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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

1000's of kids making their communion today

12467…24

Comments

  • #92
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    flutered wrote: »
    [...] i have to wonder at the reasoning behind attacking such events, every one knows about the pedo sch1t [...]
    What on earth are you talking about - who's attacking what? You really don't need to over-egg this omelette.

    As for why people here don't like this kind of childhood indoctrination, well in addition to some of thinking that you shouldn't tell kids frightening lies, maybe you answered that yourself in the second half of the sentence anyway.


  • #93
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Qs wrote: »
    All of those things have separate meanings though. A wedding is a declaration of love and an official joining of a family with or without religious elements. And a funeral is a celebration/mourning of a person who has died. These are human rituals that make sense in their own right. A communion or confirmation has no meaning outside of its religious significance. Therefore it should be a time when those involved seriously think about their faith.

    Do they? I see no other reason for wedding but legal in countries where needed. Where I come from the cohabiting is equalized in law so the marriage rates are significantly. I feel there is no need for me to declare my love or officially join family (what nonsense is that anyway, you are either accepted or not and no official joining will change that).

    I would think funeral helps with grieving but it is still a ritual. You can attach any kind of meaning to anything anyway.


  • #94
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,649 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Do they? I see no other reason for wedding but legal in countries where needed. Where I come from the cohabiting is equalized in law so the marriage rates are significantly. I feel there is no need for me to declare my love or officially join family (what nonsense is that anyway, you are either accepted or not and no official joining will change that).

    I would think funeral helps with grieving but it is still a ritual. You can attach any kind of meaning to anything anyway.


    I'm not sure of the legal position where you're from meeeeh, but in Ireland, people are only considered a family with regard to the Irish Constitution once they are married:

    Non-traditional family units

    Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law", and guarantees its protection by the state. As of 29 August 2015, Article 41.4 states "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex", thereby allowing both opposite and same-sex partners to marry. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents or unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters.

    The institution of marriage enjoys a privileged position in the Constitution. A family exclusively based on marriage is envisaged: Article 41.3.1° states that "[t]he State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded". The effect is that non-marital unit members are not entitled to any of the encompassed protections, including those under the realms of tax, inheritance, and social welfare, granted by Article 41. For example, in State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtála [1966] IR 567, where an unmarried father, who had become estranged from the mother of his child some months after living and caring for the same child together, was prevented from invoking the provisions of Article 41 to halt the mother's wishes of putting the child up for adoption. The then Mr. Justice Walsh of the Supreme Court stated that "the family referred to in [Article 41 was] the family which is founded on the institution of marriage".

    Source: Constitution of Ireland, Wikipedia

    In short, it's the official joining changes everything, in Ireland at least.


  • #95
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    To be honest, I do not understand how people still darken the doors of the Roman Catholic organisation's churches. I simple cannot understand it. The organisation is red rotten. The next generation will not be so two faced.


  • #96
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    In Ireland you'd be very foolish not to get married if you're in a serious, long-term monogamous relationship you don't plan on leaving. We recently did some legal stuff with our solicitor and he has people coming in all the time wanting to formalise their relationships with all sorts of lenghty contracts. He tells them it's far cheaper and more efficient to get married. One of the main reasons we got married was to simplify our tax and finance arrangments and because we wanted children. Who knows what'll happen but in Ireland you have very little protection in a relationship if you're not married, even simple things like next of kin rights can be difficult.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'm not sure of the legal position where you're from meeeeh, but in Ireland, people are only considered a family with regard to the Irish Constitution once they are married:
    Oh I am aware of that. I sloppily read the bit and took it as symbolical joining of the family. My point was you can do a wedding in the same way as business transaction (a woman I know got married during a lunch break because it helped getting a mortgage) which is the legal bit, all other fuss is pure ritual and unnecessary but people still like to do it.


  • #98
    mach1982
    Registered Users Posts: 760 ✭✭✭mach1982


    Typical , you tar everyone with the same brush . Not ever priest, deacon . bishop arch-bishop or nun molested kids , just like not every German in World War 2 killed a jewish person or not ever white person in South Africa was cruel to the Blacks . The culture and and society was very different, and while that is no excuse you have remember that is was what happen behind closes doers stay behind close doors, that is don't rock the boat and stick to status quo .There was no such think as whistleblowes back then , and if you did you ere label either trouble make, or disloyal. There a good an bad people in ever walk of life , the world is not just broken into black or white.

    Anyway until the child turns 18 it parent responsibility to bring them up an if they chooses bring them up in what ever faith wish or leave for the child to decide later that their decision . Dose effect it affect you if child child makes their communion or first confession no. The point a bout kids not knowing what to confess , well if the were taught the Catiascisim then the know exactly what a the definition of sin is .


  • #99
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,909 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    meeeeh wrote: »
    I would think it doesn't matter if it's religious occasion or not but it has a lot more to do with what is important to parents. I have distaste for big events so there probably wouldn't be a big party and since we are small family and half of relatives outside Ireland even if gifts were given our kids wouldn't come out with huge amounts. I don't feel sorry for my kids in fact I think they are damn lucky, they live in comfortable house in nice neighborhood, they get everything they need and while we don't consider ourselves parents of the month, they are happy and loved kids. And that is why I find the idea kids would be bullied without big expensive day out insulting and out frankly out of touch with reality.

    As a society we do like a bit of ritual though. Be it the wedding (a signature in registry office would be enough), christening or naming ceremonies, even funerals have a degree of ritual to it. So I can appreciate why kids go through different sacraments without big soul searching about depth of their or their parent's religion.

    Are you deliberately missing the point? It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the ritual. It has everything to do with an 8 year old child being the only one of 30+ children who day spend nearly ever day with, not being the one to get €1000+. Being the only child not spending months on end discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money. That will have an impact on the child whether you like it or not and it's truly 'out of touch with reality' to think otherwise.

    Maybe because this isn't something you have grown up with you can't really understand it. It is all about the money. Deep down I'm an anti-capitalist, anarchist who has opted out of so many mainstream expectations. I live on very little money, almost everything I own is second-hand, I value nothing but spending time with loved ones. My parents have similar attitudes. And without even thinking about it, I can tell you exactly how much money I got for my communion, who gave me what and what I bought with the money. So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.


  • #100
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I got £50 for my communion. I still remember the name of the person who got the most in our class 25 years later. She got £300.


  • #101
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    I'm all for a coming-of-age/right of passage event for youngsters. However, like most of the posters in this thread I find the hypocrisy of communions disgusting because it extends to the children.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,649 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    iguana wrote: »
    Are you deliberately missing the point? It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the ritual. It has everything to do with an 8 year old child being the only one of 30+ children who day spend nearly ever day with, not being the one to get €1000+. Being the only child not spending months on end discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money. That will have an impact on the child whether you like it or not and it's truly 'out of touch with reality' to think otherwise.


    That's really not a fair comment iguana as it will depend very much on the child themselves and how they were raised, and as for the whole idea of children discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money, isn't that more of an indicator of how that child was raised by their parents?

    iguana wrote: »
    Maybe because this isn't something you have grown up with you can't really understand it. It is all about the money. Deep down I'm an anti-capitalist, anarchist who has opted out of so many mainstream expectations. I live on very little money, almost everything I own is second-hand, I value nothing but spending time with loved ones. My parents have similar attitudes. And without even thinking about it, I can tell you exactly how much money I got for my communion, who gave me what and what I bought with the money. So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.


    It's all about the money for some people, for some adults, and for some children. I've grown up with it, and I do understand it - the idea that some people are obsessed with being above everyone else is a fairly universal concept that's universally applicable. It doesn't have to be all about the money at all, and I would wonder about the kind of values a parent is instilling in their child that teaches them it's all about the money.

    Are those really the kinds of values you want to emulate and instill in your own children - because someone else does something, they have to do something so they have something to talk about too?

    lazygal wrote: »
    I got £50 for my communion. I still remember the name of the person who got the most in our class 25 years later. She got £300.


    I got £19 for my communion, and £10 of that was from my granny who commented "hasn't he a woeful beggar face!" :pac:

    (I gave any money I got to my mother who told me I should save it! :o)

    I got no money for my Confirmation, but the most memorable present I got was the wrist watch my next door neighbour gave me.

    I didn't care for extravagance then, and my son doesn't care for it now, and he didn't give a fiddlers who made what or what they were spending it on when he was making his Communion.


  • #103
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    iguana wrote: »
    Are you deliberately missing the point? It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the ritual. It has everything to do with an 8 year old child being the only one of 30+ children who day spend nearly ever day with, not being the one to get €1000+. Being the only child not spending months on end discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money. That will have an impact on the child whether you like it or not and it's truly 'out of touch with reality' to think otherwise.

    Maybe because this isn't something you have grown up with you can't really understand it. It is all about the money. Deep down I'm an anti-capitalist, anarchist who has opted out of so many mainstream expectations. I live on very little money, almost everything I own is second-hand, I value nothing but spending time with loved ones. My parents have similar attitudes. And without even thinking about it, I can tell you exactly how much money I got for my communion, who gave me what and what I bought with the money. So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.

    Maybe it's exactly because I grew up where majority did confirmation and some didn't. Those who did not were spared after school religion classes and perfectly OK without the special day. We did get quite big presents or money but kids mostly want the same stuff so if you didn't get it for confirmation you got it for school end year, birthday or something similar. In my group of friends we had someone whose family has millions and his best friend's mother was struggling badly to bring up three kids after their father died. Kids are aware of inequalities around them or other differences and they manage to adapt as long as parents don't make even bigger deal out of it.

    Only thing I remember about communion is that my shoes had a hint of heel and that one of the other girls looked like she was attacked with make up gun.


  • #104
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That's really not a fair comment iguana as it will depend very much on the child themselves and how they were raised

    Totally that. My eldest was the only kid in his class not to make either communion or confirmation - my youngest was one of two who didn't. It was a small rural school, so nobody went mental about it anyway, but my lads were both perfectly happy to get a day out doing bowling, cinema and a meal. Only delighted with themselves to get the tenner in an envelope from one other parent who was giving them out willy nilly at the school gate. None of their friends made any difference of them; neither of my kids made any difference of their friends. It was just the way it was, and kids are waay more accepting of the differences than the "one-up-man-ship" parents make them out to be.

    I don't subscribe to that crap at all, and my kids don't either now they're grown and see the way religion works. By the time confirmation came round, the lads were well rounded enough to say for themselves that their friends were only doing it for the money - and they don't do jealousy either, I'm happy to report.


  • #105
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    iguana wrote: »
    So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.

    I reckon if you talked to the kids who live around me here, you'd find this is entirely irrelevant these days. Maybe because of the "Celtic Tiger" and kids more used to having the same stuff as each other (or indeed, here in the sticks, NOT having the same stuff as each other), but I disagree it's seared in now. But maybe it still is in places where the Limo, the fake tan and the one up man ship means something. Not here though.


  • #106
    porsche boy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭porsche boy


    I know it's not always the case but our kids are baptised purely for school reasons and nothing to do with imagenary friends.


  • #107
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    This is the PR Pope at it again:
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article77919292.html

    Why people are okay with all this still baffles me. Their leader is a defender of paedos; and catholics still flock to church like obedient little sheep without batting an eyelid.

    Of course, posters like One Eyed Jack will just say I'm being an "OTT h8er", and it was only a handful of kids who were molested, priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests; or whatever other dumb logic he'll try to apply again. And confession boxes don't exist either apparently. I just made them up so I could describe confession in a sinister way.


  • #108
    legocrazy505
    Closed Accounts Posts: 691 ✭✭✭legocrazy505


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    This is the PR Pope at it again:
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article77919292.html

    Why people are okay with all this still baffles me. Their leader is a defender of paedos; and catholics still flock to church like obedient little sheep without batting an eyelid.

    Of course, posters like One Eyed Jack will just say I'm being an "OTT h8er", and it was only a handful of kids who were molested, priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests; or whatever other dumb logic he'll try to apply again.

    The 2nd comment on that article. It's so good it doesn't even address the article. It seems even in the face of evidence people will literally say anything.

    As for the actual topic of discussion, me and my brother both went through the standard rituals of alive-o and stuff. To be not Catholic in our primary school was at the time something they frowned upon (I'm 18 so this is fairly recent). They're better at it now though thankfully. Most parents do it these days in order to appease their own families or the school.


  • #109
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    Their leader is a defender of paedos.
    Can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile?


  • #110
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    Absolam wrote: »
    Can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile?

    He provides pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests. Another sympathiser, I see... Is the article I already posted not enough for you?

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/catholic-church-spent-millions-providing-for-paedophile-priests-20160109-gm2f4z.html

    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-vatican-stillprotectspedophilepriests.html

    http://www.michaelparenti.org/VaticanShuffle.html (before his time, but still valid since he's done f*ck all since).


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The catholic church also assist many other offenders who are not priests.
    Many convicts are helped back into society by the church.
    That's kind of the point, they help everyone, like Jesus who hung out with some guys who did bad stuff sometime
    ( don't remember the Bible story)


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    He provides pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests. Another sympathiser, I see... Is the article I already posted not enough for you?
    So... that's a no then?


  • #113
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,649 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    This is the PR Pope at it again:
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article77919292.html

    Why people are okay with all this still baffles me. Their leader is a defender of paedos; and catholics still flock to church like obedient little sheep without batting an eyelid.

    Of course, posters like One Eyed Jack will just say I'm being an "OTT h8er", and it was only a handful of kids who were molested, priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests; or whatever other dumb logic he'll try to apply again. And confession boxes don't exist either apparently. I just made them up so I could describe confession in a sinister way.


    Kenny I wouldn't bother tbh, you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look rather foolish without my help.


  • #114
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    Absolam wrote: »
    So... that's a no then?

    Did you really just stick your head in the sand?

    Providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance does not qualify as "support" in your book? What does then? Mowing their lawns too?

    You paedo-sympathisers are so sad & transparent. The evidence is right in front of you, yet you still find an angle to deny it.

    So you're totally cool with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests? That all sits just fine with you?


  • #115
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Kenny I wouldn't bother tbh, you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look rather foolish without my help.

    Should I quote your little "priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests & we also molested kids" point, or would you rather forget it & brush it off with a "you look foolish - scarlet for you bro" comment?

    Of course, I notice you took the time to comment, yet none of your comment was about the article I posted.


  • #116
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    Did you really just stick your head in the sand?
    Nope, I really asked you can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile. You're not doing that, are you?
    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    Providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance does not qualify as "support" in your book? What does then? Mowing their lawns too?
    It doesn't qualify as defending paedophiles, no. Sorry. Try again?
    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    You paedo-sympathisers are so sad & transparent. The evidence is right in front of you, yet you still find an angle to deny it.
    I'm cut to the quick. Such dreadful name calling, and then you lie to my face. Terrible, just terrible.....
    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    So you're totally cool with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests? That all sits just fine with you?
    Well, I am totally cool :) As for what I'm cool with... sounds like you're making that I up, because I never told you. A bit like you making it up that the Pope is a defender of paedos I suspect.


  • #117
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, I am totally cool :) As for what I'm cool with... sounds like you're making that I up, because I never told you. A bit like you making it up that the Pope is a defender of paedos I suspect.

    Let me ask you directly then - are you okay with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests?


  • #118
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,649 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    Should I quote your little "priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests & we also molested kids" point, or would you rather forget it & brush it off with a "you look foolish - scarlet for you bro" comment?

    Of course, I notice you took the time to comment, yet none of your comment was about the article I posted.


    I think you're going to have to quote where I said that, because at least it will remind you of what I actually said, and how you've chosen to misrepresent what I actually said. I never said I was either embarrassed or scarlet for you either btw, it's not nice to laugh at someone who is making a fool of themselves, and I certainly don't see child sexual abuse as a laughing matter, nor is it a matter that should be used by anyone in an online pissing match.

    None of this comment is about the article either, because I'm unable to muster up the faux outrage you're hoping for that I could compete at your level.


  • #119
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Kenny Bania wrote: »
    Let me ask you directly then - are you okay with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests?
    Wait up! I asked you directly can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile. Let's not hurry to skip over what we're discussing to address something completely new, eh? So... how about it? Can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile?


  • #120
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I think you're going to have to quote where I said that, because at least it will remind you of what I actually said, and how you've chosen to misrepresent what I actually said.

    "when you're saying the Church molested kids, you might as well be saying men molest kids. You're a man Kenny. Do you approve of men molesting kids then?"

    Wow - such amazing logic at work here.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Kenny Bania
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Kenny Bania


    Absolam wrote: »
    Wait up! I asked you directly can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile. Let's not hurry to skip over what we're discussing to address something completely new, eh? So... how about it? Can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile?

    If you don't think financing paedophiles is showing support for them & defending their actions, I'm not sure what more we can discuss here.

    Maybe the pope will sign your poster when he visits next year.


Advertisement