Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…191192194196197…218

Comments

  • #5792
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Hmm... @solodeogloria: do you include the religious/ethnic people - the Hebrews - that God, in the Old Testament part of the bible, created when you, as a Christian, use the bible as a guide to whom are sinners?

    Do you see the Old Testament as relevant to your religious beliefs and ethics?

    If you don't believe God sees the Hebrews as beyond saving, would it not be a true expression of faith for those in Christianity who say they believe in God totally to become members of the Hebrew faith - who believe in the same God - the one in the Old Testament?

    If you don't, is it possible that that is a subjective human belief, not an objective belief, and contrary to what God intended you to have as a belief?

    Do you believe that God meant humans to start a new religion (Christianity) when he used Jesus as a messenger, as opposed to merely spreading his message?

    Seeing as how Christianity was begun as an established group by committed people (apostles if you like) after the death of Jesus, a man chosen by God as a messenger (or prophet) do you think it right that a religion uses that human messenger as a joint figurehead equal to God in a religion?

    If you do, does that belief in what seem's to be a duality-character not clash with your user-name (solodeogloria) and apparent religious belief?

    Finally for the Gays (swapping one branch of humanity for another) is your presence here intended as an exercise in sublimating, or soul-saving and proselytizing even, seeing as how gays in Ireland encompass people of religions other than merely Christian, and of no religious belief at all?


  • #5793
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good morning!
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Hmm... @solodeogloria: do you include the religious/ethnic people - the Hebrews - that God, in the Old Testament part of the bible, created when you, as a Christian, use the bible as a guide to whom are sinners?

    Edit: I think it's worth clarifying. I am a sinner saved by grace. I firmly put myself in that category. It's not a logical exercise where I start determining who is a sinner and who isn't. I am a sinner. Rather it is about learning how to live for God and to serve Him and to love Him and putting the things that he hates to one side in my life and to share the hope that He brings with others.

    All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). This is as much clear in the Old Testament as in the New. (Psalm 14:1-3, 51:1-3).

    Think about it. Why did the Jews have the sacrificial system? Why do you think that Christians believe that Jesus had to die in our place for our sins?

    It only logically follows if all have sinned and all have fallen short of God's glory.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Do you see the Old Testament as relevant to your religious beliefs and ethics?

    Jesus did, and I do also. We read it in light of what Jesus came to do, but the short answer is yes, of course.
    John 1:45-49 ESV wrote:
    Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
    John 5:39-47 ESV wrote:
    You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

    When Jesus uses the word Scriptures, He's referring to the Old Testament. We have one God, and one revelation from God.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    If you don't believe God sees the Hebrews as beyond saving, would it not be a true expression of faith for those in Christianity who say they believe in God totally to become members of the Hebrew faith - who believe in the same God - the one in the Old Testament?

    Nobody is beyond salvation. Jesus came to die in our place for our sins if we repent and believe in Him. Repenting means turning away from our sin and following Him wholeheartedly. That applies to everyone. Jews and Gentiles, heterosexual and homosexual, Muslim or Hindu. However, turning to Jesus means putting our old lives behind and believing in Him.

    Jews aren't automatically assured salvation according to Christianity. They still need to turn and believe in Jesus before the last day just like anyone else. Romans is a great book to read for a more thorough explanation into how that works.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    If you don't, is it possible that that is a subjective human belief, not an objective belief, and contrary to what God intended you to have as a belief?

    Do you believe that God meant humans to start a new religion (Christianity) when he used Jesus as a messenger, as opposed to merely spreading his message?

    I believe God has one plan for the fullness of time (Ephesians 1:10). I don't consider Christianity so much a new religion, rather the logical fulfilment of Judaism.

    I don't think this is subjective, it is in what God has spoken in His Word.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Seeing as how Christianity was begun as an established group by committed people (apostles if you like) after the death of Jesus, a man chosen by God as a messenger (or prophet) do you think it right that a religion uses that human messenger as a joint figurehead equal to God in a religion?

    Jesus wasn't a "prophet". That is what Islam holds to. I believe Jesus is God in human flesh as Christians have done for 2,000 years. That raises the stakes somewhat. It means that God Himself physically came to earth. That's why we ought to take Him seriously.

    I'm confused about your argument about a "figurehead". I'm not a Roman Catholic and I don't think the Pope is a joint figurehead if that is what you are alluding to.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    If you do, does that belief in what seem's to be a duality-character not clash with your user-name (solodeogloria) and apparent religious belief?

    You need to explain what you mean by this, because I don't hold to any "duality character".
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Finally for the Gays (swapping one branch of humanity for another) is your presence here intended as an exercise in sublimating, or soul-saving and proselytizing even, seeing as how gays in Ireland encompass people of religions other than merely Christian, and of no religious belief at all?

    All people everywhere need to hear of Christ. You're on the Christianity forum and you're asking me about what I'm going to believe. I need to be honest with you about what I believe if I am asked.

    My function on this forum is to explain what Biblical Christianity holds to on a multitude of topics to the best of my ability, with grace and respect.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5794
    alma73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 247 ✭✭alma73


    @solodeogloria. Well posted. Completely Christian and firmly biblical arguments.


  • #5795
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good morning!



    Edit: I think it's worth clarifying. I am a sinner saved by grace. I firmly put myself in that category. It's not a logical exercise where I start determining who is a sinner and who isn't. I am a sinner. Rather it is about learning how to live for God and to serve Him and to love Him and putting the things that he hates to one side in my life and to share the hope that He brings with others.

    All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). This is as much clear in the Old Testament as in the New. (Psalm 14:1-3, 51:1-3).

    Think about it. Why did the Jews have the sacrificial system? Why do you think that Christians believe that Jesus had to die in our place for our sins?

    It only logically follows if all have sinned and all have fallen short of God's glory.



    Jesus did, and I do also. We read it in light of what Jesus came to do, but the short answer is yes, of course.





    When Jesus uses the word Scriptures, He's referring to the Old Testament. We have one God, and one revelation from God.



    Nobody is beyond salvation. Jesus came to die in our place for our sins if we repent and believe in Him. Repenting means turning away from our sin and following Him wholeheartedly. That applies to everyone. Jews and Gentiles, heterosexual and homosexual, Muslim or Hindu. However, turning to Jesus means putting our old lives behind and believing in Him.

    Jews aren't automatically assured salvation according to Christianity. They still need to turn and believe in Jesus before the last day just like anyone else. Romans is a great book to read for a more thorough explanation into how that works.



    I believe God has one plan for the fullness of time (Ephesians 1:10). I don't consider Christianity so much a new religion, rather the logical fulfilment of Judaism.

    I don't think this is subjective, it is in what God has spoken in His Word.



    Jesus wasn't a "prophet". That is what Islam holds to. I believe Jesus is God in human flesh as Christians have done for 2,000 years. That raises the stakes somewhat. It means that God Himself physically came to earth. That's why we ought to take Him seriously.

    I'm confused about your argument about a "figurehead". I'm not a Roman Catholic and I don't think the Pope is a joint figurehead if that is what you are alluding to.



    You need to explain what you mean by this, because I don't hold to any "duality character".



    All people everywhere need to hear of Christ. You're on the Christianity forum and you're asking me about what I'm going to believe. I need to be honest with you about what I believe if I am asked.

    My function on this forum is to explain what Biblical Christianity holds to on a multitude of topics to the best of my ability, with grace and respect.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    Pardon me for assuming that you were a Roman Catholic Christian. That branch of Christianity is in the majority here, numbers-wise & makes the majority of public media comments about gay folk here. Personally, I view most of those Christians (and other faiths) as wasting their time preaching about their being the ONLY way. It's a given in religious circles that God is all powerful, right? Following on from that belief - and examples in the Old Testament - God has the capability to make contact at a personal singular level, that there is no need for human agents coming forward to spread the good news (look into your own soul/heart).

    Re my duality comments, that comes from the RC understanding about God and Jesus, and the RC trinity notion. That seem's to be different to what you believe in your "I believe Jesus is God in human flesh as Christians have done for 2,000 years. That raises the stakes somewhat. It means that God Himself physically came to earth. That's why we ought to take Him seriously". The RC Church Holy Trinity notion is that Jesus was the son of God and that was certainly my "by rote" understanding of what it taught here, three actual characters in one, hence my duality comment. The third character was the holy ghost.

    I don't know if you researched the Christian way used here for centuries to make contact with the faithful and pass on God's word, it might be worth your while to understand how Irish people baptised into the RC church now view that particular entity. There is no need for you to actually let me know what you find or choose to do in that regard.

    Re your (para 3) Why do you think that Christians believe that Jesus had to die in our place for our sins? - I'd have to say that that was/is down to "by rote" teaching, aurally and visually from the Christian churches, along with the regular clip across the ear. I don't know how other Christian faiths taught that lesson. Looking at the Jesus example bluntly, that's akin to the sacrificial system you mention the Jews had, as if God decided "my word has no effect so I'll take a page from their book".

    Remember that God would have been of the mind then to save the Jews as Christians DID NOT exist until after Jesus, so God did not come to earth in physical form to save Christians. That Christian notion has to be allied to the original sin notion - "you have sin on your soul" as if those baptised into Christianity still carried the sins of offences from their original faith, the Hebrew faith, even after baptism and giving themselves over to God in the new Christian way.

    Re this by you, (It only logically follows if all have sinned and all have fallen short of God's glory) - Is the "if" a hint of doubt by you in the original sin notion?

    Maybe the truth is that both of us are guilty of subjective thought on the manner and ways of God.


  • #5796
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Pardon me for assuming that you were a Roman Catholic Christian. That branch of Christianity is in the majority here, numbers-wise & makes the majority of public media comments about gay folk here. Personally, I view most of those Christians (and other faiths) as wasting their time preaching about their being the ONLY way. It's a given in religious circles that God is all powerful, right? Following on from that belief - and examples in the Old Testament - God has the capability to make contact at a personal singular level, that there is no need for human agents coming forward to spread the good news (look into your own soul/heart).

    Re my duality comments, that comes from the RC understanding about God and Jesus, and the RC trinity notion. That seem's to be different to what you believe in your "I believe Jesus is God in human flesh as Christians have done for 2,000 years. That raises the stakes somewhat. It means that God Himself physically came to earth. That's why we ought to take Him seriously". The RC Church Holy Trinity notion is that Jesus was the son of God and that was certainly my "by rote" understanding of what it taught here, three actual characters in one, hence my duality comment. The third character was the holy ghost.

    I don't know if you researched the Christian way used here for centuries to make contact with the faithful and pass on God's word, it might be worth your while to understand how Irish people baptised into the RC church now view that particular entity. There is no need for you to actually let me know what you find or choose to do in that regard.

    Re your (para 3) Why do you think that Christians believe that Jesus had to die in our place for our sins? - I'd have to say that that was/is down to "by rote" teaching, aurally and visually from the Christian churches, along with the regular clip across the ear. I don't know how other Christian faiths taught that lesson. Looking at the Jesus example bluntly, that's akin to the sacrificial system you mention the Jews had, as if God decided "my word has no effect so I'll take a page from their book".

    Remember that God would have been of the mind then to save the Jews as Christians DID NOT exist until after Jesus, so God did not come to earth in physical form to save Christians. That Christian notion has to be allied to the original sin notion - "you have sin on your soul" as if those baptised into Christianity still carried the sins of offences from their original faith, the Hebrew faith, even after baptism and giving themselves over to God in the new Christian way.

    Re this by you, (It only logically follows if all have sinned and all have fallen short of God's glory) - Is the "if" a hint of doubt by you in the original sin notion?

    Maybe the truth is that both of us are guilty of subjective thought on the manner and ways of God.

    Good evening!

    Firstly, it doesn't matter if you think that God doesn't need us to share the gospel. We do this because Jesus commanded us to (Matthew 28:20-21). We do this because we care for other people. It also doesn't matter if you think I'm wasting my time. We'll find out if I was wasting my time on the day when Jesus returns. Until then, I'm here to try my best to answer questions about Biblical Christianity.

    Secondly, yes I believe in the Trinity. The Trinity simply means that God is one, but is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus is God incarnate, meaning, God in human flesh.

    Thirdly, it isn't by "rote" that I subscribe to anything in Christianity. I decided to follow Jesus for myself as an adult, and I decide to continue follow Him daily. If there was no problem that needed to be addressed by our sin, Jesus wouldn't have been crucified for our sins. That logically follows. That is my point. Therefore I'm not saying I'm better than you or anyone else. I agree Jesus' death is similar to the sacrificial system. The only difference is sacrifices needed to be offered repeatedly in Judaism, Jesus only needed to be sacrificed once and for all for sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). That's why Jesus is called the Lamb of God, it links to the Passover lamb in Exodus 12.

    Fourthly, as for whether or not God came to save the Jews only, or whether or not he would save Gentiles. There's clear mention in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in the prophets that when the Messiah came that the Gentiles would also follow Him. This can be found particularly in Isaiah and Jeremiah if you read through them.

    Finally, although I do believe in original sin, we also obviously sin in our actions. The major problem with humanity is that they rebel actively against their Creator. We don't honour God with our hearts and therefore we don't honour Him in our lives. We exchange our worship for other things to use Romans 1 language.

    The more we get familiar with the Bible, the more we see that it answers all of these questions and many more. I'd encourage people to become Biblically literate and equip themselves to see what this Jesus guy was really about.

    This all seems like it is a digression. What is your objection to my faith?

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #5797
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good evening!

    Firstly, it doesn't matter if you think that God doesn't need us to share the gospel. We do this because Jesus commanded us to (Matthew 28:20-21). We do this because we care for other people. It also doesn't matter if you think I'm wasting my time. We'll find out if I was wasting my time on the day when Jesus returns. Until then, I'm here to try my best to answer questions about Biblical Christianity.

    Secondly, yes I believe in the Trinity. The Trinity simply means that God is one, but is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe Jesus is God incarnate, meaning, God in human flesh.

    Thirdly, it isn't by "rote" that I subscribe to anything in Christianity. I decided to follow Jesus for myself as an adult, and I decide to continue follow Him daily. If there was no problem that needed to be addressed by our sin, Jesus wouldn't have been crucified for our sins. That logically follows. That is my point. Therefore I'm not saying I'm better than you or anyone else. I agree Jesus' death is similar to the sacrificial system. The only difference is sacrifices needed to be offered repeatedly in Judaism, Jesus only needed to be sacrificed once and for all for sin (Hebrews 10:10-14). That's why Jesus is called the Lamb of God, it links to the Passover lamb in Exodus 12.

    Fourthly, as for whether or not God came to save the Jews only, or whether or not he would save Gentiles. There's clear mention in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly in the prophets that when the Messiah came that the Gentiles would also follow Him. This can be found particularly in Isaiah and Jeremiah if you read through them.

    Finally, although I do believe in original sin, we also obviously sin in our actions. The major problem with humanity is that they rebel actively against their Creator. We don't honour God with our hearts and therefore we don't honour Him in our lives. We exchange our worship for other things to use Romans 1 language.

    The more we get familiar with the Bible, the more we see that it answers all of these questions and many more. I'd encourage people to become Biblically literate and equip themselves to see what this Jesus guy was really about.

    This all seems like it is a digression. What is your objection to my faith?

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria

    There is no digression, I have no objection whatsoever to your faith.

    Re your: (Finally, although I do believe in original sin, we also obviously sin in our actions. The major problem with humanity is that they rebel actively against their Creator. We don't honour God with our hearts and therefore we don't honour Him in our lives. We exchange our worship for other things to use Romans 1 language) - I go along with your 2nd sentence in so far as, being human, humans generally prefer to take the easier option cos it's easier, it's the "human condition". One way to sort out that issue would be for a change in "The Plan", scrap a major part of it - the "made in my image" bit inclusive of thought so we wouldn't see the "easier options". That would probably ruin God's plan though, so frustrating and circular.


  • #5798
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Re your: (Finally, although I do believe in original sin, we also obviously sin in our actions. The major problem with humanity is that they rebel actively against their Creator. We don't honour God with our hearts and therefore we don't honour Him in our lives. We exchange our worship for other things to use Romans 1 language) - I go along with your 2nd sentence in so far as, being human, humans generally prefer to take the easier option cos it's easier, it's the "human condition". One way to sort out that issue would be for a change in "The Plan", scrap a major part of it - the "made in my image" bit inclusive of thought so we wouldn't see the "easier options". That would probably ruin God's plan though, so frustrating and circular.

    Good evening!

    Well, here's another perspective on it. God's plan can't be thwarted. In fact it is laughable to say it will be.
    Psalm 2:1-10 wrote:
    Why do the nations rage
    and the peoples plot in vain?
    The kings of the earth set themselves,
    and the rulers take counsel together,
    against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
    “Let us burst their bonds apart
    and cast away their cords from us.” He who sits in the heavens laughs;
    the Lord holds them in derision.
    Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
    and terrify them in his fury, saying,
    “As for me, I have set my King
    on Zion, my holy hill.”

    I will tell of the decree:
    The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
    today I have begotten you.
    Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
    and the ends of the earth your possession.
    You shall break them with a rod of iron
    and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.”

    Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
    be warned, O rulers of the earth.
    Serve the Lord with fear,
    and rejoice with trembling.
    Kiss the Son,
    lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
    for his wrath is quickly kindled.
    Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

    From a Christian point of view, His church is being built, and even if it doesn't look impressive to the world, it is the main focus of where eternity is headed. God will return, and those who trust Him will be His people and He will be their God. On the last day He will rightfully judge those who rebel against Him. It isn't pretty to say the least. Yet, it is also a good day. I guess that's why the piece in Handel's Messiah before the Hallelujah chorus is the Messiah coming on the last day to defeat His enemies. Very shocking language, but it is a direct quotation from Psalm 2. It's not often I get to link to music on threads like this, and it isn't the best recording, but this piece is harrowing, but yet the piece rejoices at this day rather than mourns it, it is the centrepiece of the entire oratorio.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ATlA4F2ePQ


    It's a good deal more serious than just an arbitrary option. However, I prefer the positive, encouraging people to know the God that they were created to know, and to receive the good things that He offers us, forgiveness, eternal life, right relationship with God and others, the hope of a new creation on the last day, a loving Father who we have direct access to, brothers and sisters in a new family and the list goes on and on. It is a privilege to serve this God, and to know Christ.

    That's what I hold to, and everything points towards this. I try to live in light of this eternity and this final day.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5799
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    But each and every religion makes similar claims , how is one to choose ?


  • #5800
    alma73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 247 ✭✭alma73


    @solodeogloria can you confirm what christian denomination you belong to?


  • #5801
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good evening!

    I'm mindful that we should be keeping this thread on topic and discussing what Christianity has to say about homosexuality, but to quickly answer these.
    marienbad wrote: »
    But each and every religion makes similar claims , how is one to choose ?

    We investigate the claims of Jesus and see if they hold up to scrutiny. We examine the eyewitness evidence that we have from those who were with Him and mull it over. That's what I did when I decided to put my lot in with Jesus. That isn't to say that it isn't often bloody difficult!
    alma73 wrote: »
    @solodeogloria can you confirm what christian denomination you belong to?

    I don't like to tie myself down too tightly. The short answer is that I attend an Anglican church, but I am a part of the evangelical side of the church. I work quite well with other evangelicals outside of Anglicanism also.

    For a more meaty discussion on my Christian background, I posted this on another thread.
    I'm not suggesting that my thinking doesn't have influences. It certainly does. My thinking is conservative evangelical in nature. I believe that God speaks primarily through His Word. I've been influenced by the Biblical theology movement and expository preaching Although I don't agree with every aspect of conservative evangelical thinking, I do agree that God speaks most clearly in the Bible. I guess some tangible influences would be the Christian Union movement at universities, John Stott, The Gospel Coalition, aspects of Sydney Anglicanism and John Piper amongst others. I'd be lying to say my faith was formed in a vacuum.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • #5802
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    @solodeogloria: you might find what I wrote as indicative that I don't have a "Christian" outlook. Nothing could be farther than the truth. It's just that I have changed my view of reality here due to the betrayal by Christian Elders of their vows to God. These elders also lied and betrayed the trust placed in them by the people to whom they preached.

    EDIT: Putting it very simply, I'm extremely sceptical NOW about people who claim to have the answer by quoting scripture and quoting God and Jesus: end-edit.

    I'm NOT speaking on behalf of other Irish people, just making an observation based on what has been revealed about Christianity as practiced here in Ireland and worldwide by the senior clergy. Behaving in a manner towards others befitting the word of God doesn't, IMO, require swearing loyalty to a particular creed as decreed by fellow humans.


  • #5803
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    aloyisious wrote: »
    @solodeogloria: you might find what I wrote as indicative that I don't have a "Christian" outlook. Nothing could be farther than the truth. It's just that I have changed my view of reality here due to the betrayal by Christian Elders of their vows to God. These elders also lied and betrayed the trust placed in them by the people to whom they preached.

    EDIT: Putting it very simply, I'm extremely sceptical NOW about people who claim to have the answer by quoting scripture and quoting God and Jesus: end-edit.

    I'm NOT speaking on behalf of other Irish people, just making an observation based on what has been revealed about Christianity as practiced here in Ireland and worldwide by the senior clergy. Behaving in a manner towards others befitting the word of God doesn't, IMO, require swearing loyalty to a particular creed as decreed by fellow humans.

    Good morning!

    I can't speak to anything you may have experienced at the hands of other people.

    What I can say is this. What people do, is rather different to what God or what Christ has done. This is why understanding what sin is and how toxic it's consequences are is important. It is particularly toxic in the church.

    The reason why I continually point to the Biblical text is to show you that this doesn't have to do with clergy, or people. I don't want you to come away from what I have said thinking this is what solodeogloria has said to you.

    The reason why I point to the Bible is to show that these things are from God and not from us, and I point to it to point away from myself and to point to Christ.

    I'm sorry to hear that people have done horrific things to you. All I'm asking is that you hear what God has to say in His Word. I don't ask you to listen to men or even trust men and I won't ask you to.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5804
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Actually I gave the wrong impression, if anyone thought I had been subject to horrific physical things to me. I am lucky in that regard. It's an unfortunate fact - or fortunate depending on one's P.O.V - that the lies and acts of men and women cut from the religious clothe has caused many to turn away as it is impossible to tell the truthful from the liar. Re the RC Church, various established policy facts turned me away from it, along with the deliberate lies used as church policy that were, and are still, used by the church against me and other LGBT folk.

    The first is the policy of hiding criminal clergy within it's walls and telling the victims of the criminal clergy that they were the persons to blame, and for it's seniors Archbishops and Cardinals to deliberately hinder police investigation into the criminal acts of it's clergy. I do not believe the church has recanted fully of that policy.

    Second was the revelation of confessional "mental reservation" whereby a priest would tell a confessee that any sins admitted during confession were forgiven. However the priest would insert the unspoken reservation (DO NOT) between the words "I" and "forgive" to silently deny absolution leaving untold RC adherents under a false belief. Pure fraud is a proper description of use of that clause.

    Third was the policy, which some Cardinals still state as being in effect, of declaring gay people as being "intrinsically disordered". This refers not to the physical make-up of the gay person but his/her mental state (read: being unable to think morally proper).

    Fourth was a policy (the DEFECTION policy) whereby it would make voluntary legal agreements in writing with Gay people to leave the church, revoking it's baptism. The church, to go long with the policy, had a pro-forma legal letter for the gay person to sign to that effect. A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's, which the church didn't approve of. The church rescinded the policy, and the letters validity, but didn't tell those gay people who'd believed - in good faith - that they were NO LONGER members of the RCC.


  • #5805
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good afternoon!

    My point was, that irrespective of what people can and have done, this is a separate matter to what God has done.

    If people do bad things, then that is on account of peoples sin.

    God is good, and God's word is available to all. People doing bad stuff isn't a reason not to listen to Him.

    That's my basic point.

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5806
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Second was the revelation of confessional "mental reservation" whereby a priest would tell a confessee that any sins admitted during confession were forgiven. However the priest would insert the unspoken reservation (DO NOT) between the words "I" and "forgive" to silently deny absolution leaving untold RC adherents under a false belief. Pure fraud is a proper description of use of that clause.
    This seems an extraordinarily odd assertion. Most Catholics would be familiar with the doctrine of mental reservation and strict mental reservation, if not 'confessional mental reservation' (which I've never heard of). What purpose would be served by a priest applying the principle of strict mental reservation in a confessional? "The confessor is not the master of God's forgiveness, but its servant. the minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ" Now, it's certainly a fact that a priest may withhold absolution where a penitent is not properly disposed, but you seem to be saying that a properly disposed penitent was given the impression they had been granted absolution when they hadn't been, which would be contrary to Canon Law " If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.". I'd be interested in seeing any evidence for your assertion?
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Third was the policy, which some Cardinals still state as being in effect, of declaring gay people as being "intrinsically disordered". This refers not to the physical make-up of the gay person but his/her mental state (read: being unable to think morally proper).
    I thought the Church Catechism was that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, as distinct from homosexuals, whom the Catechism says have an objectively disordered inclination? Is there another policy that refers to the physical make-up of the gay person (and/or his/her mental state (read: being unable to think morally proper))?
    aloyisious wrote: »
    Fourth was a policy (the DEFECTION policy) whereby it would make voluntary legal agreements in writing with Gay people to leave the church, revoking it's baptism. The church, to go long with the policy, had a pro-forma legal letter for the gay person to sign to that effect. A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's, which the church didn't approve of. The church rescinded the policy, and the letters validity, but didn't tell those gay people who'd believed - in good faith - that they were NO LONGER members of the RCC.
    I have to say, I just don't believe that. The Church's stance is and always has been that baptism is a permanent bond which cannot be revoked. Even in the case of defection, the Church made clear the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection. I'm calling shenanigans on that story I'm afraid.


  • #5807
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Absolam wrote: »
    I have to say, I just don't believe that. The Church's stance is and always has been that baptism is a permanent bond which cannot be revoked. Even in the case of defection, the Church made clear the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection. I'm calling shenanigans on that story I'm afraid.

    There was a facility to "defect" from the Catholic Church at one stage. I don't recall all the ins and outs of it but no doubt it's all in the countmeout.ie threads on this forum or A&A for those with a high pain threshold. It certainly didn't revoke one's baptism though, which should you say is irrevocable in the eyes of the Catholic Church and many other denominations. Moreover, the facility to defect wasn't aimed at LGBT people. Why on earth would someone need to dissociate themselves from the Catholic Church to enter a civil partnership? Makes no sense to me but maybe aloyisious has more information.


  • #5808
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    There was a facility to "defect" from the Catholic Church at one stage. I don't recall all the ins and outs of it but no doubt it's all in the countmeout.ie threads on this forum or A&A for those with a high pain threshold. It certainly didn't revoke one's baptism though, which should you say is irrevocable in the eyes of the Catholic Church and many other denominations. Moreover, the facility to defect wasn't aimed at LGBT people. Why on earth would someone need to dissociate themselves from the Catholic Church to enter a civil partnership? Makes no sense to me but maybe aloyisious has more information.
    Yes; the Actus Formalis Defectionis Ab Ecclesia Catholica is what I linked in my post. The Formal Act of Defection was then removed from Canon Law by Omnium in Mentem, where the reasoning is explained (since some believe the reason was to stop people 'leaving' the Church, I've repeated the crux of it);
    "The Code of Canon Law nonetheless prescribes that the faithful who have left the Church "by a formal act" are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage (cf. can. 1117), dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult (cf. can. 1086) and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages (cf. can. 1124). The underlying aim of this exception from the general norm of can. 11 was to ensure that marriages contracted by those members of the faithful would not be invalid due to defect of form or the impediment of disparity of cult.
    Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals. Indeed, the new law appeared, at least indirectly, to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy in places where the Catholic faithful are not numerous or where unjust marriage laws discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage. Finally, among other things, many of these marriages in effect became, as far as the Church is concerned, "clandestine" marriages.
    In light of the above, and after carefully considering the views of the Fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, as well as those of the Bishops' Conferences consulted with regard to the pastoral advantage of retaining or abrogating this exception from the general norm of can. 11, it appeared necessary to eliminate this norm which had been introduced into the corpus of canon law now in force.    "


  • #5809
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Absolam wrote: »
    Yes; the Actus Formalis Defectionis Ab Ecclesia Catholica is what I linked in my post. The Formal Act of Defection was then removed from Canon Law by Omnium in Mentem, where the reasoning is explained (since some believe the reason was to stop people 'leaving' the Church, I've repeated the crux of it);
    "The Code of Canon Law nonetheless prescribes that the faithful who have left the Church "by a formal act" are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws regarding the canonical form of marriage (cf. can. 1117), dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult (cf. can. 1086) and the need for permission in the case of mixed marriages (cf. can. 1124). The underlying aim of this exception from the general norm of can. 11 was to ensure that marriages contracted by those members of the faithful would not be invalid due to defect of form or the impediment of disparity of cult.
    Experience, however, has shown that this new law gave rise to numerous pastoral problems. First, in individual cases the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint. In addition, many difficulties have surfaced both in pastoral activity and the practice of tribunals. Indeed, the new law appeared, at least indirectly, to facilitate and even in some way to encourage apostasy in places where the Catholic faithful are not numerous or where unjust marriage laws discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. The new law also made difficult the return of baptized persons who greatly desired to contract a new canonical marriage following the failure of a preceding marriage. Finally, among other things, many of these marriages in effect became, as far as the Church is concerned, "clandestine" marriages.
    In light of the above, and after carefully considering the views of the Fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, as well as those of the Bishops' Conferences consulted with regard to the pastoral advantage of retaining or abrogating this exception from the general norm of can. 11, it appeared necessary to eliminate this norm which had been introduced into the corpus of canon law now in force.    "

    While it is was probably not the only reason, from the text you quoted it does appear to have been a factor.


  • #5810
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robdonn wrote: »
    While it is was probably not the only reason, from the text you quoted it does appear to have been a factor.
    Apostasy isn't leaving the Church; it's the total repudiation of the Christian faith (from a Catholic point of view). An apostate can still be reconciled with the Church, and the bond of baptism is not revoked. Still it's not difficult to understand that encouraging apostasy is clearly not something the Church would want to do, even if it doesn't amount to 'leaving' the Church (from the Church's point of view).


  • #5811
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    There was a facility to "defect" from the Catholic Church at one stage. I don't recall all the ins and outs of it but no doubt it's all in the countmeout.ie threads on this forum or A&A for those with a high pain threshold. It certainly didn't revoke one's baptism though, which should you say is irrevocable in the eyes of the Catholic Church and many other denominations. Moreover, the facility to defect wasn't aimed at LGBT people. Why on earth would someone need to dissociate themselves from the Catholic Church to enter a civil partnership? Makes no sense to me but maybe aloyisious has more information.

    @Benny: some friends of mine who wanted to enter a C/P were instructed by RC PP that if they wanted one, they'd have to leave the church via defection, so they did, totally as they understood it. The defection letter was not just a simple "sign the form and away you go" procedure, as the PP's superiors at diocese level had to be informed and involved. The intrinsic disorder I posted above to solodeogloria was a contributing factor in the break for one of the partners in one of the CP's. He couldn't stand the hypocrisy when news of the cover-ups broke. I hope you'll pardon me by using your input to reply in a singular way. I have already made clear to Absolom (for good or bad) that I won't respond to him/her, and that includes disbeliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • #5812
    solodeogloria
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Absolam wrote: »
    Apostasy isn't leaving the Church; it's the total repudiation of the Christian faith (from a Catholic point of view). An apostate can still be reconciled with the Church, and the bond of baptism is not revoked. Still it's not difficult to understand that encouraging apostasy is clearly not something the Church would want to do, even if it doesn't amount to 'leaving' the Church (from the Church's point of view).

    Good afternoon!

    If you have never believed, how can you "apostate"?

    This is one of the reasons why I tend to support adult baptism over infant baptism.

    If someone doesn't believe, they are not a Christian. Baptism or no baptism.

    One could be forgiven for thinking this policy is somewhat akin to Hotel California. Baptism doesn't save. Only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ does. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward motion.

    I'm confused as to how or why we've got to this place on this thread though!

    Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
    solodeogloria


  • #5813
    12Phase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,040 ✭✭✭12Phase


    I left, it was all very civilised.

    Sent letter to my local bishop and got a letter back from the parish priest where I was born.
    Friendly guy and he wished me well. There was absolutely no drama at all.

    I think that's precisely how it should be. If you don't want to be a member of an organisation, you should absolutely have the right to leave.

    It's ridiculous that any church would claim that you're not able to leave. That moves it from being a religion into the realms of being something else entirely.

    If any organisation is making it hard to leave, there's something very wrong with how it's operating.


  • #5814
    robdonn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Absolam wrote: »
    Apostasy isn't leaving the Church; it's the total repudiation of the Christian faith (from a Catholic point of view). An apostate can still be reconciled with the Church, and the bond of baptism is not revoked. Still it's not difficult to understand that encouraging apostasy is clearly not something the Church would want to do, even if it doesn't amount to 'leaving' the Church (from the Church's point of view).

    If the bond of baptism can't be revoked anyway, then what's the difference? Or do you mean the bond between an individual and the Church rather than a bond with God?


  • #5815
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    solodeogloria wrote: »
    Good afternoon! If you have never believed, how can you "apostate"? This is one of the reasons why I tend to support adult baptism over infant baptism. If someone doesn't believes, they are not a Christian. Baptism or no baptism. One could be forgiven for thinking this policy is somewhat akin to Hotel California. Baptism doesn't save. Only faith in the Lord Jesus Christ does. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward motion.
    An apostate is simply a name for a baptised person, who after possessing the Christian faith, totally rejects it. I'd agree that if a person had never believed they would not consider themselves to be an apostate; the Church however might well hold that anyone who is baptised and rejects the Christian faith is an apostate whether or not they ever affirmed the faith themselves; I can't see any reason it wouldn't since the Catechism says that faith must grow after Baptism. I don't know if the Church would agree with you that baptism is an outward sign of an inward motion, but I think the view presented in the Catechism is considerably more extensive than that, including the idea that once baptised someone is a Christian (or at least, they are incorporated into Christ and the Church), and they remain so whether they believe or not.
    solodeogloria wrote: »
    I'm confused as to how or why we've got to this place on this thread though!
    aloyisious offered a number of unsubstantiated allegations, including a story that the Catholic Church enticed homosexuals to revoke their baptisms, and I asked him to provide evidence for them.
    Sadly, I don't think he will.


  • #5816
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    robdonn wrote: »
    If the bond of baptism can't be revoked anyway, then what's the difference? Or do you mean the bond between an individual and the Church rather than a bond with God?
    Do you mean the difference between apostasy and leaving the Church? Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith, yet remaining a part of the Church. Leaving the Church depends on who you ask, but if you ask the Church it's a nonsensical phrase; the bond of baptism is unbreakable. That bond incorporates one both into Christ and into the Church, whether or not one repudiates the faith, defects, is a heretic, beats up the Pope etc etc; the bond remains and the individual can be reconciled.

    It is of course not terribly relevant to the thread, other than with regard to aloyisious' stories, but it is quite an interesting piece of dogma.


  • #5817
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    aloyisious wrote: »
    @Benny: some friends of mine who wanted to enter a C/P were instructed by RC PP that if they wanted one, they'd have to leave the church via defection, so they did, totally as they understood it. The defection letter was not just a simple "sign the form and away you go" procedure, as the PP's superiors at diocese level had to be informed and involved.

    The RCC has no involvement in civil partnerships and doesn't recognise them in any case so there is no means by which the church could stop Catholics from contracting a civil partnership. If a priest was aware that a Catholic was in a civil partnership he'd be within his rights to deny them the Eucharist, but he could do that to anyone in a sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage so the person in a civil partnership would be no worse off than before! In all honesty, it sounds like a solo run on the part of a priest. As far as I know defection was abolished in 2009, before civil partnerships were introduced in Ireland so I assume this was in another country?


  • #5818
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    The RCC has no involvement in civil partnerships and doesn't recognise them in any case so there is no means by which the church could stop Catholics from contracting a civil partnership. If a priest was aware that a Catholic was in a civil partnership he'd be within his rights to deny them the Eucharist, but he could do that to anyone in a sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage so the person in a civil partnership would be no worse off than before! In all honesty, it sounds like a solo run on the part of a priest. As far as I know defection was abolished in 2009, before civil partnerships were introduced in Ireland so I assume this was in another country?

    It might well have been a solo-run of "concern" saving a member of the flock. No. it was here in Ireland, the ceremony & afters being in Enniskerry. When I heard about the revocation of the defection, I told the person concerned and he said he hadn't heard, would check it out. That was several years ago, some time after he and his partner CP'd when it was legalised in 2010.

    Ta for the info on revoking of defection, you're right about the 2009 date of revoking by Benedict. It's possible that there was some time between the defection and the CP, due to legalities, and that the revoking of defection may have occurred in between both.

    I googled "revoking of defection by the Roman Catholic Church" to see if I could find the date of same and this came up as No 1 entry on screen.... Website that helps people leave the Catholic Church to cease ...
    www.thejournal.ie/count-me-out-closes-because-of-catholic-church-defe...
    Aug 8, 2013 - Over 12000 people downloaded a Declaration of Defection from ... my baptism has been revoked and that I have officially left the Catholic church. .... were happy to describe themselves as Roman Catholic (and please don't ...

    [aloyisious: I was surprised to see the bit about baptism so i scrolled down the letters posted. Should the thought occur to anyone, I have nothing to do with the contents of Denis Silver's letter]:

    Denis Silver
    Aug 8th 2013, 5:07 PM # 15 132
    I also have my letter from Archbishop martin confirming that my baptism has been revoked and that I have officially left the Catholic church.
    He asked me for a meeting before the formal letter was sent but I said no and that was that
    I haven’t gone to mass or confession in about 30 odd years and its amazing that a piece of paper could make me feel better about myself but it does
    I would like to thank the people that set up the website and went to the bother of helping me and thousands of others to officially leave a cult that we didn’t want to be part off.....
    ............................................................................................

    This article in the irish Examiner [Wed 20th August 2014] came up as No 2 on screen re the same query: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwif6J77ms3MAhVlJ8AKHfIIAQkQFggjMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Flifestyle%2Ffeatures%2Fits-my-sacred-right-to-leave-the-catholic-church-282576.html&usg=AFQjCNEMtMku5oZRFp35jI1okvwSPaxVhQ.

    The writer has this in the article (approx 10th sentence/para down - scroll down slowly) .... It came as a huge surprise to me, then, last October, after I wrote to Reverend Fintan Gavin, the assistant chancellor of the Dublin Dioceses, asking if I could formally leave the Catholic Church, to be told that it was impossible.

    The official reply I received mentioned that, in 1983, the Vatican brought in a law that allowed members to defect.

    The measure was implemented, I was told: “to ensure that any marriage entered into after formal defection would be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.” I’ve read this part of the letter many times and it still makes no rational sense. It’s the kind of absurdity one finds in a legal document: where words become so ambiguous that they cease to have meaning.

    However, there was some information that confirmed what I was looking for. Fintan Gavin reiterated that since canon law was changed in 2009 “those [former] defections do not have legal effect.” In other words: the Catholic Church refuses to allow its members to walk away voluntarily....


  • #5819
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    aloyisious wrote: »
    It might well have been a solo-run of "concern" saving a member of the flock. No. it was here in Ireland, the ceremony & afters being in Enniskerry. When I heard about the revocation of the defection, I told the person concerned and he said he hadn't heard, would check it out. That was several years ago, some time after he and his partner CP'd when it was legalised in 2010.
    Ta for the info on revoking of defection, you're right about the 2009 date of revoking by Benedict. It's possible that there was some time between the defection and the CP, due to legalities, and that the revoking of defection may have occurred in between both.
    Defection hasn't been revoked; it's still perfectly possible to defect, the requirement for a Formal Act of Defection was removed as a prerequisite for certain marriages not to be invalid, so the Formal Act of Defection itself became useless. The concept of notorious, public, or de facto defection still exists in Canon Law. Those Formal Acts of Defection which did occur are not considered to not have occurred; annotations to Baptismal Certs were not directed to be removed, though the Act itself continues not to constitute what many people thought it did.
    aloyisious wrote: »
    I was surprised to see the bit about baptism so i scrolled down the letters posted. Should the thought occur to anyone, I have nothing to do with the contents of Denis Silver's letter:
    Denis Silver
    Aug 8th 2013, 5:07 PM # 15 132
    I also have my letter from Archbishop martin confirming that my baptism has been revoked and that I have officially left the Catholic church.
    He asked me for a meeting before the formal letter was sent but I said no and that was that
    I haven’t gone to mass or confession in about 30 odd years and its amazing that a piece of paper could make me feel better about myself but it does
    I would like to thank the people that set up the website and went to the bother of helping me and thousands of others to officially leave a cult that we didn’t want to be part off.....
    Since Mr Silver hasn't posted a copy of his letter from the Archbishop I suppose we could take his word that he persuaded the Archbishop to say he'd done something contrary to a fundamental tenet of Catholic theology. We could also speculate that the letter from the Archbishop didn't say that his Baptism had been revoked, but that his Act had been noted in the Baptismal Registry with explicit mention of the occurrence of a “defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali" as required by the Church from 1983 until 2009. Since Dennis posted about his defection four years after it could have occurred, it may well be his recollection isn't entirely reliable detail-wise....
    aloyisious wrote: »
    The writer has this in the article (approx 10th sentence/para down - scroll down slowly) .... It came as a huge surprise to me, then, last October, after I wrote to Reverend Fintan Gavin, the assistant chancellor of the Dublin Dioceses, asking if I could formally leave the Catholic Church, to be told that it was impossible.
    The official reply I received mentioned that, in 1983, the Vatican brought in a law that allowed members to defect.
    The measure was implemented, I was told: “to ensure that any marriage entered into after formal defection would be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.” I’ve read this part of the letter many times and it still makes no rational sense. It’s the kind of absurdity one finds in a legal document: where words become so ambiguous that they cease to have meaning.
    However, there was some information that confirmed what I was looking for. Fintan Gavin reiterated that since canon law was changed in 2009 “those [former] defections do not have legal effect.” In other words: the Catholic Church refuses to allow its members to walk away voluntarily....
    The form letter from Rev Gannon is replicated here if anyone is interested. The full text of the sentence is "While those de facto defections do not have a legal effect, the Church would obviously hope that the desire of those who wish to leave the Church would be respected." I think J P O’Malley's apparent substitution of '[former]' for 'de facto' rather alters the sentence.

    I'm still rather bemused that given the Actus Formalis was done away with in October 2009, and the first Civil Partnership wasn't registered until February 2011, yet "A lot of gay people took that course and went into CP's, which the church didn't approve of". It really doesn't add up.... Nor does it make sense that asking someone to revoke their Baptism (impossible as that might be) could somehow be construed as "a solo-run of "concern" saving a member of the flock". How does revoking their Baptism save them, from any Christian perspective? Overall, I'm still going with shenanigans; particularly since the first civil partnership ceremony was on Feb 7th 2011, I find it hard to believe aloyisious's statement " it was here in Ireland, the ceremony & afters being in Enniskerry. When I heard about the revocation of the defection, I told the person concerned and he said he hadn't heard, would check it out. That was several years ago, some time after he and his partner CP'd when it was legalised in 2010." is actually true. Nobody 'CP'd' when it was legalised in 2010, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing so in 2011 thought that a non-civil act done away with at least sixteen months previously (if aloyisious's friends were amongst the very first registered partnerships in 2011) could have any relevance to their civil partnership.


  • #5820
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,955 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    It's up to any person who find's it hard to believe what I wrote and posted is actually true to take it up with the admin-side of Boards.ie controlling the input into the debate.

    EDIT: I included the words "is actually true" as the other words used "it's hard to believe" apparently weren't sufficient for the O/P to use in doubting the veracity of what I wrote. The statement by the O/P - I find it hard to believe aloyisious's statement " it was here in Ireland, the ceremony & afters being in Enniskerry. When I heard about the revocation of the defection, I told the person concerned and he said he hadn't heard, would check it out. That was several years ago, some time after he and his partner CP'd when it was legalised in 2010." is actually true. - speak's for itself in the O/P's specific reference to a conversation I wrote about having with one of the CP'd couple.


  • Advertisement
  • #5821
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    I don't think so; I think saying why it's hard to believe is probably sufficient, after all, this is a discussion.


Advertisement