plannerscanner wrote: » For once the CC are spot on in their threat. And they should carry it through come the aftermath of the vote. Just to be clear - I am in favour of legislation in respect of the x-case. However, I am also interested in how the CC will go about renewing itself on the island after a lenghty period on the political sidelines. I have felt for a number of years that if they wish to be taken seriously they will have to start utilising their strong points to force their way back towards the centre of political discussion. And one of their strong points, as seen by politicians, is association. TD's want to be seen at mass, and more especially funerals. And if the CC has a rule that will exclude them then they should go ahead and use it to protect their values. The same goes for non-practising Catholics. You don't come to mass - then forget about the church wedding/baptism/communion etc. Although I am very much in the lapsed Catholic camp, and I disagree with the CC on many issues, I have to admit, if they follow through on this threat I will be very impressed.
I Heart Internet wrote: » I understand where you're coming from Planner but I think your proposed approach lacks charity. The church is very slow to exclude people, even those legislating for abortion.
Birroc wrote: » Sorry I was wrong, Smyth continued for another 18 years. Brady’s so-called ‘investigations’ in 1975 concerning Smyth actually enabled Smyth to continue his reign of terror for another 18 years. It can be argued that Brady’s ‘investigations’ actually cleared Smyth – as Smyth stayed free for nearly TWO more decades. Brady must go and all the files relating to the Smyth ‘investigations’ must be released. Brady’s 1975 ‘detective work’ took place only yards from Dundalk Garda Station. Brady couldn’t walk those extra few yards to protect children … over 100 children were raped by Smyth AFTER Brady’s ‘investigation’. He should be in prison.
Freddy Smelly wrote: » votes are secret. the church would have no way to tell who voted for it
murraykil wrote: » Threats, force, exclusion, that all sounds very Christian! :rolleyes:
Leftist wrote: » So let me get this straight, you don't agree with the CC on many issues but you want them to reinstate themselves as a heavy influence in irish political matters? I just can't get my head around the stupidity in irish society sometimes.
Solair wrote: » I suppose while the Catholic Church isn't a democracy the one power that ordinary a la carte members do have is the ability to vote with their money.
Ghost Buster wrote: » I read it as the poster wants (So called) Irish Catholics to walk the walk. Stop having sex before marriage, go to mass once a week, oppose homosexuality, stop using contraception, stop living together outside of marriage, oppose abortion in the name of their God rather than in the name of their party whip and generally do as their church tells them. Stop being ****ing hypocrites in other words.
clairefontaine wrote: » What other lobby group gets so much media voice?
Cody Pomeray wrote: » What other lobby group is invited to give so much media opinion? Did Seán Brady kick in the door of the RTE studios? Did he call up Liveline and start sermonizing? No, a respected RTE news program gave him a very prolonged radio interview on the News at One. I listen to the News At One every day and I can't remember an interview longer than that since Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis. Why does RTE do this? Of course if they ring up Seán Brady, he is going to agree to come on the show and give his stated opinion. But for anyoen who heard the interview, or read the subsequent coverage, it is clear that the media were desperately fishing for a statement on excommunication or refusing communion which they did not get, whereafter they began to resort to naming foreign cardinals who have raised excommunication in other jurisdictions. I'm no fan of the RC Church and would be happy never to set foot in one again, but to see the (very important) debate on abortion being reduced to some people's bugbear with the Catholic Church, both in the media and here on boards, is extremely irritating. Sometimes I think society is so frustrated with the historic inability to stand up to the RC Church and the institutions of Church and Archbishop McQuaid when it mattered, that they are now overcompensating and strutting online and showing their atheist plumage when it matters the least, when the Church has been reduced to a corpse. It's maddening because the Church is now completely irrelevant to the debate on abortion,and the abortion debate deserves an open and rational, and secular discussion.
Mardy Bum wrote: » The vast majority of the TDs are practising Catholics.
Therefore a threat of excommunication would be a big deal for them. It is also an attempt to blackmail the TDs into voting against the bill.
Cody Pomeray wrote: » link? Except there was no threat of excommunication. The media didn't catch their fish.
Sarky wrote: » Brady essentially said "we'll think about it". He outright refused a straight answer specifically because he wanted that threat to be there without having to state it outright.
Cody Pomeray wrote: » That would probably be a reasonable point if Brady actually brought the issue up. The issue was brought up first by Richard Crowley and then raised again with Brady by the print media. What Brady actually said was that the issue hadn't been discussed by the Bishops. Clearly if the Bishops hadn't raised it in their deliberations, then it's not in their sights. But for Brady to dismiss it outright would be to go against Roman Catholic Dogma, and being a Cardinal, he's not really in a position to determine what the infallible teachings of the Church are so as he can lower the moral burden on Irish politicians. It is clear to any rational observer that Brady did not raise excommunication, the Bishops did not raise it, and by saying he doesn't want to "politicise the Eucharist" Brady has shown an aversion to the prospect, if anything. Anything more is just wishful thinking on behalf of a very vocal media and selection of internet posters desperate for a fight. Most people on this thread still seem to think there was an actual threat of excommunication. You just can;t get through to people who are determined to see this story in a certain light.
ruthloss wrote: » and youse are all going to hell!!:D
Dionysius2 wrote: » Yea, but it's nothing more than a virtual threat, now isn't that the truth ?
awec wrote: » They should have no involvement in politics whatsoever. They have shown themselves as unfit for such a position.
Morag wrote: » It is enough of a threat to people and a moral stance which keeps up the perpetuation of shame related to abortion in this country. Given the numbers of 12 women a day and at least 150,000 women who have had abortions I reckon there is a % of them who have gone to mass and gotten communion after their abortion. There is no way they'd confess it as it would mean they would be under the threat of excommunication. Would a priest helping to bury the remains of a child brought back from the UK where the parents traveled due to fatal fetal abnormalities refuse to give absolution and communion to the parents? Cos that is what we are talking about.It is the RCC using it's position to try and control people out of shame. It is that shame which stops women from speaking out about their abortion and directly demanding the 8th amendment be repealed.
COYW wrote: » The pro-choice movement has a serious media voice to be fair clairefontaine, as does pretty much every trade union in the land. I think both sides have a fair share in the media voice on this.
I Heart Internet wrote: » ^^This is the type of populist nonsense that gains much traction despite it being an outright afront to democratic values. As much as some like to think they can silence a person or organisation becasue they don't pass some sort of fitness-to-speak test, we can not. A healthy democracy needs a strong, inclusive civil society. Once you start trying to legitimise the exclusion of people, clubs, organisations, parties, etc from debate then you're chipping away at democracy itself.
Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: » I'd say excommunicate the lot of them. Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry. You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so. They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.
