Any practising catholics here? (and do you follow the rules?)

Terry

Further to my post regarding inconsistencies in catholicism throughout history, there is the question of Limbo (not the dancers).

The Roman Catholic Church is preparing to abolish limbo, the place between heaven and hell reserved for the souls of children who die before they have been baptised.

The Church's 30-member International Theological Commission yesterday began a week-long meeting to draw up a text for Pope Benedict XVI, which is expected to recommend dropping the concept from Church doctrine.

Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century and is depicted in paintings by artists such as Giotto and in literary works such as Dante's Divine Comedy.
advertisement

The commission was first asked to study the after-life fate of the non-baptised by the late Pope John Paul II.

Pope Benedict is expected to approve the findings. In 1984, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the head of the Vatican's doctrinal department, he called limbo "a theological hypothesis".

"It is linked to the cause of original sin, but many babies die because they are victims," he said.

Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, Theologian of the Pontifical Household, yesterday told La Stampa: "We need to consider it and take into account the fact that many children die victims of modern evils - hunger in the world, for example, and many ills coming from huge social disorder and misery, let alone the fruits of abortion and such things."

More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow.

It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.

The Church is aware that Muslims, for example, believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any test.

The most decisive modern Catholic text on the issue dates back to 1905 when Pope Pius X stated: "Children who die without being baptised go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either, because whilst carrying the original sin... they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory."

Catholics also believe that because fertilised ovum and aborted foetuses have human souls they, too, go to limbo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/30/wchurch130.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/30/ixworld.html

In the end, they kept it as is, but it just goes to show that they are making the rules up as they go along.

Duggy747

How did a relgious thread sleek it's way into AH?

Anywho, religion was never a big thing in my life. When I was a kid I never really cared, church was just a building I had to go to on Sunday mornings or Saturday nights *shudder* and I couldn't ryhme a prayer off. When I was about 14 I realised the God-thing wasn't for me and naturally I went through that ridiculious rebellious stage against it. Fortunately that stage didn't last very long and nowadays as an atheist I don't care what anybody believes, there's more to life than hammering away on the same ol' topic. While we're at it, why don't we nail into each other about which is the best type of music genre? (Though I think we can all agree on how shít Emo is )

estebancambias wrote:

People who say there is no God, are under the impression they are insightful and deep thinking but in truth they are too shallow to even comtemplate the existence of something higher out there.

Don't know where you base this from, I'm as about as smart and stupid as the next person. I'm not shallow to comtemplate the existence of a God, I just use the values of scientific deduction and logic. I'm more interested in enjoying life with people I love rather than squabble on the same ol' record!

It's not like any post here on this thread (or anywhere else) is gonna make anyone go "Gee whizz, maybe I'm wrong after all!!". Whatever makes you feel good and gets you through your day is what matters more rather than spitting acid at each other. That's the great thing about the Western World, we can have the freedom of choice during our own lives and not get the shít kicked out of us for thinking otherwise! (though obviously there's that wee situation with the Catholics and Protestants up north and all that!)

EDIT: I knew this thread would descend into a Catholics Vs. Atheists one!

CathyMoran

I would consider myself a practicing catholic but I do not follow all the rules, I disagree intrinsically with the church's views on gays, contraception,IVF, sex before marriage and women priests.. I think that it is better to be within a group and object to some of the things that you see are wrong with it rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most of these rules are imposed by flawed humans, it is not God's fault that the church is not as compassionate or realistic as it should be.

Tar.Aldarion

Their rules come from the bible, there is no arguing with it, you can not change their views. You are not a Catholic if you think Christ was 'lying'.

Stephen

estebancambias wrote:

You can doubt, you can say Religion is merely a fabrication by man to feel good for themselves, but there should be laws which prohibit people from saying comments like ''this guy jesus supposably', 'allah is a dick' and stuff along those lines.

So you want to force your religious views on others? Lucky for us you're not in charge.

CathyMoran

It is an interpretation of the bible.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

mmm, I'm a practising atheist but I still sometimes believe in god, and angels.

Tar.Aldarion

Some things are an interpretation. Most of their hard and fast rules that you disagree with can not be argued with. Things like priests not marrying etc can, since the church made them up.

Dudess

Cathy, why not attend unitarian service so? Especially if you disagree with the catholic church's stance on so many things.

By the way, this thread is going the wrong way - I'm focusing specifically on catholicism, not whether you believe in God.

Duggy747

Stephen wrote:

So you want to force your religious views on others? Lucky for us you're not in charge.

I think we established that with the whole "Tim McVeigh" thing!

Drift

CathyMoran wrote:

I would consider myself a practicing catholic but I do not follow all the rules, I disagree intrinsically with the church's views on gays, contraception,IVF, sex before marriage and women priests.. I think that it is better to be within a group and object to some of the things that you see are wrong with it rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most of these rules are imposed by flawed humans, it is not God's fault that the church is not as compassionate or realistic as it should be.

QFT. I'm a practising catholic, I attend mass every Sunday, regularly go to confession (although not as regularly as I should) and try to live my life as best I can and treat other people with respect and decency as the church teaches. I do however disagree with some of the churches teachings especially those on contraception and priests getting married. I'm still debating the whole sex before marriage thing :rolleyes: so don't ask . I do not believe however that this makes me any less of a catholic and I think dudess your statment is highly insulting:

Dudess wrote:

all or some of the above, well then you're not actually a true catholic are you?

I believe the fact that I have given these subjects deep consideration and decided on beliefs that I think are right and in keeping with God's message makes me MORE of a catholic. I do agree with the churches thinking on most things however and like CathyMoran said I think considering how much I agree with them I should try and effect the other changes in mentality from within the church. I don't see myself as a hypocrit or a non-catholic because I disagree with some of the churches teachings - if you disagreed with Bertie would you no longer be Irish?

On the topic of miracles - I believe that God's best miracles are worked through science so I have no problem with the parting of the red sea or any other biblical miracle being explained through science ... God created the laws of physics. I remember reading an interesting piece recently that gave a scientific basis for the "mana from heaven" miracle. Some people may consider it heresy, I consider it common sense. I also believe in evolution but I don't think that in any way contradicts my catholcism.

Dudess

Clearly you're a christian - and that's a good thing. Christ's teachings - e.g. love, compassion, forgiveness, understanding, tolerance - we should all put those into practice. But the point I'm making is that, in order to be a practising christian, you don't have to be a catholic - just because this is Ireland and it's the convenient thing to do. There are other christian services besides the catholic mass.
And yes, it is hypocritical to go to mass and then do stuff that the catholic church prohibits. Very hypocritical.

tampopo

I read page one, then skipped here to say : No, and I eat me meat on a Friday. wa ha ha

I loved that episode on Fr. Ted where the bishops visit, one has a conversation with Dougal "no evidence, blind faith" etc etc and in the end the bishop leaves the priesthood and becomes a hippy .!!!!

Drift

Dudess wrote:

And yes, it is hypocritical to go to mass and then do stuff that the catholic church prohibits. Very hypocritical.

Firstly everyone who goes to mass sins ... there's none of us perfect but I recognise thats not your point. You're saying that if a person doesn't consider something the church says is a sin as a sin then its hypocritical for them to attend mass.

For example, do you think its hypocritical for me to go to mass when I think that the priest who's saying it should be allowed get married? I personally don't think so. I know quite a few priests who think the church's rules should be changed to allow married priests. I know at least one who thinks contraception should be allowed. None of them have a problem with being part of the catholic church ... and I certainly don't believe they're hypocrits .... you do and you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree with it.

JC 2K3

Why not join a branch protestantism that agrees with your views?

rusalka

Dudess wrote:

And yes, it is hypocritical to go to mass and then do stuff that the catholic church prohibits. Very hypocritical.

Why? In what way are they hypocritical?

Do you actually truly believe that all mass-goers who "do stuff that the catholic church prohibits" are hypocritical - i.e. that they are attending mass just to assume a facade of virtue in front of others?

Do you not think that maybe some of them, despite their failings in the eyes of the church, actually like the mass or simply want to feel closer to their church despite their difficulties in adhering to the rules? Should they stop practising their religion as best they can, simply because they occasionally show the imperfection of humanity and fall every once in a while, just because some people perceive it as hypocrisy? Those poor souls could be in there humbly begging forgiveness from their God for past wrongs, for all we know, and I certainly wouldn't like to judge them or speculate regarding their motives for being there.

I'm sure there probably are hypocrites out there, as there are in all walks of life, but I think that to label everyone who has ever "sinned", yet continues to attend church as a hypocrite is a bit unfair - no-one ever knows what circumstances may have been present in someone's life, nor what troubles lie in another's heart.

Dudess

The point I'm making is: if they want to be practising christians, fine. But choosing catholicism when there are other forms of christianity is just laziness - it's the easy option here in Ireland. And just because people are imperfect, doesn't make it any less hypocritical - when there are other options besides the catholic mass.

seamus

Look people blame religion saying it's the root of all evil. Come on that is just wrong, with religion mixed with people thinking for themselves it should and would lead to a better world.

Traditionally, organised religion and "thinking for oneself" are mutually exclusive. If a person was thinking for themself, they wouldn't need to be part of an organised religion to look for direction. The religion which comes closest to being organised but also "free-thinking" is Buddhism. But even within this you have various sects with various different beliefs who would disagree with eachother over what constitutes a buddhist.

The main problem with organised religion is corruption. Every single person who reaches a position of "authority" in religion is still a human being, regardless of what the religion believes. Thus, they are susceptible to corruption and failure. So long as people follow other people, they are going to get it wrong, because humans make mistakes or deliberately mislead to get their own way. If you follow no-one, then only you can make the mistake and you can't abuse or be abused.

but there should be laws which prohibit people from saying comments like ''this guy jesus supposably', 'allah is a dick' and stuff along those lines.

Why? If someone has the right to assert that Jesus walked on water, or that Allah exists, then someone else must logically have the right to disagree. Otherwise all you have is people saying things which may or may not be true, and other people being banned from questioning that. Which is what religion itself does.

Back on topic, I can't say I've seen a trend like this at all, but most of my friends would be people who abandoned the Catholic church in their mid-teens and never looked back.

We still suffer from a certain amount of Catholic guilt in this country. Many people will go to mass at Christmas and Easter and still call themselves, "Catholic" purely because they have some superstitious fear that their deceased grandparents will haunt them if they don't. Shoot me for saying this, but I would suspect that more women than men are in this group of guilty deniers.

Many women also get married in a Catholic church because they have this ideal of their wedding in their head, or one/both of the parental sets has a superstitious need to see the wedding in a church. Often people will have a catholic wedding to satisfy someone's needs, not because they believe that it's the right thing to do.

The strongest argument I've seen for having children baptised Catholic is purely to fit in. Children are fairly rough on other kids, any and all differences are picked up on. I don't have kids for the moment, but I wouldn't have any problem in principle with my kids being baptised. They'd receive no catholic reinforcement from myself, though I would definitely answer their philosophical questions in an honest way instead of with some catholic doctrine. As far as I'm concerned, baptism isn't branding or a lifetime commitment. It's some guy in robes pouring water over someone's head.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Dudess wrote:

Why this hypocrisy? Sure, reconnect with your spiritual side - that's great. Embrace the teachings of christianity - even better. But opting for the catholic faith and attending catholic mass - isn't this just laziness? What about attending ecumenical services, unitarian services. Aren't there non-denominational christian services that focus on Christ's teachings rather than being petty sects?
I find it pretty repugnant that people who use contraception, have sex before marriage and have gay friends (surely they should be even more supportive of their gay friends by not having anything to do with an organisation that condemns homosexuality as evil) are re-embracing religion by opting for catholicism. Rules are rules..

would you prefer to live in ireland now, or in the 1960's when the catholic church ruled the country with an iron fist?

Dudess

Oh I'd LOVE to live in Ireland in the '60s :rolleyes:
What's that got to do with the original point I raised?

Crucifix

The threads rolled on a lot by the look of things, but I agree with the sentiment of the OP.
I often wonder how many people who would profess to be catholic believe in transubstantiation.
It's not that I think everybody should start following the catholic rules even though they don't believe them, or that people should nessicerly abandon religion altogether; I just think people should think about their beliefs and find a religion that suits them, or just worship by themselves without subscribing to a particular religion.

Drift

JC 2K3 wrote:

Why not join a branch protestantism that agrees with your views?

As far as I'm aware there's more things I disagree with in most branches of protestantism than there is in catholicism although it'd be wrong of me to pretend I know the ins and outs of any other religion - nor do I claim to be a world expert on my own religion.

I'm happy to be a catholic and I do my best to adhere to its rules as much as I can and I repent when I'm wrong. I recognise some people have problems with the catholic church for good reason but it seems that a lot of the naysayers are just interested in rebelling against authority and have decided on the catholic church as their particular target.

I'll add to crucifix's point - I know some people who claim to be catholic who don't even know what transubstantiation means. It may be mistaken of them to profess to believe in all the church teaches when they don't understand all it teaches, but I wouldn't ridicule them, call them hypocrits or suggest they're not catholics because of this.

L31mr0d

It really irks me when people profess to be Catholic and yet pick and choose what rules they follow. If you believe in Christ, then call yourself a christian, but don't profess to be a Catholic if you don't agree with ALL of its beliefs.

I liken it to the great game of soccer. If some footballer walked onto the pitch and just started picking up the ball and running around with it under his arm under his reasoning that he likes to play soccer but he doesn't agree with the handball rule he'd be laughed at and escorted off the pitch. Yet people feel they can call themselves a Catholic even though they know themselves they don't agree with all of the beliefs, aren't fully aware of most of them, and the ones they do believe they don't fully practice anyway.

ergo, religions are made up of rules, just like sports and most aspects of society, if you premeditatively choose to not follow any of them then you are no longer a practicing member of that religion. Rules are there to weed out those that can obey them and those that can't, just like if you break the rules of society you will be removed from it and sent to jail, just like in soccer if you break the rules you will be sent off, and the same applies to religion, catholicism is lenient enough that sins can be forgiven, but if you premeditively choose to not believe them then whatever benefits you expect to receive from that religion you will not. Simple as.

Sangre

Mordeth wrote:

mmm, I'm a practising atheist but I still sometimes believe in god, and angels.

practising atheist?

'Day 41....still don't believe in god'.

Spyral

The catholic church has not been the same since the beginning.
Divorce used to be allowed and priests were allowed to marry.
Also, it's "Luther" and not "Luthor". Although, I'm beginning to see something here.
Superman is supposedly Jewish. Martin Luther was German. Hmm.

lol aye

but non marrying priests is not doctrine, theoretically it could be changed.

Am I right in saying that the catholic church won't condone the use of condoms for the prevention of the spreading of HIV in developing countries?

How can you justify that?

er because its obvious that if people obeyed church teaching and were faithful then there wouldnt be HIV at all.
Additonally condoms only promote sexual behaviour and it only takes one cock up considering that condoms are only 85% effective in prolonged practise.

Further to my post regarding inconsistencies in catholicism throughout history, there is the question of Limbo (not the dancers).

again I challence you to find that in the doctrine.
the offical doctrine has always been that we do not know but trust them to gods mercy and limbo was a hypothesis which may accomodate that.

So you want to force your religious views on others? Lucky for us you're not in charge.

no i think he just wants respect.
If I go your mother is a whore its not very nice. ditto if you love allah and I call him an ass then you're gonna get annoyed. so its just a respect thing. Ditto for respecting those who dont want to beleive. no beliefs should be forced on anyone

Why not join a branch protestantism that agrees with your views?

because they are not true churches, lack apostilic succesion and are intrisically incomplete..

The point I'm making is: if they want to be practising christians, fine. But choosing catholicism when there are other forms of christianity is just laziness - it's the easy option here in Ireland. And just because people are imperfect, doesn't make it any less hypocritical - when there are other options besides the catholic mass.

ok.. so no contraception no sex outside marrage no "do whatever the f*ck I want God loves me" is easy.. I think you need a head examination

The main problem with organised religion is corruption. Every single person who reaches a position of "authority" in religion is still a human being, regardless of what the religion believes. Thus, they are susceptible to corruption and failure. So long as people follow other people, they are going to get it wrong, because humans make mistakes or deliberately mislead to get their own way. If you follow no-one, then only you can make the mistake and you can't abuse or be abused.

despite corruption, pervert popes and what ever other horrors the church has not contradicted itself on its doctrines yet.. hows that for "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her" ?

The strongest argument I've seen for having children baptised Catholic is purely to fit in. Children are fairly rough on other kids, any and all differences are picked up on. I don't have kids for the moment, but I wouldn't have any problem in principle with my kids being baptised. They'd receive no catholic reinforcement from myself, though I would definitely answer their philosophical questions in an honest way instead of with some catholic doctrine. As far as I'm concerned, baptism isn't branding or a lifetime commitment. It's some guy in robes pouring water over someone's head.

then you shouldnt get it done as you are being hypocritical. If I were a priests I would be hesitant to baptise those that dont attend church as there is no point in isulting God by lying through your teeth saying that you will raise your child a catholic when you know in your heart and soul that you wont. It cheapens it for those who take it seriously.

Terry

Spyral wrote:

er because its obvious that if people obeyed church teaching and were faithful then there wouldnt be HIV at all.
Additonally condoms only promote sexual behaviour and it only takes one cock up considering that condoms are only 85% effective in prolonged practise.

Ok, you've opened a can of worms with that one.

All I will say is keep it civil.
Love thy neighbour and all that.

Fad

Ok well ive read revelations (well the majority of the new testament) and no matter what a nice piece of work read it is, you cant honestly think of that as the truth its absolutely ridiculous, im only going into 5th year in a catholic school myself but ive found that its so much easier to go along with things and not be in any way preachy about my beliefs (or lack there of) but certainly where my parents are concerned (well my mum anyway) its alot easier to go to mass (well it takes alot to make me go, but if she really wants me to i will until i turn eighteen next august, then she get f***ked as far as im concerned) but the whole hating the idea of relegion is ridiculous

JC 2K3

Spyral wrote:

er because its obvious that if people obeyed church teaching and were faithful then there wouldnt be HIV at all.

What if someone gets HIV through another means besides sex(gets someone's blood on them or something), has sex with their partner without a condom and infects them too?

Spyral wrote:

Additonally condoms only promote sexual behaviour and it only takes one cock up considering that condoms are only 85% effective in prolonged practise.

They facilitate sexual behavior, not promote it.

And condoms are something like 98% effective WHEN USED CORRECTLY. Just because ~15% don't use them correctly doesn't mean they're only 85% effective.

Spyral wrote:

lthen you shouldnt get it done as you are being hypocritical. If I were a priests I would be hesitant to baptise those that dont attend church as there is no point in isulting God by lying through your teeth saying that you will raise your child a catholic when you know in your heart and soul that you wont. It cheapens it for those who take it seriously.

You can't really make a promise to or insult something you don't believe in.

And if Catholics don't want it cheapened for them, then they should lobby the government for a more secular society(in particular, the school system), so that non-believers don't feel the need to have their children baptised.

JCB

My two cents:

There has been a lot of comments about moral issues (contraception, abortion etc...) defining one's religion
i.e. if you agree with homosexuality etc... then you are definately NOT a Catholic or else you are a hypocrite and should choose another faith.

Moral issues should not be the defining feature.

There are stages in one's beliefs about God, this is a simplistic example, but gets the point across. It is ranked in order of importance to being a Catholic. i.e. you cannot be Catholic if you disagree with point 2 but agree with 5 etc..

1) You believe in a 'God'
- This defines whether you are an Atheist or a Theist

2) You believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He was crucified, died and was buried but rose on the Third day.
- This defines whether you are a Christian or of another faith

3) You believe that Jesus is present in the bread and wine you receive at Communion because of the power passed onto the priest through generations, uniting you with His sacrifice 2000 years ago.
- This defines whether you are Catholic/Orthodox or another christian denomination.

4) You believe that the Pope is in direct succession from St. Peter, the first Pope, and is God's representative on earth.
- This primarily defines whether you are Catholic or Orthodox (plus a few other things)

5) You agree with the church's teachings on some or all of the following: Abortion, IVF, Certain contraceptive methods (Note: not all), homosexuality, Divorce, Euthanasia, Married Priests etc...
- This defines your outlook on life in this world, perhaps labelling you as conservative or liberal. These fit into religions' social remit, with each faith outlining its view on the above based on its interpretation of their repsective sacred texts.

There are also other issues, such as confession, whether you have a soul, an afterlife and so on, which also contribute to defining your faith.

However, I feel from a Catholic perspective, you must agree with Point 3 (not exactly my wording of it, but the concept itself) otherwise you cannot call yourself Catholic, no matter how conservative you are.

It is a pity that some feel that just becuase you agree with condoms etc... you cannot be a true Catholic. The church outlines its reasons for its stance on the above issues - has anyone bothered to look up why it has those views p.s. it's not just because "they" don't want you to have fun!

There are 'liberal' Catholic theologians out there, now I might not be one of them, but I do not consider myself a better Catholic than them. This life should not be the -be all and end all- to Catholics, hence, while they are important, moral issues do not define faith.

Just a quick question, if the church said that condoms, divorce and homosexuality were actually grand, would you come flocking back to mass in the morning?

seamus

Spyral wrote:

despite corruption, pervert popes and what ever other horrors the church has not contradicted itself on its doctrines yet.. hows that for "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her" ?

The Roman Catholic Church has not contradicted itself? You're living on another planet. How about, "Limbo exists", "No, wait, limbo doesn't exist", "No, actually it does"?

then you shouldnt get it done as you are being hypocritical.

I fail to see how. I'm laying my position fully on the line.

It cheapens it for those who take it seriously.

I agree. But I couldn't care less.

nlgbbbblth

Spyral wrote:

If you get married in a Catholic Church (ie one of the 2 is a Catholic) then you must promise to raise the children as Catholic and get a dispensation before marriage

Ours is a mixed marriage and I was obliged (acceding to my parents' wishes) to seek a dispensation from the Catholic church to permit me marry in 'another' church (in the case, Church of Ireland).
Otherwise they would not recognise the marriage even though it would have been perfectly legal.

A letter to the Archbishop of Dublin, Desmond Connell had to be written. In addition I had to have four separate meetings with a local priest in Rat-mines (whom I had never met hitherto as I don't go to mass) along with completing a detailed questionnaire in which I had to pledge that 'I would do my utmost to bring any children up as Catholic'.

End result: My son was christened in the Church of Ireland.

Black Swan

OP: The title of your post I found amusing. To be "Catholic," don't you have to be "practicing?"

Red Alert

Yes I'm a diy practising catholic, I go to mass every sunday and on holy days of obligation. Do I believe that most of what jesus advises people to do in the bible is good - yeah. I don't overly care whether people attend communal worship of any sort, whether they pray in private or don't have any religion at all. Whatever floats people's boat I guess.

Do I agree with the catholic church on everything? No. Is the institutional catholic church hierarchy right in its position on our gay brothers and sisters? No, it's not. In fact a priest I know well said off the altar one time that 'one of the most wonderful things god does is when a gay person feels safe to express their sexuality like the rest of us'.

roberta c

Ok the catholic church=the pope and his chums down there in rome. not your priest, if he was reported for saying that he would be fired!
that is not catholisisim.

Sinning is not the same as not believing.
If you believe that conraception&divorce should be allowed, your believe the pope is WRONG. If you steal because you are greedy, and maybe could recognise the fact it was wrong then your sinning.

Sam Vimes

roberta c wrote:

Ok the catholic church=the pope and his chums down there in rome. not your priest, if he was reported for saying that he would be fired!
that is not catholisisim.

Sinning is not the same as not believing.
If you believe that conraception&divorce should be allowed, your believe the pope is WRONG. If you steal because you are greedy, and maybe could recognise the fact it was wrong then your sinning.

exactly roberta. someone who believes contraception is wrong but uses it in a moment of weakness is a sinning catholic. someone who uses contraception all the time and doesn't disagree with it in principle is not a catholic, he or she is what's known as a cafeteria catholic

mikemac

Only skimmed through this thread but it made me remember something the school chaplain (went to a CBS) said years ago.

If you've no interest in religion and don't want to go to Mass that's your choice so don't go.
But don't skip mass for 5-10 years and then expect the local priest to perform a church wedding for you.
Because that's hypocrisy and of all the traits we Irish have, it's one we are very good at.

And I've no doubt that posters here haven't seen the inside of the church in years and still got married in a Church because that's what their family wanted and they didn't feel strongly enough to refuse.

And what's worst of all are people who bitch about the Catholic Church and then become godparents at a Christening:eek:
More to being a godparent than buying presents and giving cash on special occasions!

I stopped going to Mass at 14. Of course my mother went mad but she was more concerned about what the neighbours were thinking. I often went into the local shop to buy a newspaper after mass and you'd hear people bitching that the new curate took 45minutes for Mass but the local priest did it in 25 minutes so let's hope he moves to another parish, ha ha!
I never did get the guts to ask people if you don't want to go to Mass, then don't go.

So my badly mad point is this: If you go to Mass, go because you have faith and not for the wrong reasons.

NotMe

jester77 wrote:

Although I'm a Catholic (I suppose that's because of my parents faith) I could never understand the concept, it's more far fetched than Santa Claus.

Yeah it is pretty farfetched alright... http://www.psychohistorian.org/img/atheism/xianity.jpg

Spyral

micmclo wrote:

Only skimmed through this thread but it made me remember something the school chaplain (went to a CBS) said years ago.

If you've no interest in religion and don't want to go to Mass that's your choice so don't go.
But don't skip mass for 5-10 years and then expect the local priest to perform a church wedding for you.
Because that's hypocrisy and of all the traits we Irish have, it's one we are very good at.

And I've no doubt that posters here haven't seen the inside of the church in years and still got married in a Church because that's what their family wanted and they didn't feel strongly enough to refuse.

And what's worst of all are people who bitch about the Catholic Church and then become godparents at a Christening:eek:
More to being a godparent than buying presents and giving cash on special occasions!

I stopped going to Mass at 14. Of course my mother went mad but she was more concerned about what the neighbours were thinking. I often went into the local shop to buy a newspaper after mass and you'd hear people bitching that the new curate took 45minutes for Mass but the local priest did it in 25 minutes so let's hope he moves to another parish, ha ha!
I never did get the guts to ask people if you don't want to go to Mass, then don't go.

So my badly mad point is this: If you go to Mass, go because you have faith and not for the wrong reasons.

Amen

Ok well ive read revelations (well the majority of the new testament) and no matter what a nice piece of work read it is, you cant honestly think of that as the truth its absolutely ridiculous, im only going into 5th year in a catholic school myself but ive found that its so much easier to go along with things and not be in any way preachy about my beliefs (or lack there of) but certainly where my parents are concerned (well my mum anyway) its alot easier to go to mass (well it takes alot to make me go, but if she really wants me to i will until i turn eighteen next august, then she get f***ked as far as im concerned) but the whole hating the idea of relegion is ridiculous

er you dont have to go at all the UN charter of human rights states that no religion can be forced on a child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyral
Additonally condoms only promote sexual behaviour and it only takes one cock up considering that condoms are only 85% effective in prolonged practise.
They facilitate sexual behavior, not promote it.

And condoms are something like 98% effective WHEN USED CORRECTLY. Just because ~15% don't use them correctly doesn't mean they're only 85% effective.

I said IN PRACTISE sure the actual device might be 98% phyiscally effective but they must be used ALL the time (which doesnt happen) and then in practise 15% failure rate..

Additonally people are more likely to have sex if they think they are 'safe'-- use your head and common sense..

additonally check the Pillipines.. 4% condom use but lower stds due to absitnance/chastity programmes. { UNAIDS “Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic,” (2006) }

You can't really make a promise to or insult something you don't believe in.

And if Catholics don't want it cheapened for them, then they should lobby the government for a more secular society(in particular, the school system), so that non-believers don't feel the need to have their children baptised.

no but then why bother at all?

i.e. if you agree with homosexuality etc... then you are definately NOT a Catholic or else you are a hypocrite and should choose another faith.

define "agreeing with homosexuality" - I have a homosexual friend. I don't judge him, I don't approve of his behavior or condone it or say "alright mike boyo rodger any nice lads last night!!?" But I don't treat him as less that human or different. I dont say "you're going to hell" as I am not God and am in no position to judge after all we're all sinners.

5) You agree with the church's teachings on some or all of the following: Abortion, IVF, Certain contraceptive methods (Note: not all), homosexuality, Divorce, Euthanasia, Married Priests etc...

actually married priests is not a doctrine, we are free to think that it would be a good idea if priests are married as it is only a tradtition not a doctrine or part of faith.
and there are some married priests in eastern orthodox and converted anglicans.

Just a quick question, if the church said that condoms, divorce and homosexuality were actually grand, would you come flocking back to mass in the morning?

but they wont and cannot as to the best of my limited knowledge these things are in doctrine which **never** changes..

despite corruption, pervert popes and what ever other horrors the church has not contradicted itself on its doctrines yet.. hows that for "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her" ?
The Roman Catholic Church has not contradicted itself? You're living on another planet. How about, "Limbo exists", "No, wait, limbo doesn't exist", "No, actually it does"?

I said "the church has not contradicted itself on its doctrines yet" Limbo was not a doctrine. It was a postulation as to what happens to the souls of the holy innocents.

Ours is a mixed marriage and I was obliged (acceding to my parents' wishes) to seek a dispensation from the Catholic church to permit me marry in 'another' church (in the case, Church of Ireland).
Otherwise they would not recognise the marriage even though it would have been perfectly legal.

the law of the land has nothing to do with the law of the Church which has existed longer.

A letter to the Archbishop of Dublin, Desmond Connell had to be written. In addition I had to have four separate meetings with a local priest in Rat-mines (whom I had never met hitherto as I don't go to mass) along with completing a detailed questionnaire in which I had to pledge that 'I would do my utmost to bring any children up as Catholic'.

End result: My son was christened in the Church of Ireland.

then by your own admission you are a liar and I dont know why you even bothered to agree to it if you weren't going to.
That said the priest should have copped on and siad that if you dont go to mass how will you raise your kids as Catholic ?

Sam Vimes

Spyral wrote:

Amen

I said IN PRACTISE sure the actual device might be 98% phyiscally effective but they must be used ALL the time (which doesnt happen) and then in practise 15% failure rate..

if you use something wrongly and it doesn't work because you used it wrongly that doesn't mean it has a high failure rate. that's like saying everybody should avoid driving because stupid people drink drive and crash.

of course its ridiculous to suggest that sober people shouldn't drive because other people are drink driving. equally its ridiculous to say that people shouldn't use condoms because other retards don't know how to use them. i've had a girlfriend for three years and so far we have a 100% success rate.

Spyral wrote:

then by your own admission you are a liar and I dont know why you even bothered to agree to it if you weren't going to.
That said the priest should have copped on and siad that if you dont go to mass how will you raise your kids as Catholic ?

if you read what he wrote you'll see he only did it to please his parents and doesn't give a monkeys about the priest

Dudess

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

OP: The title of your post I found amusing. To be "Catholic," don't you have to be "practicing?"

Well yeah, but I'm catholic because I was baptised as one. However I don't practise.

Spyral wrote:

ok.. so no contraception no sex outside marrage no "do whatever the f*ck I want God loves me" is easy.. I think you need a head examination

Tough sh*t if you don't find it easy! The catholic church forbids it. If you're not willing to follow the rules, leave the catholic church.

You appear to be as selective as any other a la carte catholic.

Dave!

JCB wrote:

3) You believe that Jesus is present in the bread and wine you receive at Communion because of the power passed onto the priest through generations, uniting you with His sacrifice 2000 years ago.
- This defines whether you are Catholic/Orthodox or another christian denomination.

However, I feel from a Catholic perspective, you must agree with Point 3 (not exactly my wording of it, but the concept itself) otherwise you cannot call yourself Catholic, no matter how conservative you are.

Interesting post in general, and I'm willing to provisionally go along with the part I quoted. The Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine is LITERALLY -- not metaphorically or figuratively -- changed into flesh and blood, right?

Of you 'practising catholics' out there -- how many of you believe that that ACTUALLY happens? Wafers and vino are changed into human flesh and human blood?

Fad

actually your parents can easily force religion on you, also my grannies will NEVER talk to me again if i openly admitted my beliefs to them but however, ive learned to be subtle around them about it

Dudess

nlgbbbblth wrote:

A letter to the Archbishop of Dublin, Desmond Connell had to be written. In addition I had to have four separate meetings with a local priest in Rat-mines (whom I had never met hitherto as I don't go to mass) along with completing a detailed questionnaire in which I had to pledge that 'I would do my utmost to bring any children up as Catholic'.

End result: My son was christened in the Church of Ireland.

Any regrets?

Crucifix

JCB wrote:

There has been a lot of comments about moral issues (contraception, abortion etc...) defining one's religion
i.e. if you agree with homosexuality etc... then you are definately NOT a Catholic or else you are a hypocrite and should choose another faith.

Moral issues should not be the defining feature...

...4) You believe that the Pope is in direct succession from St. Peter, the first Pope, and is God's representative on earth.
- This primarily defines whether you are Catholic or Orthodox (plus a few other things)

Surely part of accepting the Pope as God's representative on earth is Papal infallibility? And in that case, I think the moral issues do become defining.

Spyral

Tough sh*t if you don't find it easy! The catholic church forbids it. If you're not willing to follow the rules, leave the catholic church.

You appear to be as selective as any other a la carte catholic.

I was just pointing out that its not easy as he seems to imply that blindly obeying like a zombie is easy. Yes it is, but I don't blindly obey.Neither do many 'modern' Catholics. And brother do not tell me I have a splinter in my eye when there is a plank in your own. Become the Pope and then maybe you can tell me what to do.
I follow church teachings and doctrines as best I can. Im not perfect I never will be but I make the effort to understand.

if you read what he wrote you'll see he only did it to please his parents and doesn't give a monkeys about the priest

he still lied. its not a matter of opinion or a judgement just a fact by his own admission. Regardless of giving a monkeys he vowed before God to do something while knowing he wouldn't which is the point I was making that if he doesnt beleive in God then why bother with what to him would be empty rituals ?

Of you 'practising catholics' out there -- how many of you believe that that ACTUALLY happens? Wafers and vino are changed into human flesh and human blood?

I do.

Dave!

Spyral wrote:

I do.

Really?

Sam Vimes

Spyral wrote:

he still lied. its not a matter of opinion or a judgement just a fact by his own admission. Regardless of giving a monkeys he vowed before God to do something while knowing he wouldn't which is the point I was making

Its very obvious that he lied. He said so right there in his post. It wasn't necessary to point it out.
I take it to be a judgement

Spyral wrote:

that if he doesnt beleive in God then why bother with what to him would be empty rituals ?

....emmm, to please his parents....?
I thought we'd mentioned that

nlgbbbblth

Spyral.

You seem to be missing the point here.

My reason for getting the dispensation was to placate parents, particularly my mother whose brother is a priest and she requested that he play a minor part in the church service. He would not have done so if there was no dispensation.

'Do my utmost....' is not the same as saying 'I will definitely....'

Have you seen A Love Divided?

Dudess
No regrets. Most people I discussed this with said I shouldn't have bothered getting a dispensation but I had my reasons and didn't not wish to upset my parents.

I found the attitude of the Catholic church in this matter somewhat overbearing.

As my wife attends church occasionally and I do not, it makes sense for her to raise our son in her faith.
When he is old enough he can make his own decisions.

JC 2K3

JCB wrote:

Just a quick question, if the church said that condoms, divorce and homosexuality were actually grand, would you come flocking back to mass in the morning?

No, in that case us atheists just wouldn't have a problem with the Catholic church besides the fact we'd find it baffling how one could believe in somehting with no evidence.

As it stands, you're believing in something with no evidence that, in the views of myself and many others, stands for ridiculous, deluded and insane practices, even if they generally aren't taught strongly these days.

Spyral wrote:

I said IN PRACTISE sure the actual device might be 98% phyiscally effective but they must be used ALL the time (which doesnt happen) and then in practise 15% failure rate..

Yes, but anyone who is responsible and not careless needent worry.

I reckon a lot less than 85% of sexualy active people are actually careful enough(see PI for details), which means condoms actually seem rather effective tbh.

Spyral

JC 2K3 wrote:

I reckon a lot less than 85% of sexualy active people are actually careful enough(see PI for details), which means condoms actually seem rather effective tbh.

I think you mean 'a lot more' Im just using the stats I have. It doesn't bother me people can do their own thing.

Spyral.
You seem to be missing the point here.

My reason for getting the dispensation was to placate parents, particularly my mother whose brother is a priest and she requested that he play a minor part in the church service. He would not have done so if there was no dispensation.

'Do my utmost....' is not the same as saying 'I will definitely....'

I understand the need to placate parents but doing lying about some thing because its the easiest way out isn't the way forward ya know?