Vatican "clampdown" on liberal opinion

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

By an large, it has been seen that the Emperor has no cloths on. Which is a next to impossible genie to stuff back into the bottle. People have spiritual needs however, so some will turn to the Roman church and will struggle in the ways they always struggled with imposed authority that clashes with own heart.

A case of reining in the damage whilst there is something to save methinks. There will be no returning to the power of old that I can foresee. Those "heady heights" are gone forever.

PDN

A church expects its clergy to teach the official church doctrines? Tbh I'm surprised such a clampdown hasn't happened sooner.

I've tried to imagine how many secular organisation would be happy if their paid representatives continually criticised company policies. For example, if a Tescos manager kept saying, "Actually I think some of our products are crap - Supervalu do it much better" how long do you think Tesco would keep paying his wages?

I doubt if these reforms will affect Irish churchgoers at all. But it might stem the tide of Catholic immigrants into Ireland who then defect to other churches, disappointed by the vagueness of Irish Catholicism compared to its more conservative approach where it is growing in the developing world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

homer911

It would seem that the Church is more interested in "bums on seats" than "hearts and minds" - a bit like John the Baptist and the wheat and the chaff...

prinz

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The two options above are not mutually exclusive, it could be argued that they are in inextricably linked.

Onesimus

I'm glad to see this happening, and I'm over the moon, You cannot Question infallible 2000 year old doctrines of the Church, if you come into the Catholic Church you accept these doctrines end of story.

If you question them, then you must contemplate and re-consider what it means to be Catholic.

vodafoneproblem

If he thinks it's needed, then fair play to him for not being afraid to do something about it. Better than letting things drift irretrievably away from what the Catholic Church actually believes. Interesting thread and articles linked related to this on the previous page here.

MrPudding

homer911 wrote: »

It would seem that the Church is more interested in "bums on seats" than "hearts and minds" - a bit like John the Baptist and the wheat and the chaff...

I don’t think that is the case, certainly in light of this latest news. If they were interested in bums on seats they would be trying to push a more liberal agenda, not this hardening of the agenda.

To me this looks more like an attempt to root out the non “proper” catholic and concentrate on those that actually believe what the church is teaching. They are trying to concentrate on their “core” business, as it were, and this is probably a sensible thing to do.

I would expect they will lose a large number of “bums on seats” over this, but it is likely an issue of quality over quantity.

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I don’t think that is the case, certainly in light of this latest news. If they were interested in bums on seats they would be trying to push a more liberal agenda, not this hardening of the agenda.

To me this looks more like an attempt to root out the non “proper” catholic and concentrate on those that actually believe what the church is teaching. They are trying to concentrate on their “core” business, as it were, and this is probably a sensible thing to do.

I would expect they will lose a large number of “bums on seats” over this, but it is likely an issue of quality over quantity.

Actually, sociologists of religion have continually demonstrated that organisations which are more rigid in their beliefs and practices are much more likely to grow than those that are vague in their beliefs and practices.

If you want to see a prime example of this then you need look no further than the Church of England, a denomination which is experiencing numerical decline at a quite alarming rate - with the exception of the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings which are growing.

This idea that laxity of belief and practice will somehow encourage people to attend churches is often propagated (usually by people who are non-churchgoers and wouldn't dream of becoming so under any circumstances) but is a quite mistaken notion. Which is why you'll never find a Unitarian Universalist Church worrying about having to find a bigger building.

Michael G

homer911 wrote: »

It would seem that the Church is more interested in "bums on seats" than "hearts and minds".

Quite the opposite, as other posters have said already. The present Pope said some time ago that it was more important for the Church to have a smaller core of firm believers than for there to be large numbers of nominal Catholics. His thinking is that a smaller Church made up of active believers will have more of an effect on the rest of the world, including those who like to call themselves Catholics but disregard anything that is inconvenient. I think this is very good news.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

Actually, sociologists of religion have continually demonstrated that organisations which are more rigid in their beliefs and practices are much more likely to grow than those that are vague in their beliefs and practices.

That is interesting, and somewhat counter-intuitive to me. I would have thought that the “hardcore” believers would be more of a minority and the more liberal majority would have been turned off by the hardening of stance.

PDN wrote: »

If you want to see a prime example of this then you need look no further than the Church of England, a denomination which is experiencing numerical decline at a quite alarming rate - with the exception of the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings which are growing.

Good point. I wonder what the mechanism is at play here? Is it that the liberal believers are only liberal because it is an option and if that option is taken away they “knuckle down.”

PDN wrote: »

This idea that laxity of belief and practice will somehow encourage people to attend churches is often propagated (usually by people who are non-churchgoers and wouldn't dream of becoming so under any circumstances) but is a quite mistaken notion

I suppose this is correct to a certain extent. I used to be a church goer and I know that this hardening would have put me off, but then I suppose that I don’t make a good example.

I would be very interesting to understand why a hardening of stance results in an increase in attendance. Do you know? Have there been any studies?

Michael G wrote: »

Quite the opposite, as other posters have said already. The present Pope said some time ago that it was more important for the Church to have a smaller core of firm believers than for there to be large numbers of nominal Catholics. His thinking is that a smaller Church made up of active believers will have more of an effect on the rest of the world, including those who like to call themselves Catholics but disregard anything that is inconvenient. I think this is very good news.

If one was being cynical, this smaller and more devout core of believers would also be less likely to criticise the church.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

If one was being cynical, this smaller and more devout core of believers would also be less likely to criticise the church.
MrP

Depends what you mean by criticism. Do you mean critical of the Church's approach to say child abuse cover-up? I don't think that's true at all. IMO they'd be more likely to actually practice what they preach if it involves a smaller core community.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm glad to see this happening, and I'm over the moon, You cannot Question infallible 2000 year old doctrines of the Church, if you come into the Catholic Church you accept these doctrines end of story.

You certainly shouldn't be able to question infallible 2000 year old doctrines. But there can be no problem questioning whether the doctrines are;

a) infallible

b) 2000 years old

StealthRolex

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm glad to see this happening, and I'm over the moon, You cannot Question infallible 2000 year old doctrines of the Church, if you come into the Catholic Church you accept these doctrines end of story.

If you question them, then you must contemplate and re-consider what it means to be Catholic.

Agreed.

The first call of God is to obedience - Adam and Eve fell because of disobedience

The Catholic Church in Ireland is falling because of disobedience to Christs Vicar.

I've often wondered if there was a difference between a Roman Catholic and an Irish Catholic and by golly there is, and then some. The Irish clergy have brought this upon themselves. and I bet they never expected the Inquisition

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

The Catholic Church in Ireland is falling because of disobedience to Christs Vicar.

Objectively, I would have laid the problem more at the doors of

1) Advancing secularism. I find it hard to believe that any rein-pulling in Rome could alter the shape society is taking.

2) Child abuse - which isn't the kind of doctrinal disobedience I take it you're referring to

lmaopml

The article in the op is really wide open to speculation as to it's full goals and to how they are to be implemented and achieved.... Firstly because of it's ehh source, and secondly because it's so vague and wishy washy..'sources claim'...etc.

It does have some parallels with the Popes letter to the people of Ireland, and his call for the year of the priest, he also mentions the rise of secularist values in the letter too...

I rather welcome the idea that we're being asked to go back to the basic tenets of practicing our faith, and re-immerse ourselves in it's guiding hand.

I wonder at how exactly they will achieve this though? I mean they can't 'force' people, only 'educate' people - which I think has been a fundamental problem....

To be honest, I don't believe a skimming down of the faithful to only the 'good and perfect' Catholics is desireable, or even that the Pope has those intentions?? Perhaps they will be asked to focus on the 'Homily' at mass etc. and maybe revise studies for priests and lay students, review the way the faith is being put across and consider how to do this more effectively...

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

That is interesting, and somewhat counter-intuitive to me. I would have thought that the “hardcore” believers would be more of a minority and the more liberal majority would have been turned off by the hardening of stance.

Good point. I wonder what the mechanism is at play here? Is it that the liberal believers are only liberal because it is an option and if that option is taken away they “knuckle down.”

I suppose this is correct to a certain extent. I used to be a church goer and I know that this hardening would have put me off, but then I suppose that I don’t make a good example.

I would be very interesting to understand why a hardening of stance results in an increase in attendance. Do you know? Have there been any studies?

One guy who has studied this extensively is Rodney Stark. Basically, groups with dogmatic shared beliefs and practices tend to be more committed to each other and less to the values of the surrounding society (more sect than church according to Max Weber's older sociological taxonomy). Therefore they are more enthusiastic in sharing their beliefs with friends and family - which is how all religious movemments grow.

Another relevant factor is the distinction between inculturation and acculturation.

Inculturation, or contextualisation is when Christians use cultural features as a 'bridge' to explain the Gospel (eg St Patrick using the Shamrock to explain the Trinity to the Irish).

Acculturation is when the missionising culture and the host culture become entwined and unltimately identified with each other (eg 'Catholic Ireland' and the moral monopoly). This is problematic since, to quote Dean Inge, "The church thats married to the spirit of the age will be a widow in the next age." The Catholic Church in Ireland was once the textbook example of acculturation - the 'true' Ireland as espoused by De Valera etc was rural, traditional, Catholic, class conscious, and supported the GAA. That is a problem when trying to attract those urban Irish today who watch the Premiership on Sky TV, are politically liberal, and who see themselves as modern and cosmopolitan. The Church of England has a similar problem with a generation that rejects the old English ideals of 'Jam and Jerusalem' and the pantomime outfits in the House of Lords.

Sorry if that was more detail than you wanted. The intersection between sociology and missiology is my particular sphere of interest.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Objectively, I would have laid the problem more at the doors of

1) Advancing secularism. I find it hard to believe that any rein-pulling in Rome could alter the shape society is taking.

2) Child abuse - which isn't the kind of doctrinal disobedience I take it you're referring to

Then you would be missing the point and misunderstanding the problem. See PDNs contribution.

As for referring to child abuse - that's just cheap in this context.

StealthRolex

lmaopml wrote: »

I wonder at how exactly they will achieve this though? I mean they can't 'force' people, only 'educate' people - which I think has been a fundamental problem....

To be honest, I don't believe a skimming down of the faithful to only the 'good and perfect' Catholics is desireable, or even that the Pope has those intentions?? Perhaps they will be asked to focus on the 'Homily' at mass etc. and maybe revise studies for priests and lay students, review the way the faith is being put across and consider how to do this more effectively...

:pac: with a big stick

I think we might have to get back to embarrassing those known to be in sin and scandalizing the community - refusing communion to married divorcees and cohabiting couples until they have regularized their situations for a start.

But first and foremost, get those lay ministers off the stage

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think we might have to get back to embarrassing those known to be in sin and scandalizing the community -

Carrots work better than sticks if your aim is to improve people's behaviour. But generally their behaviour stems from what is their hearts. The challenge is to win hearts and minds, not embarrass people.

Besides, the community has moved on without you. Such tactics will ultimately only embarrass the church as the community will be scandalised by your judgementalism rather than by a couple shacking up together.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

:pac: with a big stick

Or a big stone. The only trouble now is circumventing the problem outlined by Jesus...

I think we might have to get back to embarrassing those known to be in sin and scandalizing the community - refusing communion to married divorcees and cohabiting couples until they have regularized their situations for a start.

...namely that you yourself are known to be in sin. The only trouble is finding out which sins they are. In order for fair play to be done, I suggest the confession box be rigged with mike and loudspeakers. That way the embarrassment can be doled out utterly fairly and squarely

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Carrots work better than sticks if your aim is to improve people's behaviour. But generally their behaviour stems from what is their hearts. The challenge is to win hearts and minds, not embarrass people.

Besides, the community has moved on without you. Such tactics will ultimately only embarrass the church as the community will be scandalised by your judgementalism rather than by a couple shacking up together.

What did Jesus say about shacking up together? Divorced or otherwise?

It is not my judgment, it would be up to the priest to decide if he is willing to enforce the teachings of the Church or not in which case those known to be living in sin are excluded from communion.

Either it is acceptable or it is not. If the Church is willing to go against the Word of God what then for the Church?

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Or a big stone. The only trouble now is circumventing the problem outlined by Jesus...

which was .... go now and sin no more. They can separate, get their first marriages properly annulled or if not married then get married.
if no one is telling them what they are doing is sinful then is it really a sin? Jesus says it is. Irish priests tend to think otherwise and that is part of the problem.

antiskeptic wrote: »

...namely that you yourself are known to be in sin. The only trouble is finding out which sins they are. In order for fair play to be done, I suggest the confession box be rigged with mike and loudspeakers. That way the embarrassment can be doled out utterly fairly and squarely

if you read what I wrote you would find that I was not suggesting naming names.

The concept of sin and what constitutes a sin should be reinforced. If the priest wants to quietly have a word with those he knows to be in a particular state what is wrong with a quiet word not to take communion until they have sorted things out. If they ignore him and go to the alter he is right to refuse them.

lmaopml

StealthRolex wrote: »

which was .... go now and sin no more. They can separate, get their first marriages properly annulled or if not married then get married.
if no one is telling them what they are doing is sinful then is it really a sin? Jesus says it is. Irish priests tend to think otherwise and that is part of the problem.






if you read what I wrote you would find that I was not suggesting naming names.

The concept of sin and what constitutes a sin should be reinforced. If the priest wants to quietly have a word with those he knows to be in a particular state what is wrong with a quiet word not to take communion until they have sorted things out. If they ignore him and go to the alter he is right to refuse them.

I'm not going to suppose what the Pope has planned to rejuvenate and inform young Catholics in Ireland, all I know is that I 'am' one, and education wasn't the best in religious studies, it was 'skimpy' and vague as opposed to my mum who was very informed of what she 'must' do, but didn't understand the 'why we do this?' iykwim.

..I imagine a gentle reminder from the pulpit with 'love' as to receiving the host if one has not recieved the sacrament of reconcilliation in a while should suffice. There is no embarrassment in attending mass and not receiving if our conscience tells us we shouldn't - sure plenty do that already, but still join in at mass...they are just not fully in communion which is the 'target' we try to achieve.

I'm sure they'll think of something. I don't think it's a case of going to war with liberal ways or with the outside world, it's about being part of the outside world, but living in our 'faith'......I think it's moreso about really informing people who may not always be sure about their faith, and educating them with love...

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

which was .... go now and sin no more. They can separate, get their first marriages properly annulled or if not married then get married.

That would indeed be the "and sin no more" side of things. However, I was dealing with the stone throwing piece - the bit about shaming and embarrassing people known to be in sin. Jesus kind of said "don't do it unless you're without sin".

Wouldn't barring them from communion be a little like sticking a sign over their heads in public? Given that they and everyone else knows they are "in sin".

The concept of sin and what constitutes a sin should be reinforced. If the priest wants to quietly have a word with those he knows to be in a particular state what is wrong with a quiet word not to take communion until they have sorted things out. If they ignore him and go to the alter he is right to refuse them.

Fair enough. This sounds a little less like it's based on embarrassing people or worrying about their "scandalizing the community". The community is made up of a bunch of people who've no doubt got plenty of sin of their own to be scandalized about. Enough so that they don't have to be worrying about what others are doing.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Carrots work better than sticks if your aim is to improve people's behaviour. But generally their behaviour stems from what is their hearts. The challenge is to win hearts and minds, not embarrass people.

Besides, the community has moved on without you. Such tactics will ultimately only embarrass the church as the community will be scandalised by your judgementalism rather than by a couple shacking up together.

If I didn't know better I could read that as a response aimed at the poster and not the post.

Carrot - there is no sin
Carrot - there is no Hell
Carrot - we are all saved just by calling ourselves Christians
Carrot - you can have your cake and eat it.

Got any other carrots Catholicism hasn't already tried?

Oh, yes, contraception - personal conscience decision, wasn't that it.

Irish Catholicism is a joke and the sooner the rot is taken out the better. If that means telling it as it is and telling people what a sin is then that is want needs to be done.
How the Church ultimately decides to go about it is up to the Church but more than enough people are already scandalized by the behaviour of the priests, never mind the parishioners and encouraging divorcees and cohabitation in an effort to win hearts and minds is not working.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wouldn't barring them from communion be a little like sticking a sign over their heads in public? Given that they and everyone else knows they are "in sin".

They stick the sign over their heads themselves by their own actions.

If they go to communion they are thumbing their noses at the rest of the community as they know they shouldn't. if they don't then that's an education problem that needs to be rectified.

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

If I didn't know better I could read that as a response aimed at the poster and not the post.

It's as well that you know better then,isn't it?

Carrot - there is no sin
Carrot - there is no Hell
Carrot - we are all saved just by calling ourselves Christians
Carrot - you can have your cake and eat it.

Got any other carrots Catholicism hasn't already tried?

None of those are carrots.

Carrots would be affirming and celebrating purity and marriage, demonstrating to people why good behaviour produces benefits, not telling lies or denying sound doctrine.

After all, the churches that are growing around the world are those that hold and teach definite doctrines about sin, hell, and what constitutes a Christian.

StealthRolex

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not going to suppose what the Pope has planned to rejuvenate and inform young Catholics in Ireland, all I know is that I 'am' one, and education wasn't the best in religious studies, it was 'skimpy' and vague as opposed to my mum who was very informed of what she 'must' do, but didn't understand the 'why we do this?' iykwim.

This has always been a difficulty however for me meditating on "love one another" and " do onto others" often leads to an answer for most issues.
As to devotional practices they are all to do with the Bible and the life of Christ - first Fridays - reminding ourselves of Good Friday
Saying Rosaries - meditations on the mysteries and understanding the prayers that are part of the cycle. Too often in Ireland they are read off by rote and become meaningless and yet more fodder for those who think of Catholics as satanic pawns worshiping idols and mumbling repetitively. If you can do a Rosary in 10 minutes you're not doing it right.

lmaopml wrote: »

..I imagine a gentle reminder from the pulpit with 'love' as to receiving the host if one has not recieved the sacrament of reconcilliation in a while should suffice. There is no embarrassment in attending mass and not receiving if our conscience tells us we shouldn't - sure plenty do that already, but still join in at mass...they are just not fully in communion which is the 'target' we try to achieve.

I don't think so. Because the wider community is secular and becoming more so as political correctness and atheistic morals gain footholds we need reminding of what constitutes sin. It is not a case of how it is delivered it is a case of if it is being delivered at all.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sure they'll think of something. I don't think it's a case of going to war with liberal ways or with the outside world, it's about being part of the outside world, but living in our 'faith'......I think it's moreso about really informing people who may not always be sure about their faith, and educating them with love...

Not sure about that. Surely part of being a Christian or a Catholic is taking on board that we are not "of this world". If we are part of the outside world we are being materialistic. This is probably one way in which those who think they are not sinners are still sinners as the flesh can only exist in this world.
Living the faith involves recognizing the ills of the world and avoiding them, not embracing them. It's the "Sunday Catholic" concept and it needs to be broken.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

They stick the sign over their heads themselves by their own actions.

I've already suggested that everyone knows already. And was suggesting that all you're achieving is writing it up in lights. Which would seem to be a return to "shame and embarrass". Which is very much throwing stones.

You seem to be making a big deal out of the fact that their sin is visible. And forget that those throwing the stones (in being so "scandalized") also remain in sin.

It's just that own spitefulness, gossip, selfishness tends to go unnoticed by those throwing stones.

If they go to communion they are thumbing their noses at the rest of the community as they know they shouldn't. if they don't then that's an education problem that needs to be rectified.

The rest of the community remain in their own sin. Which is why Jesus said not to throw stones.

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

It's as well that you know better then,isn't it?

You tell me then what I am supposed to make of "Besides, the community has moved on without you"


The community has moved on from what? the teachings of Christ?

My point is that St Paul had no problems telling the Corinthians what's what. he didn't seem to be too worried about embarrassing anyone. However when Iwas in school it was too embarrassing to be read or studies.
The Irish Catholic clergy seem to have problems with telling people what't what.

When I referred to a "big stick" tell me, what do you see senior clergy walking around with?

As for the community moving on without me? Read the OP. The problem is that the community has moved on and moved to somewhere it isn't supposed to be going.

"A major thrust of the Vatican investigation will be to counteract materialistic and secularist attitudes, which Pope Benedict believes have led many Irish Catholics to ignore church disciplines and become lax in following devotional practices such as going on pilgrimages and doing penance."

PDN

StealthRolex wrote: »

You tell me then what I am supposed to make of "Besides, the community has moved on without you"


The community has moved on from what? the teachings of Christ?

Well obviously you are not supposed to make anything personal of it.

The community in general has moved on from having its standards determined by the Catholic Church. You can't put that particular genie back in the bottle. The Catholic Church has to learn how to communicate as a minority group within society (as all Christianity did before Constantine) rather than as the dominant cultural force in society.

My point is that St Paul had no problems telling the Corinthians what's what. he didn't seem to be too worried about embarrassing anyone. However when Iwas in school it was too embarrassing to be read or studies.
The Irish Catholic clergy seem to have problems with telling people what't what.

I am sorry to hear about the defective nature of your schooling. I can assure you that I preach from the pulpit what Paul preached and no-one seems to find it embarrassing.

I think you are causing a bit of confusion here by the the way that your post appeared to encourage the practice of deliberately embarrassing people. Perhaps you didn't intend it to come across that way?

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've already suggested that everyone knows already. And was suggesting that all you're achieving is writing it up in lights. Which would seem to be a return to "shame and embarrass". Which is very much throwing stones.

You seem to be making a big deal out of the fact that their sin is visible. And forget that those throwing the stones (in being so "scandalized") also remain in sin.

It's just that own spitefulness, gossip, selfishness tends to go unnoticed by those throwing stones.

The rest of the community remain in their own sin. Which is why Jesus said not to throw stones.

No it's not.
Throwing stones is about making a judgement and then delivering the punishment.
Embarrassment is no such thing and if embarrassment is caused to anyone it should result in those who feel targeted to examine their own consciences and do what is required to rectify it. What you are suggesting is leaving them be. To what end - they go to Hell?

Telling people and reminding them of what's what is the evangelical approach.

Yes we are all sinners and no we should not be delivering punishment. However allowing people to continue without admonishment is not much different to suggesting that what is going on is not a sin.

You might not be aware of this but look closely at Pope John Paul II giving out communion in Croke Park in 1989. He refuse to put it in peoples hands and would only put it on their tongues. Was he throwing stones on national and international TV?

StealthRolex

PDN wrote: »

Well obviously you are not supposed to make anything personal of it.

The community in general has moved on from having its standards determined by the Catholic Church. You can't put that particular genie back in the bottle. The Catholic Church has to learn how to communicate as a minority group within society (as all Christianity did before Constantine) rather than as the dominant cultural force in society.

The thing is the Catholic Church is not a minority community and was the dominant cultural force in this country as it was and is in many others.
Some would consider it be be still the dominant cultural force. Others need to learn what Catholicism is really about before they can comment on it's position in society or whether or not it should behave like a minority. Some prefer a secular atheistic society and government with the religious groups left to practice on their own. That can be tried and lets see where we wind up - or we can take a look at England, France, Germany, USA, Australia, New Zealand as examples. Do we want a society with rampant prostitution, broken families and innumerable abortions? Maybe we do want Corinth or Rome c. 69A.D.

Over 2000 years Catholicism has become the dominant form of Christianity in the world. That is the genie and it left the bottle 2000 years ago.

PDN wrote: »

I am sorry to hear about the defective nature of your schooling. I can assure you that I preach from the pulpit what Paul preached and no-one seems to find it embarrassing.

Again with the misunderstanding and prejudice, but I guess I didn't explain it well. The reason it was treated as embarrassing was to encourage us to read it. You need to understand what it takes to get people, especially teenage boys, to read the Bible. The education was not defective. The problem was this particular chapter of the book was not discussed. Not part of that particular curriculum. BTW that was GCSE and not Irish.
As for "defective nature of your schooling" comment - I won't take that personally either.

PDN wrote: »

I think you are causing a bit of confusion here by the the way that your post appeared to encourage the practice of deliberately embarrassing people. Perhaps you didn't intend it to come across that way?

There is a difference between making statements of fact from the pulpit e.g. "If you are divorced and remarried you are committing sacrilege by receiving communion" and if the priest recognizes a person or couple as being in this situation arrive at alter and refusing them the option to commit sacrilege and what you consider to be an action that might be deliberately embarrassing to someone.

I did not suggest that people should be publicly embarrassed which the tone of some responses indicates to be the understanding taken.

I suggested that those who are openly sinful should be embarrassed or maybe shamed. There is a difference. There are also more than a few ways in which embarrassment can be caused. If you are in a situation that would cause a refusal at the altar it is embarrassing but should be known only to you and the priest. If someone else notices what happened and gives scandal through gossip later their sin is different and may be greater.

There are people who openly boast of their divorce and remarriage. There are people who live in sin. There are gossips and scandal givers (and there are journalists too). It is time the Church got with the program - the Catholic one and not some strange idea of what that is - and got back to telling people that living that way is wrong - it goes against the word of God and the teachings of Christ and as such it is not acceptable behaviour.
If that embarrasses or shames people so be it.
If the Church is going to ignore that then it is not Catholic.

And there are plenty of other sins the Church can have a go at from the alter.
Reading NUTS or HELLO or The Irish Times should be next

StealthRolex

I've just noticed that no-one is bothered about my comments on the lay ministers.

I guess there are too many embarrassing sins that might be discussed if the Catholic Church returns to traditional values and I really don't know why this would bother the liberal Christians out there.

lmaopml

Hi stealth. I think the Church have to emphasise education in the faith, so that people make informed decisions.... It doesn't mean changing the moral views that stem from our faith or to make them liberally 'bendy' in anyway whatsoever! It's either 'right' or 'wrong' and I believe in an objective truth, 'Thou shalt not 'kill' etc.! I just think that education is key! After the Church imparts it's message to believers, it's up to the faithful to tow the line....nobody can force anybodies hand, and nor should they try imo. Christ like his church is there for all sinners to come home to...

We could do with reclaiming education, and emphasise the celebration of our faith too in the mass. Ask the priests to 'wake up' during the Homily and the congregation will follow ( hopefully )! I'd like that tbh...I travel sometimes to get a really interesting priest who has a way with communicating...

StealthRolex

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi stealth. I think the Church have to emphasise education in the faith, so that people make informed decisions.... It doesn't mean changing the moral views that stem from our faith or to make them liberally 'bendy' in anyway whatsoever! It's either 'right' or 'wrong' and I believe in an objective truth, 'Thou shalt not 'kill' etc.! I just think that education is key! After the Church imparts it's message to believers, it's up to the faithful to tow the line....nobody can force anybodies hand, and nor should they try imo. Christ like his church is there for all sinners to come home to...

We could do with reclaiming education, and emphasise the celebration of our faith too in the mass. Ask the priests to 'wake up' during the Homily and the congregation will follow ( hopefully )! I'd like that tbh...I travel sometimes to get a really interesting priest who has a way with communicating...

Hi Imaopml, education is key for both the priests and the congregation. The problem though is that the Church is "bendy" at best and at worst it refuses to give guidance. It seems to fear what the media will say if someone says something that is "politically incorrect".
For example, with recent referenda that stabbed at the heart of Catholic tradition and the teachings of Jesus were in debate the best the Church could offer was "make an informed decision", or "vote with your conscience". Same when a couple approach a priest to discuss contraception or cohabiting - "make your decision with an informed conscience".

Jesus was a teacher. The priests are also supposed to be teachers. Imagine going to a classroom and the only answer you have to a pupils question is "make your own mind up on that, I'm not going to tell you" or "find out for yourself". Not the kind of methodology that is going to take you very far without friends in a political party.

One of the jobs of the priest is to be a religious and moral educator. Part of the homily is not only to discuss the Gospel and readings of the day but to tease out what they mean and explain that to the congregation. If there are more pressing issues at hand the Homily may deal with those in the context of the Catholic position. They also have to impart the messages from Rome on the Churches position on matters of faith and morals.
I would agree that Ireland spent too long accepting much unquestioningly however it is only by questioning the position that it becomes understood and acceptable. The problem Rome has with Ireland is that the clergy "questioned" the Vatican which is an entirely different thing. And then it went and misrepresented the Vatican's directions and developed Irish Catholicism. For those that are curious as to why the Vatican takes certain positions there is plenty of information available for those that seek it and it makes it clear by reference to the Bible and the Church Fathers where the teachings and directions come from.

They are also required to ensure the spiritual health of the congregation - they are there as confessors - and not to lead people into sin.

This means that they are also required to prevent, impede or block those they know to be in sin from committing sacrilege at the altar by refusing them the Host. This may cause embarrassment but it is not the fault of the Church or the priest if someone the priest knows cannot receive communion presents themselves. He is duty bound to refuse them, just as we are duty bound to take the Sacrament of Penance before communion.

Nor are there supposed to be extraordinary Eucharistic ministers on the alter or distributing communion except in extraordinary circumstances, circumstances which occur rarely in Ireland. This too needs to be stopped. To me and others it is yet another sacrilege to be embarrassed.

Yes it up to the faithful to tow the line and no you cannot force people to act or think in a particular way but neither must the Church entertain those that refuse to follow the Churches teachings and directions.

If there are those that want to enter a relationship after a divorce, cohabit or engage in any other lifestyle choice that is in conflict with the Churches teaching they can go elsewhere and hang out with the rest of the liberal Christians until they are ready to return as the Prodigal did and tow the line.

lmaopml

I agree with you Stealth, and no mistake!

I can only say that I am a young(ish) Irish Catholic, and I have seen and observed the Church in my time, the 'faith', the people of faith and also the outside world...and I think just the observing of it all, and what it 'says' I am, my parents were, what their beliefs were...have given me the 'incentive' ( maybe the 'silver' lining ) to come back, because I had 'no' interest beforehand...to actually find out what the hell they were all saying...

I had to do it on my own though...and I found something precious!

I don't want to alienate my peers who are feeling the same way...

StealthRolex

No worries Imaopml, I understand where you're at, been there, still learning.

If you're looking for a great orator try Fr Michael Maher S.M. in Dundalk.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

No it's not. Throwing stones is about making a judgement and then delivering the punishment.

The judgement has been made: these people are sinners. The punishment is delivered: these people should be refused communion.

Embarrassment is no such thing and if embarrassment is caused to anyone it should result in those who feel targeted to examine their own consciences and do what is required to rectify it. What you are suggesting is leaving them be. To what end - they go to Hell?

I'm suggesting you worry about your own sinfulness and areas where you persist in sin. And let others worry about their own sin and their persisting in sin.

You seem to be drawing a major distinction between them (whose sin is visible to folk) and you (whose sin isn't visible to folk) whilst forgetting that all your sin is visible to God. Could you outline the material difference between you who remains in sin taking communion before God and them who remain in sin taking communtion before God?

Telling people and reminding them of what's what is the evangelical approach.

Evangelical? To point to people and say "you visible sinner you - you have no business doing business with God"?

For the life of me I can't see what possible business their sin is to you. Surely a persons relationship with God is between them and God?

Yes we are all sinners and no we should not be delivering punishment. However allowing people to continue without admonishment is not much different to suggesting that what is going on is not a sin.

Non sequitur. SIn is sin whether named or not. The priest (as spiritual counsellor) may by all means urge them and encourage them and educate them. Perhaps this is precisely what he is doing. The rest of you should keep your noses out of it.

You might not be aware of this but look closely at Pope John Paul II giving out communion in Croke Park in 1989. He refuse to put it in peoples hands and would only put it on their tongues. Was he throwing stones on national and international TV?

He seems to have treated everyone the same. What you're suggesting doesn't appear to treat you as it treats them. Apple & Pears.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

I've just noticed that no-one is bothered about my comments on the lay ministers.

I guess there are too many embarrassing sins that might be discussed if the Catholic Church returns to traditional values and I really don't know why this would bother the liberal Christians out there.

Have you engaged in any of these embarrassing sins yourself?

philologos

antiskeptic: I really agree with what you have said about punishment, after all mercy does triumph over judgement, and we should live as if we are under the law of liberty.

Perhaps our attitude to sin shouldn't be one of immediate condemnation, but one in which we aim to help each individual in the Christian community come to deeper relationship with God through encouragement, and some cases rebuking them gently.

I fear in the case of the Vatican, their approach, a top down, don't ever question us (despite the fact that many in the RCC have carried out grevious sins as have others in other churches) approach, won't work. If anything was going to work, it would have been a demonstration of humility. A true acceptance that the church has truly erred, and that they are not beyond question.

antiskeptic

The thing is the Catholic Church is not a minority community

The town where I go to church has a populaation of about 15,000. On an average Sunday, about 500 people attend Christian churches of all denominations - 120 of those attending the Catholic church.

Christianity is a minority community - once you exclude nominal Christianity.

..and was the dominant cultural force in this country

Was. Unlikely to be ever again.

Some would consider it be be still the dominant cultural force.

How can it be considered dominant when so relatively few pay heed to it?

Others need to learn what Catholicism is really about before they can comment on it's position in society or whether or not it should behave like a minority.

I don't know much about Scientology. That doesn't mean I can't comment on it's relatively minor position in society

Some prefer a secular atheistic society and government with the religious groups left to practice on their own. That can be tried and lets see where we wind up - or we can take a look at England, France, Germany, USA, Australia, New Zealand as examples. Do we want a society with rampant prostitution, broken families and innumerable abortions? Maybe we do want Corinth or Rome c. 69A.D.

The fact that Ireland is a secular society is indicative of the fact that most want it that way. The fact that there are downsides to such societies doesn't appear to stop people wanting the upsides. I can't think of anyone very much who'd want Ireland going back to the days when the Roman Church ruled the roost.

Over 2000 years Catholicism has become the dominant form of Christianity in the world. That is the genie and it left the bottle 2000 years ago.

Around 500 years ago another genie, called the Reformation, escaped the bottle too. Welcome to the 21st century

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

antiskeptic: I really agree with what you have said about punishment, after all mercy does triumph over judgement, and we should live as if we are under the law of liberty.

Whilst not taking liberties with that liberty. The difficulty comes, I suppose, if you don't realise that you have been freed to live at liberty. If you don't then you can only concentrate on Law.

Perhaps our attitude to sin shouldn't be one of immediate condemnation, but one in which we aim to help each individual in the Christian community come to deeper relationship with God through encouragement, and some cases rebuking them gently.

You're right!

StealthRolex, I'd urge you to listen to Jackass and reflect on what he is saying.

I fear in the case of the Vatican, their approach, a top down, don't ever question us (despite the fact that many in the RCC have carried out grevious sins as have others in other churches) approach, won't work. If anything was going to work, it would have been a demonstration of humility. A true acceptance that the church has truly erred, and that they are not beyond question.

The trouble for the RC church is that all is known anyway.

Everyone can see the wriggling and the writhing going on and nobody is fooled by it. Everybody knows that "I regret what has happened" or "I made a mistake" is a side-door way of refusing to admit personal, conscious wrongdoing.

It's such a rare thing these days - someone standing up and saying "I did wrong and I'm sorry" - that if the RC church did it, they would garner a lot of respect. We can respect someone who says they did wrong because we all do wrong. We all are selfish. We are all cowardly in the light of a challenge from darkness.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The judgement has been made: these people are sinners. The punishment is delivered: these people should be refused communion.

Refusing them communion is not punishment. It is Canon Law. The priest MUST refuse those who are in grave sin and have not been to confession.

If you don't understand Canon law regarding sacrilege and how the Irish Church has abused, misrepresented and twisted instructions from the Vatican then you are missing my point entirely.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Evangelical? To point to people and say "you visible sinner you - you have no business doing business with God"?

For the life of me I can't see what possible business their sin is to you. Surely a persons relationship with God is between them and God?

That is not what I am saying. That is what you are saying I'm saying.

As I already said it is not about naming names or pointing to people. It is about declaring what is sinful and then if those who are known to be in particular situations present themselves at the altar to commit sacrilege the priest must refuse.

If those in these situations go to mass at a different Church where there are not known and take communion there the sacrilege is still there but personal and the priest is not affected.

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

Refusing them communion is not punishment. It is Canon Law. The priest MUST refuse those who are in grave sin and have not been to confession.

I think these are more rules around the rules. All of this sounds more like the Pharasaic Judaism of Jesus' day rather than living out the Gospel. Our first priority should be to help people to be better Christians. That is what is going to matter far more than who will take the Eucharist.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If you don't understand Canon law regarding sacrilege and how the Irish Church has abused, misrepresented and twisted instructions from the Vatican then you are missing my point entirely.

This could well be the problem though. These instructions are a top down arrangement from other men, by which people are told not to question. These men are all sinners just like the rest of us.

Perhaps we need to review the instructions in the first place, and to take more heed of God's authority rather than church authority?

I just think the Apostolic Visitation is going to do more damage than good if it is to reinforce the same thinking that got us to this point in the first place.

StealthRolex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think these are more rules around the rules. All of this sounds more like the Pharasaic Judaism of Jesus' day rather than living out the Gospel. Our first priority should be to help people to be better Christians. That is what is going to matter far more than who will take the Eucharist.

I take it you do not understand the concept of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, or the implications for Catholics partaking of prohibited sacraments.

Jakkass wrote: »

I just think the Apostolic Visitation is going to do more damage than good if it is to reinforce the same thinking that got us to this point in the first place.

The thinking that got us into trouble was thinking like non-Catholics, ignoring Canon law and going a-la-carte. The rot started when the Church went populist and stopped instructing and educating, stopped enforcing it's own rules and began worrying about how it was being portrayed in the media. The more "attractive" it tried to make itself the more members it lost.

In civil society you have laws and these laws are enforced. If you question a Garda you will be penalised. If you question a judge you find yourself in contempt of court.

This is the purpose of the visitation - getting the priests to do what they signed up for, and that includes ensuring the congregation adhere to the rules.

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

This is the purpose of the visitation - getting the priests to do what they signed up for, and that includes ensuring the congregation adhere to the rules.

You might as well try and herd kittens.

Law enforcement is useless at changing the heart of a person inclined to break it. So if you want the congretation to be whitewashed on the outside - but full of dead mens bones on the inside - then fire away with the legalism. The out-of-wedlock affairs will continue - but will just go underground.

There's this concentration on clamping down on visible sin that supposedly "scandalizes" all and sundry. And a complete sidestepping of the fact that most, if not all in the congregation have their own habitual sin to worry about

It seems to me that a priest who recognizes that the one calling for the out-of-wedlock couple to be barred communion might very well be the one habitually watching porn at home - and treating all as sinners in need of grace

..is the wise priest indeed. Whatever Rome might say. Remember, the priests first allegience is to Christ. Not to his 'vicar'

philologos

StealthRolex wrote: »

I take it you do not understand the concept of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, or the implications for Catholics partaking of prohibited sacraments.

It's not that I don't understand it, it's that I don't subscribe to it. I believe that the Eucharist is a reminder of Christ's mercy and grace for us through the Crucifixion.

What happened to "I desire mercy not sacrifice"? Or that Jesus Christ died for us while we were still sinners?

People need help to become better Christians. Not condemnation.

As antiskeptic has already said, such practices put emphasis on visible sins as being worse, or above all other sin. The fact is that Jesus Christ is the one who is going to be able to see both hearts and minds as well as the external action.

StealthRolex wrote: »

The thinking that got us into trouble was thinking like non-Catholics, ignoring Canon law and going a-la-carte. The rot started when the Church went populist and stopped instructing and educating, stopped enforcing it's own rules and began worrying about how it was being portrayed in the media. The more "attractive" it tried to make itself the more members it lost.

I don't think that's what happened. Ireland was renowned for it's orthodoxy in respect to Catholicism.

What happened was people abused their authority, and carried out untold abuse. Not only in relation to sexual abuse, but many decided to take a power-trip.

Liberal and secular attitudes to things didn't cause the problems in the RCC. The ultra-conservatism in respect to practice did.

I'd love to see the Roman Catholic Church get over this problem, and these difficulties, and move forward from this. I really really don't think this understanding will do it though.

StealthRolex wrote: »

In civil society you have laws and these laws are enforced. If you question a Garda you will be penalised. If you question a judge you find yourself in contempt of court.

I believe that I will before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ at the end of time.

StealthRolex wrote: »

This is the purpose of the visitation - getting the priests to do what they signed up for, and that includes ensuring the congregation adhere to the rules.

I think that's the problem. The approach isn't one where the church itself is reviewed, but one where the church doesn't reform its ways to seek to be a better church than it ever was before.