Iona vs Panti

swampgas · 10-02-2014 01:41PM

AerynSun wrote: »

If the Vatican refuses to change, then they need to be overthrown by whatever means are available. Revolution!!

Surely, in one sense, this has already happened - i.e. the Reformation?

The Catholic church is not a democracy where the members get a vote. It is an autocracy.

What's so bad about saying "Even though I was brought up a Catholic, I no longer agree with what it says, and therefore am now a Christian, not a Catholic" ?

AerynSun · 10-02-2014 01:44PM

swampgas wrote: »

The Catholic church is not a democracy where the members get a vote. It is an autocracy.

What's so bad about saying "Even though I was brought up a Catholic, I no longer agree with what it says, and therefore am now a Christian, not a Catholic" ?

Sure, I myself have left the Church. I just don't understand how people are all so eager to see the Church remain an autocracy? Just because its been that way for some time now... doesn't make it right.

Zillah · 10-02-2014 01:48PM

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people that tell me they are Catholic and they don't agree with anything the Pope says and that the Vatican doesn't get to dictate what Catholicism is. When I point out that their beliefs are more Protestant than Catholic I get horrified or confused looks.

21st Century religion: Everything is anything and it's very important.

AerynSun · 10-02-2014 01:48PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I don't mean to be smart, but is that not what you'd LIKE the Catholic Church to be about?

And sure, shouldn't the faithful have some kind of say in what they'd LIKE the Church to be about? Does that not make sense?

With respect, I'm not going to get into quoting scripture and verse over this, because as with so many things, I could selectively pick and choose which bits I present, to paint my own picture - but it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, to be honest. I believe that scripture should be used for people's personal reflection and meditation, not for fighting ideological battles. Say some of the lads in seminaries would disagree with me, I've encountered a good few of them that love nothing more than a good old scripture battle. I'm not one of those.

AerynSun · 10-02-2014 01:50PM

Zillah wrote: »

When I point out that their beliefs are more Protestant than Catholic I get horrified or confused looks.

I'm not surprised - because if you were really into Catholic theology, you would appreciate that some of the things that need to change about the current incarnation of the Church would actually make the Church more authentically Catholic than it is right now, not in any way less Catholic.

Bannasidhe · 10-02-2014 01:51PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Because sure the world has been racist for most of its existence. It has also been sexist and homophobic... and aren't we all about trying to change the world for the better?

On racism - it hasn't really.
There has always been a my tribe best - other tribes not as good as my tribe the foreign weirdos but it is only since the 16th century and the Rise in Western Imperialism that race as we define it started to become an issue in Europe.

For example - The Spartans hated the Athenians - some race - different 'tribes'.

For Romans the issue was where one was 'civilised' (i.e a Roman citizen) or a barbarian (not a Roman Citizen). Anyone born within the Empire was a citizen and therefore civilised. Race had nothing to do with it. A dark skinned Egyptian was civilised. A white skinned Scandinavian was not.

Prussians hated Saxons who hated Bavarians - all were 'German'.

In Gaelic Ireland your 'race' was your patrilineal family line - The 'race' of Uí Neill/ Uí Domhnaill/ Uí Briain etc etc. There was no concept of being a member of an 'Irish' race as we would know it. Documents refer to the Irishry - a collective term more akin to us saying 'European' or in your case 'South African' - it refers to common location shared by many 'races'.

Irishry is really just an Anglicisation of 'Gael' - Ireland had, according to those who lived here, two broad groups - An Gael (the 'Irishry') and An Gall - (everybody else).
Which one an individual belonged to depended on their patrilineal family name - an Uí Flaithbhertaigh/ Uí Connaill etc were 'Gael', a de Búrc (Burke/ Bourke/De Burgh) / Mac Gerailt (Fitzgerald) was an Gall. Yet, both spoke the same language, followed the same customs, were often closely blood related up to and including half siblings.

As for Homophobia - homosexuality wasn't an issue in Greece, Roman emperors had sex with men and women (and possibly horses). And as the Brehon Laws make perfectly clear - Gaelic Ireland had zero issues with homosexuality.

Women in Gaelic Ireland could divorce, own property, kept control of their own property upon marriage and could and did control both armies and navies up until the 17th century.

Be careful of projecting back the issues of today. Particularly as this is often used to bolster arguments from 'tradition'.

swampgas · 10-02-2014 01:52PM

AerynSun wrote: »

Sure, I myself have left the Church. I just don't understand how people are all so eager to see the Church remain an autocracy? Just because its been that way for some time now... doesn't make it right.

The point is that the very essence of what the Roman Catholic Church is cannot be preserved if it changes in the way you are suggesting. Effectively you would have a protestant church with the sign "(all new) Roman Catholic Church" hanging over the door.

If people reject the idea of an autocratic male gerontocracy telling them how to live their lives, why on earth would they want to be Catholics in the first place?

Anyhow, this is going down the rabbit-hole of previous threads, apparently lots of people want to call themselves Catholic but do not want to be Catholics. One of the Divine Mysteries, I suppose.

oscarBravo · 10-02-2014 01:54PM

I don't get the idea that a religion should be a democracy. It would be like, "ok folks, it's that time again: let's vote on what to believe in future".

Religion is about doctrine. It's about being told what's right and wrong by a supreme being; by extension, it's about an insider group of humans deciding what the supreme being has said, and passing that along to those less privileged.

If you're going to talk about democratising religion, you may as well take it to its logical conclusion and do away with it, because ultimately all you're doing is recognising that our values are a function of society, not of said supreme being.

All the talk of people picking and choosing which tenets of Catholicism to subscribe to gets me thinking: how many Catholics genuinely believe in the core dogma? How many of them genuinely believe that they're eating and drinking not bread and wine, but the actual body and blood of Christ?

Zubeneschamali · 10-02-2014 01:57PM

Zillah wrote: »

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people that tell me they are Catholic and they don't agree with anything the Pope says and that the Vatican doesn't get to dictate what Catholicism is.

I think you are mixing up the Church with the hierarchy of the Church.

If the people and the hierarchy disagree, the people are right. The people are the Church.

AerynSun · 10-02-2014 02:01PM

swampgas wrote: »

The point is that the very essence of what the Roman Catholic Church is cannot be preserved if it changes in the way you are suggesting. Effectively you would have a protestant church with the sign "(all new) Roman Catholic Church" hanging over the door.

If people reject the idea of an autocratic male gerontocracy telling them how to live their lives, why on earth would they want to be Catholics in the first place?

Anyhow, this is going down the rabbit-hole of previous threads, apparently lots of people want to call themselves Catholic but do not want to be Catholics. One of the Divine Mysteries, I suppose.

I agree about the rabbit hole, so this will be my last post on the subject. People generally don't decide to belong to a church because the numpties in leadership - they decide to belong because they have some kind of religious experience or impulse that draws them along a path of belonging to a community of believers.

For the Catholic church, it's 'very essence' is that it is supposed to be an actual communion of people who are bonded by love, and in theory bonded by love to ALL of humanity, men and women equally, people of all tribes and so on. To suggest that the male dominated 'gerontocracy' is the 'very essence' of Catholicism that needs to be maintained at all costs, is a very sad analysis.

The issue is about the meaning that people attach to being Catholic. Some people have a very fixed idea of what Catholic means, and others would have a broader view. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But the bottom line for me, is that it makes no sense at all in my world or in my head, to say that the male gerontocracy is in the right, and everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong and/or should leave the Church.

swampgas · 10-02-2014 02:02PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think you are mixing up the Church with the hierarchy of the Church.

If the people and the hierarchy disagree, the people are right. The people are the Church.

Well if the members of an organisation which has a core belief that the Pope is their own special Grand Wizard, don't agree with that Grand Wizard, what does that say about them? That Catholics are completely irrational when it comes to defining their own religious beliefs?

I know that religion is pretty irrational in any case, but this seems to take the biscuit.

Zillah · 10-02-2014 02:05PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think you are mixing up the Church with the hierarchy of the Church.

If the people and the hierarchy disagree, the people are right. The people are the Church.

No, the hierarchy are the ordained representatives of God on this Earth, and anyone that defies them has fallen under the influence of evil forces and are living in sin and heresy.

God doesn't sit back and let people vote on what he demands of them.

Penn · 10-02-2014 02:05PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't get the idea that a religion should be a democracy. It would be like, "ok folks, it's that time again: let's vote on what to believe in future".

Religion is about doctrine. It's about being told what's right and wrong by a supreme being; by extension, it's about an insider group of humans deciding what the supreme being has said, and passing that along to those less privileged.

Exactly. The Church won't change because the Church can't change. Their entire doctrine is based on what they believe to be the word of God. They can't change it. If they change one thing because it's what the majority of its followers want, then it opens the door to demands for changing other things.

The Church will continue to stand their ground and will throw out statements to try and appease those members who disagree with them, but they won't actually change anything, because they can't. It opens the floodgates to "Well we changed that, can't we change this too?"

Zubeneschamali · 10-02-2014 02:32PM

swampgas wrote: »

Well if the members of an organisation which has a core belief that the Pope is their own special Grand Wizard, don't agree with that Grand Wizard, what does that say about them?

It says that the Grand Wizard is not infallible, a very common belief among Roman Catholics, even my very conservative (to the point of racist and homophobic) Dad. He used to follow Hans Kung's career closely in the Tablet.

Zubeneschamali · 10-02-2014 02:42PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

they won't actually change anything, because they can't. It opens the floodgates to "Well we changed that, can't we change this too?"

In 1853, was Mary held to be conceived without sin?
In 1859, was the Pope infallible?

Mass is still in Latin? No meat on Fridays?

Zubeneschamali · 10-02-2014 02:44PM

Zillah wrote: »

God doesn't sit back and let people vote on what he demands of them.

Now I think you are confusing God with Pope Ratzinger.

Penn · 10-02-2014 03:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In 1853, was Mary held to be conceived without sin?
In 1859, was the Pope infallible?

Mass is still in Latin? No meat on Fridays?

Apologies, I meant more the larger ideals with regards things like contraception, homosexuality, abortion, women priests... Things which, if changed, would please many of their a-la-carte followers, but could cause huge upset to their most loyal followers and potentially cause a schism within the Church.

Zubeneschamali · 10-02-2014 03:21PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Apologies, I meant more the larger ideals with regards things like contraception, homosexuality, abortion, women priests...

There was a schism over Vatican two and the Latin Mass - Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers were excomunnicated. One of my neighbours attends Latin mass to this day, and will lecture anyone who stands still long enough about the false Pope and how we are all damned because of vatican 2.

Doctor DooM · 10-02-2014 03:22PM

AerynSun wrote: »

And sure, shouldn't the faithful have some kind of say in what they'd LIKE the Church to be about? Does that not make sense?

Isn't the whole point of the RCC that it's the one true word of God as passed through his one true voice piece?

Is the whole reason all the other churches exist not supposed to be that THEY are the ones where your choice or issues matter?

The Black Oil · 10-02-2014 09:26PM

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/teaching-more-maths-less-religion-1.1683979

Oh Breda. Caught out again.

Good to see this. What some ardent defenders of Catholic schools appear to do is try and paint a broad picture that they inherently better because, well, they are Catholic. They tend not to mention you know, that good teachers might be just that, not because they're following an ethos. She's a bit odd in her use of evidence, anyway. iirc, during the abortion debate either in a radio interview or in a column, she pulled out a 'well, I emailed 3 doctors about this...' Yeah, OK.

Back to Panti. According to some on the twitter machine this is 1) manufactured outrage, 2) a media driven controversy and 3) everyone is entitled to their good name. On that last point, they don't tend to say whether they're happy for their TV licence fee to line the pockets of the offended.

LoganRice · 10-02-2014 10:02PM

RE (Leaving Cert exam subject) in secondary schools doesn't only teach about Roman Catholicism and you are ill-informed in many ways if you think that is the only thing taught

The Black Oil · 10-02-2014 10:05PM

I wouldn't expect so. RE was not an exam subject in my day.

Bannasidhe · 10-02-2014 10:38PM

LoganRice wrote: »

RE (Leaving Cert exam subject) in secondary schools doesn't only teach about Roman Catholicism and you are ill-informed in many ways if you think that is the only thing taught

Did anyone say it was?

AngryHippie · 10-02-2014 10:46PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Good to see this. What some ardent defenders of Catholic schools appear to do is try and paint a broad picture that they inherently better because, well, they are Catholic.

I don't think that Catholic Schools, the Catholic Church etc. are the problem. It's people that take that way to seriously, rather than use it as a general moral compass, and a guide as to how to conduct yourself.

I was educated largely by Franciscans in a very Catholic environment. While there was of course quite a religious element to it, they never attempted to stifle thought or discussion about the topics of the day.
As far as the quality of the teaching went, I could not fault it even slightly. Languages, The Arts, Science and Mathematics were taught to a very high level. Some at the school of course took issue with one teacher or another being crap blah blah, but the reality was, if you put the work in, and asked intelligent questions, the help and the answers were there. The friars were all educated in Louvain and the Sorbonne, every single one was multilingual and multidisciplinary.
It is because of these men that I do defend the Catholic church, they were absolute gentlemen in their dealings with us, and I can never fully understand the sacrifices they made to take up that life. But for those few good men, I would say down with the church. But they are the good at the heart of it, and it saddens me that their hard work and dedication falls by the wayside because of the criminal actions of the few bad ones.
I understand that there were bad fcukers in the clergy too, and that despicable internal political decisions were made to protect them, when they should have been pilloried.

sid waddell · 11-02-2014 12:39AM

Some choice quotes from the transcript of Waters' interview with the College Tribune:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/09/its-not-even-gay-marriage-im-opposed-to-its-the-idea-of-gay-adoption/

“It doesn’t mean much, it doesn’t really mean much, this is the interesting thing, when they were fighting for civil unions, and I raised this question that what they really were wanting was marriage, what they what they were really wanting was adoption. They all denied it, oh no no no, that’s completely paranoia we have no interest in marriage at all, this is about our civil rights. Fine, I have no problem with your civil rights, so that’s fine, you’ve got that but the next day they got out of bed and started to campaign for marriage which is purely an attempt to discredit an institution, a normative institution, on which society, on which human civilization, is founded, and inevitably if you do that there will be consequences, and among those will be be that marriage will become really a nothing in our culture, in time.”

Yeah, because they would find exactly why it didn’t go anywhere, because of the opposition, the resistance that exists within the culture, or within the system to any move on this, because if you give fathers rights, you turn the tap off on gay adoption. It does not arise any more, because fathers can just bring their children home. There are no children for gays to adopt.”

“Yeah, it’s well essentially they have an entirely different view of the human species. It’s a completely untried view and as far as it has been tried we have seen … they believe for example that the idea of these sort of given roles for men and women are essentially a social construct and can be moved around at will. I mean OK I won’t be around to see the consequences of their madcap schemes …. and neither will they…I predict that within 50, 60, 70 years these ideas will have brought disaster on this society and others, but unfortunately when you speak against them, you know you are deemed to be a reactionary, they have set the discussion up, shake the discussion up, you know the term right wing, conservative is a meaningless terms …that’s the battering ram to defeat any attempt to put forward a reasonable argument..,

Well let’s see, let’s wait and see how clever we really are because were we are going with these ideas is disastrous I don’t know about you but if was 17/18 and my child was stolen and they give him to two gay people I would make my own arrangements…

gay marriage is a product of bunker mentality. You know, you warp language, you manipulate words, you say oh there’s an inequality. There’s no inequality, I say to them you know there’s no inequality, yeah there is we can’t get married, oh yeah, you can get married, of course, you’re a man, you can get married, but you must marry a women. That’s what marriage is.”

Yeah, yeah, it’s a form of, it’s a deliberate sabotage of the culture and a relishing of the destruction that is wreaked as a result….Gay marriage is really a satire on marriage.

“Well you know if two brothers applied to adopt a child, they’d be laughed out of court but the fact that they’re buggering each other would make a difference, would it?”

“The idea of two men in shiny suits, there, standing on the church steps that’s satire of our civilisation, that’s what it is. And that’s what it’s intended to be.”

“So they’ve mangled Christianity, just as the word fidelity has been mangled, just as the word marriage has been mangled. So I don’t know, I, I, I mean I would be very pessimistic on that score to be honest.”

Waters: “But again they can’t stop talking about transsexuals and transsexual nuns and transsexual gays, you know, I mean, you know, we’re moving towards gay abortion, you know, how can we actually further, keep moving this? And really what that is, that’s very much tied up with the misunderstanding of human desire, that has arisen in the kind of post religion, post Christian era. Because intrinsic to Christianity, and I don’t think it’s in most other religions, is the idea that human desire is focused on something beyond. Now if you actually remove that from culture, then you have only what is the human being, and sexuality seems to be do, sexuality and money and obviously the money thing isn’t going so well.

Grannell: “No. Not at the moment.”

Waters: “So, you have this, that’s what obsession is. It’s quite grotesque really.”

there was a massive flood there last year, why? Because they tried to divert the river to build a shopping centre, right? The gay lobby are trying to divert human nature. The same consequences will ensue.”

Lou.m · 11-02-2014 03:00AM

sid waddell wrote: »

Some choice quotes from the transcript of Waters' interview with the College Tribune:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/09/its-not-even-gay-marriage-im-opposed-to-its-the-idea-of-gay-adoption/

He really is quite mad.

How did he get so far in journalism? How does he manage to navigate through life with that mind?

It's the gay apocalypse !!

pauldla · 11-02-2014 08:05AM

Lou.m wrote: »

He really is quite mad.

How did he get so far in journalism? How does he manage to navigate through life with that mind?

It's the gay apocalypse !!

It seems he doesn't have to navigate though life; life has to navigate around him, or the lawyers will be dispatched like flying monkeys.

Beruthiel · 11-02-2014 09:41AM

Some comments from [url=http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/fergus-finlay/we-cant-let-fear-get-in-the-way-of-backing-same-sex-marriage-258279.html?fb_action_ids=10202581787402562&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=.Uvnjif5AuBE.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[526011527512768]&action_type_map=["og.recommends"]&action_ref_map=[".Uvnjif5AuBE.like"]]Fergus Finlay[/url].

Could JW be any more of a hypocrite?

Akrasia · 11-02-2014 10:00AM

sid waddell wrote: »

Some choice quotes from the transcript of Waters' interview with the College Tribune:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/09/its-not-even-gay-marriage-im-opposed-to-its-the-idea-of-gay-adoption/

Woah!
I don't wanna be around when this gay abortion thing happens!

He's a parody of himself (and that's saying something!)

He's just like that father ted character who hates the greeks. He's getting himself tangled up in his shopping bags with the contempt that he holds gay people in.

iwantmydinner · 11-02-2014 10:00AM

Good on FF for writing that piece. I'm sure there are plenty more could write similar pieces showing Waters up for what he really is.

Iona vs Panti

Comments