an After Hours invention following on from a media story which tried to get Brady to say something he rejected - namely that politicians should be refused Communion if they vote for the upcoming abortion legislation.

The (really shameful) child abuse stories have nothing to do with the abortion legislation.

Obliq

Clandestine wrote: »

All you need to know about Sean Brady:

I'm loving that so much I may play it again. Stealing for facebook, ta muchly

Surely this should be an issue of personal choice. If you believe is wrong to have an abortion, don't have one! Why do we need to force the teachings of the church on everyone? Surely that impinges on their rights to decide!

nowanathiest

COYW wrote: »

I don't get what the big issue is here. The RC church has a set of rules like any other organisation and one of those rules is that they are anti-abortion full stop. By supporting abortion in any form, TDs, well those of the RC faith, are breaking the rules of the church and therefore they are no longer welcome as part of that church.

Before anyone jumps :

1) I am not anti-abortion.
2) I am not a member of the RC church.

Like most of their rules, eg: you are not allowed to cohabit or have sex before marriage, the RC church will turn a blind eye to this when a TD turns up with a few quid looking for a service, wedding or funeral, I'm pretty sure.

I still believe that the potential loss of votes will be the biggest worry for politicians in relation to this issue. Plenty could lose their seat over this. The extremists on both sides are vicious and uncompromising.

The issue is that the RC have imposed their rules on everyone in the land, managed to enshrine them in law no less, regardless of whether or not you are a member of the RC - this is offensive to many people. I do not care if someone is RC and chooses to follow their rules, but I strenously object when they dictate that I must also be subject to them.

Mardy Bum

This is brilliant, with the help of god once this goes through a few more people will have left the church.

Catholic Church are so invested in the rights of children but made sure that Noel Browne's Mother and Child Scheme never passed. Sure why bother with free healthcare for mothers and children.

nowanathiest

clairefontaine wrote: »

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...

so effectively, Irish rural woman have been silenced on the matter. No one seeks or wants their opinion on a legislation which may directly effect them, their future daughters and grandchildren.

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Am I the only person who finds this creepy?

Obliq

nowanathiest wrote: »

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Am I the only person who finds this creepy?

Nope

Nodin

nowanathiest wrote: »

so effectively, Irish rural woman have been silenced on the matter. No one seeks or wants their opinion on a legislation which may directly effect them, their future daughters and grandchildren.

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Shame and fear of demonisation would keep many quiet. Considering the number we know go abroad every year, theres rather a dearth of those who would admit it.

This is something related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxI6HGpaP3Q

Obliq

I think they are only starting to find their voices now really. A number of young women I spoke to around the time that Savita's death was breaking news were naturally horrified, but genuinely expressing helplessness about how to take action on these issues. "But what are we supposed to do about it Obliq?" was one question that I was able to answer - another that i couldn't help with so much was "But I can't approach the subject with my mother at all and we'd have an awful row if I went to a march, what do I do?". "Well, grow up" would be slightly unkind, but to the point....

I'm not sure I'd use the word creepy actually, more terrifying as regards how much power over MY reproductive rights is in the hands of people who are only now wondering how to think for themselves. It'll be a long road yet....:mad:

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This thread is amazing.

Every time it is pointed out that Seán Brady, or any other leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, has explicitly not said what the OP is claiming, the discourse immediately shifts to "well yes he didn't say this but here's why I still dislike him".

Yes, there absolutely is a place for criticizing Seán Brady.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that his resignation was rejected. I think Irish Catholics should be ashamed of his previous behaviour.

But for the sake of a sane, rational argument, can it at least be established that this latest news story is entirely an After Hours invention following on from a media story which tried to get Brady to say something he rejected - namely that politicians should be refused Communion if they vote for the upcoming abortion legislation.

The (really shameful) child abuse stories have nothing to do with the abortion legislation.

My issue is with the facilitator of child abuse still being in a position where he can make statements which get so much coverage and can have so much influence on society.

The OP can be forgiven for the thread title as, like you said, there was an attempt by the media to put that spin on it.

Also while Brady did not say that TD's would be refused the Eucharist should they support the bill, he said the bishops have not discussed it and that there would be a reluctance to politicise it. He could have said we will not politicise it, although given his history we could not have had much confidence in that statement either.

Given his vast experience I believe that he chose his words carefully to leave a vague threat, although I do not believe that they would ever collectively decide to do it. As in the USA, one or two individuals might decide to do it, but the church as a whole would not as it would be a PR disaster.

As for the child abuse having nothing to do with the abortion debate, I have to disagree. I do not trust the Roman Catholic church when it comes to their motivations.

An example would be the post posted below which mentions their oppostion to the state supporting mothers and their children.

At a time when the Roman Catholic church were abusing children in their care, it worries me that their motives were at best self-serving, e.g. creating more need for women to look to Roman Catholic church run instituitons for help, to downright reprehensible such as creating a scenario where more children would fall into the clutches of a paedophile ring which only they were aware of.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is brilliant, with the help of god once this goes through a few more people will have left the church.

Catholic Church are so invested in the rights of children but made sure that Noel Browne's Mother and Child Scheme never passed. Sure why bother with free healthcare for mothers and children.

BTW, Brady was 36 years old when he "was present when children signed vows of silence over allegations against Father Brendan Smyth in 1975."

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

Shame and fear of demonisation would keep many quiet. Considering the number we know go abroad every year, theres rather a dearth of those who would admit it.

This is something related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxI6HGpaP3Q

Beautiful and totally relevant. Thank you Nodin, am sharing that immediately.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

My issue is with the facilitator of child abuse still being in a position where he can make statements which get so much coverage and can have so much influence on society.

Yeah... that's fine, but you must admit it has nothing to do with the OP.

The OP is about directly threatening TDs to vote in a certain way.

That allegation has now been disproved.

I think Brady was more negligent in his responsibilities than going out and positively facilitating child abuse, as you suggest, and he deserves full and complete condemnation for his negligence.

But seriously, all you're doing here is accusing him of moral hypocrisy. It doesn't have anything to do with faith-based political threats as suggested by the OP.

Obliq

nowanathiest wrote: »

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Great article. Unfortunately, the Independent had to close the comments section because of so much victim blaming.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/i-was-raped-when-i-was-17-where-were-the-abortion-experts-and-commentators-29241620.html

"Abortion is a highly charged, difficult subject. It sparks so much passion, fury and hatred that many women are afraid to speak out privately, let alone in public.

I was afraid to write this. But, on balance, I think I'm more afraid of living in a country where I'm afraid to say what I believe and why."

Sorry this discussion is a bit off topic as per the OP, but it's all relevant to this Catholic culture of shaming women into silence.

PopePalpatine

Obliq wrote: »

Great article. Unfortunately, the Independent had to close the comments section because of so much victim blaming.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/i-was-raped-when-i-was-17-where-were-the-abortion-experts-and-commentators-29241620.html

The comments section of the Indo is usually facepalm-inducing.

Also, cheers for posting that song Clandestine. :cool:

Mr Tibbs

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-keeps-excommunication-threat-hanging-over-abortion-tds-29242992.html

Interesting article from the front page of the Indo today, seems the threat of excommunication is still being spoken of against TD's who will vote for the abortion legistation with Cardinal Brady to the forefront of this threat. I wonder how many of those who raped children were denied to practice their religion by this man who sat in a room where children were sworn to secrecy about being raped by Priest's. Here they are again trying their bully boy tactics on the Irish people, so much for democry but this time I wonder how many will obey their threat.
Knowing Irish politician's they will probably run scared worrying about losing votes from the moral brigade in their consticuencies. The Catholic church denied communion to the men who fought for the International Brigade in the Spanish civil war on their return to Ireland believing they were fighting for an evil communist regime while they sided with that God fearing Catholic General Franco. Doesn't make a difference what crime you commit so long as you appear at the alter every Sunday to recieve communion and toe the church party line and of course donate heavily sure if you give enough they will praise you from the high.

Sarky

Obliq wrote: »

Great article. Unfortunately, the Independent had to close the comments section because of so much victim blaming.

That's utterly disgusting.

COYW

nowanathiest wrote: »

The issue is that the RC have imposed their rules on everyone in the land, managed to enshrine them in law no less, regardless of whether or not you are a member of the RC - this is offensive to many people. I do not care if someone is RC and chooses to follow their rules, but I strenously object when they dictate that I must also be subject to them.

Stop being silly. People are free to practice whatever faith they want to, or no faith at all, in this country.

Can you give me an example of an RC specific law to which you are subject too? I'm not talking about democratic decisions here btw.

gobnaitolunacy

Oh boo-hoo. They won't get a tasteless little symbolic wafer.

COYW

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Oh boo-hoo. They won't get a tasteless little symbolic wafer.

Erm, wrong faith there. RCs believe that it is the actual body of Christ.