Lyaiera wrote: » I'm misrepresenting all those parish priests that were moved to other parishes after they raped children?
One eyed Jack wrote: » No, you're misrepresenting the view of most people within the RCC who are the Church.
VinLieger wrote: » No "the church" is the hierarchy and establishment of the catholic church that were responsible for the mass coverup of assault and rape of hundreds if not thousands of children in this country not to mention the rest of the world. Also the view of anyone i know who's still a believer and regular church goer regarding the scandals is usually along the lines of "ohh but thats all done cus they fixed it".......... basically see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, so a continuation of the traditional church policies
Hercule Poirot wrote: » Yes, because all good Catholics are happy to tow the line and ignore the wide-scale abuse of children? Get a grip. Many devout Catholics I know are absolutely horrified by the events that have unfolded, but, and this is the main point, they still have faith, not because they are sheep who tow the line and ignore atrocities but because they believe that there will be justice at the end of the line. I don't believe it myself - but don't go labelling Catholics as a group of idiots who are happy to see the scandal pushed to one side and pretend it never happened.
Sonics2k wrote: » Because I don't believe it, I don't accept Transubstantiation is a real thing and I don't accept Catholic Dogmas. If you don't believe these things, then you are quite simply, not a Catholic.
VinLieger wrote: » Can you point out where i did any of that please? I was defining what the phrase "the church" meant to me and i think the majority of other people does it mean something else to you? Also i dont believe i said anything else that you claim, i just said "anyone i know"
VinLieger wrote: » "ohh but thats all done cus they fixed it".......... basically see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, so a continuation of the traditional church policies
One eyed Jack wrote: » There's nobody else can answer that question for you in fairness. If you identify yourself as Catholic, who is anyone else to say you are or you aren't?
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Hercule Poirot wrote: » Fair enough - you may not have used the exact words I did but it is exactly what you meant, you probably spoke to yourself in a redneck accent as you typed the following: It's amazing how the believers you know are so different to the believers I know
leakyboots wrote: » You don't believe that is the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ up there on how ever many thousand altars across the country/world daily (if you think it's merely symbolic and representative, then you're a Protestant)
leakyboots wrote: » also with militant Atheists - they annoy just as much as the Godbotherers.
VinLieger wrote: » Shock horror! some people you meet might be different to the people i meet, get over yourself ffs
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I did some scientific work with this "actual body" where I got a lot of them, and a lot of "normal" version and did some comparisons. Before, during and after this I communicated with a lot of people who identify as Catholic and they appeared during my experience to fall into three camps as follows: Those that literally believed a physical change occurred, those who believed a spiritual but undetectable change occurs, and those who believed it was all purely symbolic. Yet all three groups thought themselves to be entirely catholic. So a thread on "Catholics" and the census and what box they "should" be ticking is a hard one to resolve. Because clearly even many catholic do not themselves know what it means to be catholic, or what actual catholic doctrine claims/states. What has always bothered me here is that the church itself do not seem overly compelled to inform them of it either. I have yet to walk into a church where there are little information pamphlets in the Narthex or Vestibule on what Transubstantiation actually is. Neither I nor anyone I know were taught it at school, let alone in or around the time when we were first sent to eat the stuff. And I never read much on the subject in any copies of publications I got my hands on such as the free "messenger" magazine that gets shoved unsolicited into the mail box of the house I grew up in. That is not to say it is a SECRET of course. Anyone can go and trawl through the near unreadable tomes of text that make up catholic doctrine. It is there to be learned for anyone who wishes to learn it. But being one of the central tenets of Catholic Faith, I merely find it interesting that they are not moved to offer much in the way of clarification on the issue. Unless of course you stop viewing the church as a religion but as a business. A business wants as many subscribers or customers as possible. So clarification on potentially divisive issues is not conducive to the business model. My clarifying that one group is correct you risk alienating the others. So best let people believe whatever it is they want to, and go easy on offering too many specifics. Under the business model, their behavior makes perfect sense. So what the vast majority of people ticking the census form will do is either tick what they actually consider themselves to be, not what anyone else tells them they are or are not.............. or what they traditionally ticked in the past and see no reason to change now. What campaigns like those by the Humanists and Atheists are aimed at is not so much telling people what to tick, but asking them to put some actual deep thought into what they tick and why. And I see little wrong with that.I think that one was done before actually
kneemos wrote: » Zero teaching of the bible in school's,in my day anyway. Protestants I believe are heavily engrossed in the good book.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I can not say I was "taught" it either when I was growing up. In primary school my teacher at the time, himself a man of faith (he also played for Clontarf and Dublin in the GAA so he probably needed some faith), used to read the Bible for 45 minutes or so every day. But it was never "taught" to us as such. I always thought of it as "story time". That made sense to me as my parents read a lot to me and I read a lot to myself from a relatively very early age. So "stories" were a big part of my life. So I viewed the teacher reading these stories as no different. I never became an "atheist" (for want of a better term though I rarely self use it) so much as I never was anything else. Always struck me though that he read the same stories over and over. The book he was reading from was MUCH bigger than that though. So I never understood why some stories had to be read 100 times and some not at all. I suppose looking back there must have been some stories "approved" for reading to us. Either by the curriclum or by him himself. I have noticed the same thing in church. No matter how often I have been in one I have only really heard the same handful of passages read over and over again. In fact when I have shown the book to some people of "faith" they have been shocked at how big it is. It seems despite their "faith" in the importance of this book they have never felt compelled to read one, own one, or even see or touch one themselves. So having heard the same handful of stories from it for years, they had pre-conceptions of how big the book might be. So they are genuinely taken aback to see just how thick it is, and just how small the print is, and just how much more text is in it than they were ever aware of. Call me a cynic, but if people REALLY believe there is a creator of the universe and they REALLY believe he communicated to us by writing or somehow inspiring one particular book above all others......... you'd sort of expect those people to be arsed to actually read it.... or at least to even OWN a copy or to have seen one. Or maybe that is just me. But even WITHOUT any faith in religions or gods of even the smallest kind.... even I have found reasons.... cultural, linguistic and more.... to find time to read the Bible not just once but several times in several editions and forms. I think one is justified in wondering how many believers actually ARE believers... and how many are reported to be (by themselves or others) who actually are not, for one reason or another.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » You would imagine that the 1.2 million people who voted Yes last May 22nd would be ticking something other than Roman Catholic on the census form. But I bet most of them still will. :pac:
Knasher wrote: » I really wish there were a question on the census to ask if your preference is for a secular school system. As I understand it, the religion question is used as a basis for deciding how schools and such should be provided to meet the needs of the community. The presumption therefore is that people who choose some religion, prefer their schools to be religious. But I really wouldn't be surprised if the majority of religious people, would also be staunchly secular. That is why it is such a contentious question, because it isn't simply asking your position on personal belief...
wnolan1992 wrote: » I know a fair few practicing Catholics who voted Yes. From a personal point of view, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I draw a distinction between disagreeing with of the Church's teachings and not believing in its' core principles.
realdanbreen wrote: » But If it is such a contentious question how come not one candidate in the general election made it a priority. I don't believe any of the TD's currently haggling about forming a government have it on their shopping list. Fact is that most people don't see having kids getting a bit of religious instruction as being a big deal.
beach_walker wrote: » Why would they? Jeez the SSM crowd really need to move on from it. There's plenty of difference between a civil marriage and the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I voted Yes because it had absolutely no impact on the latter (which tbh is the main one in my eyes), as did plenty of Catholics.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » Ah would you stop, there's scarcely a Catholic in the country between all the...
