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

Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

lazygal

Does anyone know anything about this organisation? Where it is funded from and by whom? Who runs it? Why it gets such a platform? I've been digging around a bit but its very difficult to find out anything about it.

I'm also mystified as to why David Quinn appears so often representing a relatively new body which seems to be largly self-appointed and why he is allowed such a platform.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

If anybody has more time than I do, I'd certainly like to see the bit of Vatican prose where this Ex Cathedra doctrine is defined - I don't believe it occurs in either the CRCC or Canon Law.

Here you go. But I fear you’ll need more time to read it than I did to find it.

robindch wrote: »

The catechism of the RCC and Canon law, or at least the parts which I remember reading of both concerning this topic, is surprisingly vague - while you're correct to mention the "ex cathedra" rider, I don't recall that the CRCC really specifies much more than that the pope should pronounce on any topic only following consultation with his bishoply confrères.

There are a few conditions that have to be satisfied to engage the claim to infallibililty:

The Pope has to speak “in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians”. This doesn’t mean simply that his has to say that his is exercising that office; he has to actually be exercising it.

He has to “define a doctrine” (“define” meaning “set the limits to”).

The doctrine has to concern “faith or morals”.

It has to be something to “be held by the Universal Church”.

If all those conditions are met, then in making the pronouncement the pope is (said to be) “possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed”. (Which means, NB, that he has no claim to any greater infallibility than is claimed for the church as a whole.)

Hotblack Desiato

Nodin wrote: »

Loyal to the church...until the church changes its mind?

"The discussion document produced by the synod on family issues in the Vatican was not reflective of all the opinions expressed at the gathering of bishops and cardinals, David Quinn, director of Christian organisation the Iona Institute said yesterday.

“A lot of people are annoyed at the document and what was in it,” Mr Quinn said. “It’s an extremely tentative and provisional document. It does not summarise the opinions of a lot of the participants at the synod,” he said.
“It’s not even close to being the final word. There will be another summary done at the end of the week and I dare say that will be much more reflective of what has actually been discussed,” he said.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/iona-institute-says-document-not-reflective-of-all-opinions-at-synod-1.1963526

A bit further down:

“It is to be welcomed so long as the document is quite clear as to the church’s teaching on these issues. The church has a particular view of the moral life, but there are different ways you can lead people into the moral life. You can do it with a rod or you can do it with soft words. Obviously the Vatican and the pope say the softer approach,” he said.

PopePalpatine

Oh, they tried it with a rod before, as well as prison camps.

fisgon

I have to say, this internal wrangling is very entertaining. There is obviously a certain liberal wing in this synod trying to steer things in a certain, more tolerant way, and this is really getting the back up of the conservatives, the anti-gay lobby, the no-divorce lobby, the our-way-or-the-highway group.

Really hope to see more of this.

Hotblack Desiato

Been years since we had a good schism round these here parts...

Smiley92a

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/

A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible

I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

Hotblack Desiato

Even by their low standards, the hypocrisy is astounding.

Mothers and fathers didn't matter a damn when the forced adoptions and baby selling were going on.

lazygal

Not to mention that the Iona solution to those women with unwanted pregnancies is to remain pregnant and offer their children for adoption. Deliberately severing the relationship between biological parents and children, surely? Why can't those who want to get pregnant use ivf while those who don't want to be pregnant have to suffer?

Bobby42

The campaign slogan really is "mothers and fathers matter.......other families don't".

eviltwin

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/

A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible

I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

The emotive ****e in that really boils my blood. It conveniently ignores the fact that egg and sperm donors volunteer their services, its not like anyone is forced to give up their 'child'. The same can't be said for the Church though can it Iona or have you forgotten? Honestly the way they can compartmentalise their outrage for when it suits their religious agenda infuriates me.

MrPudding

Bobby42 wrote: »

The campaign slogan really is "Married mothers and fathers, where the mother is and always has been a woman and the father is and always has been a man, that are good Catholics matter.......other families don't".

FYP

MrP

Cantremember

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Even by their low standards, the hypocrisy is astounding.

Mothers and fathers didn't matter a damn when the forced adoptions and baby selling were going on.

+100
It's mind boggling that these people think they have some ground to offer commentary on other than the basic one of being a citizen in a democratic Republic. On the basis of their belief that a god man 2000 years ago who was born of a virgin impregnated by a Holy Spirit to give birth to the son of God who is of one being with God the father and the Holy Spirit in order to be sacrificed as an atonement to God the father....etc etc..on that basis they lecture society on how it must be organised. Extraordinary stuff.

Hotblack Desiato

I was going to post "You couldn't make it up", but someone did... like a lot of urban myths that gain traction, maybe someone thought up christianity for the laugh, and things got way out of hand... After a good few glasses of wine were turned into water one night, no doubt

The Black Oil

Breda was talking about the internetz and social media on Prime Time last night.

OMG, balance.

Delirium

The Black Oil wrote: »

Breda was talking about the internetz and social media on Prime Time last night.

OMG, balance.

She on representing those that want to protect the Catholic ethos of the interwebs?

:pac:

redfacedbear

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was going to post "You couldn't make it up", but someone did...

Will Self's novel 'The Book of Dave' deals with this - set in a post-apocalyptic England where the found diary of a (current day) deranged taxi driver forms the basis of a religion - it was an interesting read.

robindch

redfacedbear wrote: »

Will Self's novel 'The Book of Dave' deals with this - set in a post-apocalyptic England where the found diary of a (current day) deranged taxi driver forms the basis of a religion - it was an interesting read.

Would be interesting to compare it to Walter Miller's brilliant A Canticle for Leibowitz.

Nodin

The Black Oil wrote: »

Breda was talking about the internetz and social media on Prime Time last night.

OMG, balance.

Why, in the name of jaysus?

Zillah

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/

A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible

I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

oh.their.God

They have a section where you can fill out your details and a postcard will be sent to your local TDs. They don't vet the details. I think they're paying the postage.

I think they're paying the postage.

Vivisectus

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/

A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible

I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

What an amazing muddle of fallacies - it makes no sense at all, unless you look at it from a crypto-homophobic standpoint.

Has no-one informed these people that gay people can already adopt and that the possibility for them to produce children through surrogacy arrangements or IVF treatment has been there for quite a while already?

If they really felt that the raising of children outside their "natural" families should be opposed as much as possible, why on earth are they wasting their time on gay people, who are a small minority to start with, an even smaller minority of which both want to get married and would like to raise children?

They should focus on single parenthood in stead. Or maybe we can start making it illegal to foster: all those children could feasibly be raised by their natural children, I am sure.

Vivisectus

actually, how can they do this and still pretend not to be homophobes, or rather anti-gay bigots?

They are clearing singling out gay people for special negative treatment: they are not in the least bit concerned about any other instance of children being raised by people other than their biological parents.

Delirium

Smiley92a wrote: »

Well, so far as I know David Quinn is the only Ionaist in this one, but there's a new group here to oppose the upcoming Children and Family Relationships bill.

Mothers and Fathers Matter mothersandfathersmatter.org/

A couple of choice quotes:

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible

I've heard this is a strategy to win the Marriage Equality referendum. Cause enough confusion, combine it with our usual apathy towards referendums, and get the fundie vote out. It's got me worried.

and it also can apply as such....

"It permits adults to use IVF and other forms of Assisted Human Reproduction divorce to deliberately deny a child a mother and a father and to deliberately cut the natural tie between children and their biological parents."

The Children and Family Relationships Divorce Bill attacks the rights of the child in the following ways:

It allows for the deliberate cutting of the natural ties between children and their parents
It allows for a child to be deliberately deprived of a father or a mother
It badly undermines the special place of marriage in the Constitution
It puts adults’ wishes before children’s rights
It ‘commodifies’ children by allowing people to effectively ‘order’ children via the use of third party eggs and sperm.
The proposed change to our adoption law also disregards a child’s right to a married mother and father whenever possible

:rolleyes:

Zillah

The Black Oil wrote: »

Breda was talking about the internetz and social media on Prime Time last night.

OMG, balance.

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10343565/

She's about 30 minutes in. Whole bunch of whiny, passive-aggressive nonsense. She's very upset that people are calling her out for homophobia online.

Nodin

Zillah wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10343565/

She's about 30 minutes in. Whole bunch of whiny, passive-aggressive nonsense. She's very upset that people are calling her out for homophobia online.

Awwww.

*sniff

It's just awful when you have to face criticism.....

PopePalpatine

I guess she's just venting after the Ionanists' solicitors said it'd be too much effort to sue everyone who called them out on their bullsh*t.

Vivisectus

Poor Breda... all these people are just so intolerant of her opinion! And that is bad, it even constitutes oppression as Breda has explained to us not too long ago in a radio interview: the oppressed have become the oppressors!

But just like the UKIP supposedly have nothing against Muslims, and yet are uniquely interested in the way some fundamentalist Muslim beliefs conflict with modern values in western European countries, while not being interested at all in the way any other religion conflicts with these values, Breda and the Ionians only seem to worry about adoption, IVF treatments and "the right of children to be raised by their biological parents" when it involves gay people, and not at all when single parenthood is involved, or adoption by non-gay people, to name but two obvious examples.

So what are we asked to tolerate here? Well, there is a word for singling out a group of people for negative treatment in that way, and it is bigotry. If you do not enjoy being challenged on bigotry, I would say her best policy is to stop making bigoted statements in public.

Mr. CooL ICE

These lovely lads are on a fundraising drive to raise €10k so they can continue being oppressive bigots keep marriage exclusive, or something like that. Source

My favourite comment:

They can use the money RTE gave them.

PopePalpatine

IIRC I heard that paying someone very little (i.e. <~€0.50) via Paypal or a bank transfer actually results in a net loss for the receiver. It would make sense given that I've seen notices in shops, restaurants and pubs saying the minimum payment is €5 or €10.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

IIRC I heard that paying someone very little (i.e. <~€0.50) via Paypal or a bank transfer actually results in a net loss for the receiver. It would make sense given that I've seen notices in shops, restaurants and pubs saying the minimum payment is €5 or €10.

An example of the Lord working in mysterious ways?

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

An example of the Lord working in mysterious ways?

Mysterious that the LORD yet again fails to provide...