The Catholic Church Ate My Hamsters!

Pace2008

newmug wrote: »

So now its wrong to oppose gay marraige?

It is an outmoded and discriminatory outlook, which I would view along the lines of opposing interracial marriage. In my relativistic moral opinion, it is wrong, yes.

The word homophobia reminds me more of the incident in Scotland where a gay was handcuffed to a lamppost and set on fire, not an opinion that gay marraige might undermine the place of the family unit in society.

That is just an extreme form of homophobia taken to its brutal logical conclusion (assuming that the attack was motivated by the victim's sexuality). I would consider the view that gay sex is wrong to be homophobic as well.

Considering a black person to be inferior by virtue of their skin colour is racist, just not as extreme a form of racism as lynching them. Viewing gay sex as immoral is homophobic, just not as homophobic as setting them on fire.

Not everybody is ok with gayness, Catholic or not.

No, but the vast majority of anti-gay sentiment does seem to come from religious quarters, Catholic or not.

Bannasidhe

Father Damo wrote: »

I will certainly agree with that one. Living in Australia Ive known alot of English people obviously, and alot of birdss will casually talk about having pulled some lad the night before and going back to his the same way me and the lads would talk about pulling a bird. I could probably count on my fingers the amount of Irish girls who Ive ever heard talking that frankly infront of men, hell in Ireland even slappers get offended by people insinuitating they have been about- certainly would be a leftover from the church thinking Id agree.




One should wonder though, is this Catholic or is this Celtic? How come certain, shall we say, tougher, warrior type cultures like the descendants of Romans, Celts, large swathes of Eastern Europe etc etc seem to replicate stronger religious and moral beliefs in the culture of modern day Italy, Greece and Ireland , whereas the Dutch, French, English etc etc have more liberal views. Were we conservative before the church and found its moral code to be in line with what we had already?

The Gaelic Irish were far from sexually conservative quite the opposite.

. Sexual Equality

Ancient Irish laws, called the Brehon Laws, provided women full equality with men. That’s right, they could inherit property or bequeath their own; they could marry or divorce the man of their choosing; even the right of a woman to experience satisfaction in marriage was enshrined in its legal framework. In Europe, where burning uppity women at the stake became a national pastime, the Irish attitude to sexual equality between the sexes was nothing short of revolutionary. Stamping out of the Brehon Laws, and with them the rights of women, was finally accomplished under Queen Elizabeth of England.

2. The land of sex and sinners

When it came to matters of love Edmund Spenser, the Elizabethan poet, was appalled by Irish men, who were in the main, he wrote, a bunch of lascivious bisexuals who offered themselves freely to both women and men before his shocked gaze. Spencer enthusiastically recommended the extermination of the Irish race but was himself burned out of his famous castle in County Cork.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/Bad-romance-10-surprising-facts-about-the-Irish-and-sex-128767353.html#ixzz1jCkM4OOQ

Fairly simplistic outline but essentially correct. If you would prefer a more academic source have a read of Fergus Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law.

joseph brand

Father Damo wrote: »

Say there's 200 million priests in the world, and 5% of them are paedophiles, that's still only 10 million.


Had to throw the Ted one in there People seem to forget that when all this was happening in the industrial schools there was Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Gardai, the health boards....there was all these different organisations who failed to act or turned a blind eye to what was happening, not just the church.

/facepalm

When a church has enough power and influence, they tend to get away with a lot of things. Just because the ugly tentacles of the church never touched you, doesn't mean that they do not warrant criticism.

I know a few gay people, and when I hear the church's opinions on this matter, it angers me. My own Dad (church goer) calls gay men paedophiles.
He also approves what the church teaches on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI said:

HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem

Some of us don't like cruelty, injustice and wrongdoing. The church is guilty of all this and more.

joseph brand

newmug wrote: »

So now its wrong to oppose gay marraige?

The word homophobia reminds me more of the incident in Scotland where a gay was handcuffed to a lamppost and set on fire, not an opinion that gay marraige might undermine the place of the family unit in society.

Not everybody is ok with gayness, Catholic or not.

Father Damo

joseph brand wrote: »

/facepalm

When a church has enough power and influence, they tend to get away with a lot of things. Just because the ugly tentacles of the church never touched you, doesn't mean that they do not warrant criticism.

But its hardly happening in Ireland 2012 is it.

[QUOTES] My own Dad (church goer) calls gay men paedophiles. [/quote]

As would a few lads in their 20s who drink in bars I drink in.

Most of whom probably havent been to mass since their teens and have forgotten how to bless themselves. Im not sure the church has anything to do with it.

He also approves what the church teaches on the use of condoms.

Pope Benedict XVI said:

HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem
.

Several African politicians have made similar claims. It is the fault of the individual if they decide to go on the word of these wannabe magicians rather than medical advice.

Chuck Stone

Father Damo wrote: »

A millitant athiest is someone who has some sort of victim wish about their childhood.

Father Damo wrote: »

I think even the most rabid frothing athiest wouldnt argue against...

Father Damo wrote: »

But there is a difference in not believing and engaging in cult like hero worship of Richard Dawkins, buying his sh1te books and filling his bank account. Its cult like behaviour in itself.

So what you've effectively done in this thread is reverse the polarity of reality and attempted to paint people who reject institutional religion as the ones who are intolerant members of a cult?

That's a very impressive distortion of reality that is.

later12

Father Damo wrote: »

. Were we conservative before the church and found its moral code to be in line with what we had already?

Yes, I think that's likely to have been very much the case.

It's likely that Christianity partially formalised a social system which had already existed in Ireland, changed a little of what was different, and retained other aspects for itself.

But no human being is born at a specific point along the scale of conservatism. Philosophy is not genetic. Catholic morality has traditionally been Irish society's acquired phenotype, not its innate one. It self perpetuates down the generations through observed actions and social customs, not bloodlines.

Would Catholic-influenced morality still self-perpetuate in the total absence of the Catholic Church? Possibly, yes. But at least it would be more exposed to question and criticism, not dressed up in the garb and sanctity of a religious faith which almost legitimises it simply because it's someone's faith, and that's off limits.

Overheal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what you've effectively done in this thread is reverse the polarity of reality and attempted to paint people who reject institutional religion as the ones who are intolerant members of a cult?

That's a very impressive distortion of reality that is.

Hence the allegory of the cave.

I hope this guy gets irony.

Father Damo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what you've effectively done in this thread is reverse the polarity of reality and attempted to paint people who reject institutional religion as the ones who are intolerant members of a cult?

Im just more amused at Irish people rebelling against something that in 2012 Ireland is a non existant problem! We could have done with all this in the 1950s when there was actually something to rebel against. If anything the church killed itself off by putting little to no importance in indoctrinating kids through the schools.

Overheal

Father Damo wrote: »

Im just more amused at Irish people rebelling against something that in 2012 Ireland is a non existant problem! We could have done with all this in the 1950s when there was actually something to rebel against. If anything the church killed itself off by putting little to no importance in indoctrinating kids through the schools.

Is that you agent Smith?

Butterface

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So what you've effectively done in this thread is reverse the polarity of reality and attempted to paint people who reject institutional religion as the ones who are intolerant members of a cult?

That's what I've gleaned from this thread. And also that the Catholic Church is justa bitta craic n'all'n anyways :rolleyes:

joseph brand

Father Damo wrote: »

But its hardly happening in Ireland 2012 is it.

[QUOTES] My own Dad (church goer) calls gay men paedophiles.

As would a few lads in their 20s who drink in bars I drink in.

Most of whom probably havent been to mass since their teens and have forgotten how to bless themselves. Im not sure the church has anything to do with it.

Several African politicians have made similar claims. It is the fault of the individual if they decide to go on the word of these wannabe magicians rather than medical advice.

Are these guys you know educated in any way? Very childish attitude.

What sort of place do you think Africa is? It's not like Europe. Low levels of literacy, voodoo cultures, low standards of education, etc. .
Perhaps they should 'drive' to their local doctor, or even open up their laptop in their penthouse apartment and do a Google search. :rolleyes:

The Internet Explorer

Father Damo wrote: »

Im just more amused at Irish people rebelling against something that in 2012 Ireland is a non existant problem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Logical Fallacy

Father Damo wrote: »

Im just more amused at Irish people rebelling against something that in 2012 Ireland is a non existant problem! We could have done with all this in the 1950s when there was actually something to rebel against. If anything the church killed itself off by putting little to no importance in indoctrinating kids through the schools.

Still kind of ongoing, given the Churches repeated attempts to ignore and cover up the whole kid ****ing thing that went on.

Jimoslimos

Father Damo wrote: »

I just find anyone under the age of 30 who is a millitant athiest without good reason ("good reason" being molestation, primarily tbh) to be pathetic and a self embarassment. Anyone else of this view?

Oh not this sh1t again! When you point me to examples of atheists blowing up clinics where abortions are carried out, strapping suicide bombs to themselves and blowing up shopping malls, etc., I may refer to them as 'militant atheists'. Outspoken atheists would be a more correct term to use.

On second thoughts, "militant atheist" sounds kinda cool. I fancy myself as some sort of heavily armed, special ops commando - destroyer of ALL faiths. YEAAAHHH!!

newmug wrote: »

The word homophobia reminds me more of the incident in Scotland where a gay was handcuffed to a lamppost and set on fire, not an opinion that gay marraige might undermine the place of the family unit in society.

A gay...what?...Dog...Horse....Monkey....Flag.....Scarf?? Oh you mean a "person" Yep, believe it or not, they're not solely defined by their sexuality.

Butterface

Father Damo wrote: »

If anything the church killed itself off by putting little to no importance in indoctrinating kids through the schools.

Well as long as the Catholic-run schools continue to teach morals to students from their Big Book of Stories for Every Situation, they are in fact indoctrinating children. Unless the subject of religion taught in primary schools is modified to teach students about all world religions, and offer them a choice to make their own minds up.. by letting them know that that is a valid option.

Father Damo

Butterface wrote: »

Well as long as the Catholic-run schools continue to teach morals to students from their Big Book of Stories for Every Situation,

Do they????
You see this utter bollix is what sums it all up really.

Im sorry but maybe I wasnt in the day that the teacher outlined to us why homosexuality and gay marriage are repugnant.

I must have missed the day when they told the rest of the class that pre marital sex was immoral. That unmarried parents are bad people.

I must have been mitching down in the forest getting my hole the day we were told contraception was the work of satan.

All of the above are the pronouncements of the pope. I dont once, in 12 years of national and secondary school, remember any of this being taught. I dont recall science classes glossing over the theory of evoloution. I do seem to remember History class not shying away from the nastier sides of Catholic history like the inquisition burnings, or the disgraceful objection to the Mother and Child Scheme of the 50s. I do vaguely remember we received education on contraception. In a Catholic school of all places!!!!! From memory most of our teenage years religious education seemed to just focus on social issues (drink, drugs, involvement in crime, the impracticalities of teen pregnancy rather than the moral side of it)

Bannasidhe

later10 wrote: »

Yes, I think that's likely to have been very much the case.

It's likely that Christianity partially formalised a social system which had already existed in Ireland, changed a little of what was different, and retained other aspects for itself.

But no human being is born at a specific point along the scale of conservatism. Philosophy is not genetic. Catholic morality has traditionally been Irish society's acquired phenotype, not its innate one. It self perpetuates down the generations through observed actions and social customs, not bloodlines.

Would Catholic-influenced morality still self-perpetuate in the total absence of the Catholic Church? Possibly, yes. But at least it would be more exposed to question and criticism, not dressed up in the garb and sanctity of a religious faith which almost legitimises it simply because it's someone's faith, and that's off limits.

Personally, I would strongly favour

But we are not doomed to the philosophy of our forbears. While Christianity, and later Roman Catholicism was evidently compatible with the Irish psyche, it

Sigh - The church had very little influence on secular life in Gaelic Ireland.
For an examination of how little Christianity actually mattered in the Middle Ages read Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (professor of History NUIG) Early Medieval Ireland, 400–1200, (London and New York, 1995.)

Divorce was simple - Hugh O Neill had 6 wives. Unlike Henry VIII he didn't have to kill them - he just divorced them.

There was no concept of illegitimacy. The child's mother said who the child's father was ('Naming') - this did not have to be her husband. There is no record of a man thus 'named' denying it. Hugh O Neill's father Matthew was 'named' as the son of Con O'Neill (1st earl of Tyrone) when Matthew was 12 years old (coincidently this was around the same time as Con became an earl). Con not only agreed he was Matthew's father - he declared him the heir to the earldom.

If a man failed to sexually satisfy his wife due to impotence or being homosexual - she could divorce him and get compensation. If he knew prior to the marriage that his homosexuality meant he was unable to have enough sex with his wife to satisfy her - she got the house too.

There is loads more (I used to lecture on this stuff ) but essentially - the Gaelic Irish were known throughout Europe for their promiscuity. And it was a reputation well deserved.

later12

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sigh - The church had very little influence on secular life in Gaelic Ireland.

What are you talking about?

I didn't say that Christianity had a dominant influence on Irish society during the early Christian period. I said it partially formalised a pre-Christian social order. I have no idea how you interpreted that as the suggestion that early christianity suddenly changed Ireland.

Sindri

later10 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

I didn't say that Christianity had a dominant influence on Irish society during the early Christian period. I said it partially formalised a pre-Christian social order. I have no idea how you interpreted that as the suggestion that early christianity suddenly changed Ireland.

It did. We became less warmongering.

later12

Father Damo wrote: »

Do they????
You see this utter bollix is what sums it all up really.

Im sorry but maybe I wasnt in the day that the teacher outlined to us why homosexuality and gay marriage are repugnant.

I must have missed the day when they told the rest of the class that pre marital sex was immoral. That unmarried parents are bad people.

I must have been mitching down in the forest getting my hole the day we were told contraception was the work of satan.

All of the above are the pronouncements of the pope. I dont once, in 12 years of national and secondary school, remember any of this being taught.

I think these are all fair points. I am not a Catholic, but attended a C.B.S. for about a year; and far from being advised that I was going to burn in hell, our religion classes were a slightly multi-faith furore of 20 adolescents hooting and deriding religious conservatism, very frank and honest sexual education talks, self-confidence building, and meditation. In fact, the only people who ever gave me a ribbing for not being a Catholic were my classmates who did so in jest.

While I am opposed to the perpetuation of Christian morality upon society, we shouldn't exaggerate its influence on education as though we were still living in 1950.

having read more of his posts, I think that's all father damo is actually saying, and I certainly agree that we are 40 years too late; the worst of its influence is over.

flanders1979

we were shown pictures of aborted babies in the CBS almost 20 years ago. The methods were explained to us. The principle, a christian brother let a couple of religious weirdos give us this presentation.
I'm not completely against all religion. I have an aunt who is a nun and shes pretty cool.

Each to their own, but dont eat my pet hamster or show me pictures of dead babies or i will put your head through the wall.

later12

flanders1979 wrote: »

we were shown pictures of aborted babies in the CBS almost 20 years ago.

I don't know how opposed I am to this.
Abortion is a serious issue, whether you are pro or anti legalisation. A society that cannot bear to look at a dead foetus may not have much credibility in deciding that that foetus can lawfully have its life ended.

Obviously, if this religious couple were spouting lies about abortion, that deserves to be met head on with facts. Photos (in the case of older adolescents),I'm more okay with.

Guill

AngryBollix wrote: »

What about the flip side to that coin?

While nobody can deny the harm that has been caused in the name of god and religion, decent people of faith have improved the lives of those around them and done good work which is sometimes overlooked

Absolutly, that is the point of the OP, i am just pointing out that damage done by religion does not have to affect you to be damaging.

Doc Ruby

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sigh - The church had very little influence on secular life in Gaelic Ireland.
For an examination of how little Christianity actually mattered in the Middle Ages read Dáibhí Ó Cróinín (professor of History NUIG) Early Medieval Ireland, 400–1200, (London and New York, 1995.)

Divorce was simple - Hugh O Neill had 6 wives. Unlike Henry VIII he didn't have to kill them - he just divorced them.

There was no concept of illegitimacy. The child's mother said who the child's father was ('Naming') - this did not have to be her husband. There is no record of a man thus 'named' denying it. Hugh O Neill's father Matthew was 'named' as the son of Con O'Neill (1st earl of Tyrone) when Matthew was 12 years old (coincidently this was around the same time as Con became an earl). Con not only agreed he was Matthew's father - he declared him the heir to the earldom.

If a man failed to sexually satisfy his wife due to impotence or being homosexual - she could divorce him and get compensation. If he knew prior to the marriage that his homosexuality meant he was unable to have enough sex with his wife to satisfy her - she got the house too.

There is loads more (I used to lecture on this stuff ) but essentially - the Gaelic Irish were known throughout Europe for their promiscuity. And it was a reputation well deserved.

Ah now look there's no place for facts in the face of scorn for Irish culture.

Bannasidhe

later10 wrote: »

What are you talking about?

I didn't say that Christianity had a dominant influence on Irish society during the early Christian period. I said it partially formalised a pre-Christian social order. I have no idea how you interpreted that as the suggestion that early christianity suddenly changed Ireland.

Afraid not in Ireland..or Scotland for that matter..

It all has to do with who was and who wan't in the Roman Empire.

Imperial Rome would come along, take over, impose centralisation and their own legal system, 'adopt' the local Gods and change their names, impose Roman culture, create an infrastructure and build cities.
The Roman Catholic church then used that existing structure. A diocese for example was the Roman administrative name for a geographical region. The RCC is just that - the church of ROME. It attached religion to the trappings of the empire - when the empire fell, the church was poised to fill the vacuum. And it did.

The Roman empire never got to Ireland. So it remained tribal, had no cities until the Vikings built them, had no central authority with control over the whole island until the Tudors imposed it, already had its own legal code and culture which existed for at least a thousand years before Christ and survived until into the 17th century, etc etc.

In fact, scholars of the early Christian church in Ireland are still debating why the Gaelic Christian church followed the model of the Egyptian Coptic church rather then Rome.

Gerald of Wales had a lot to say about that in the 12th century. The Gaelic church did not evangelise in Ireland at all, where it was based around independent monastic settlements (often very isolated) which were controlled by the ruling clan in the region.

From the 6th to the 12 centuries there was a serious power struggle between the Gaelic church and the Roman church - Rome won.

So no, the church of Rome did not partially formalised a pre-Christian social order. It actually worked with the crown of England to bring Ireland 'into line' - which meant destroying the existing social order completely.

Twice the Pope granted control of Ireland to English monarchs in perpetuity. First to Henry II in the 12th century and later to Mary I in the 16th. It also supported the Act of Union in 1801.

One of the great spin doctor successes of the Roman church is how it has convinced the people of Ireland that we were always Catholic - when in fact that only became the case as a result of Tudor policies and also that the Church was on the side of the Irish people's struggle for independence when quite the opposite was the case - up to excommunicating Republicans during the war of Independence.

Wonder if that success could have anything to do with the fact that they have such control over our educational system?

And before anyone jumps in with - well they may have had that kinda control in the 50s like, but not now. When did ye're parents go to school? 40s/50s? What did they learn there that the passed on to you?

Much of the incorrect rubbish posing as 'history' exists as 'sure everyone knows...'( - it has to because the historical evidence contradicts the church's version) this crap has has its foundation in the ****e taught in Irish schools for generations. Hedge schools for example were not conducted by priests trying to save Catholicism (and the souls of the Irish ha!) they were conducted by scholars trying to save Gaelic culture and the language - a culture and language the Roman church aided the English administration in destroying.

Killer Pigeon

Father Damo wrote: »

Another day, another load of every post gets 50 thanks utter **** about the church.

Now, now Damo. Using language like that won't put you in God's favour. You should wash you dirty fingers thoroughly and never type such language again.

gcgirl

I Just don't get the appeasers just doing it to please someone else, and as for the if I leave the church I can't have my big white wedding,registry offices are grand and don't get me started on communion & confirmation, you use contraceptives and have lashings of sex whist not married the Irish nation are Protestant in reality

later12

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Afraid not in Ireland..or Scotland for that matter..

It all has to do with who was and who wan't in the Roman Empire.

Imperial Rome would come along, take over, impose centralisation and their own legal system, 'adopt' the local Gods and change their names, impose Roman culture, create an infrastructure and build cities.
The Roman Catholic church then used that existing structure. A diocese for example was the Roman administrative name for a geographical region. The RCC is just that - the church of ROME. It attached religion to the trappings of the empire - when the empire fell, the church was poised to fill the vacuum. And it did.

The Roman empire never got to Ireland. So it remained tribal, had no cities until the Vikings built them, had no central authority with control over the whole island until the Tudors imposed it, already had its own legal code and culture which existed for at least a thousand years before Christ and survived until into the 17th century, etc etc.

In fact, scholars of the early Christian church in Ireland are still debating why the Gaelic Christian church followed the model of the Egyptian Coptic church rather then Rome.

I think you're making a schoolchild's error of answering the question that you want to answer, and not responding to what was said.

The issue is essentially a matter of why Christianity was successful in its earliest years in Ireland. And a significant reason for this was Irish moral and religious law, which was more systematic and more centralised than Brehon and which was less heterogenous, oral in tradition at first, and more diffuse. A fine example of the influence of Christianity,and this compromise between the Pagan relics and Christian morality and would be the the Seanchas Mor, which was known sometimes as Cain Phadraig.

Not only did Irish christianity help to formalise the social order of the region in a legal sense, its systemic and comprehensive treatment of Catholic mythology and superstition was highly compatible with the population and its own pre-existing mythology,which again had never had an outlet in formal or written form prior to Christianity, which could provide a more consistent source of myth which the natives could live with quite happily.

as125634do

Explains it all really when u say strict irish catholic u think sexually frustrated and likely to start a fight over something. Fighting irish? Wat a lie we got owned by the church and english. After reading this thread you canhardly blame the church for pedo if our societyvwas alreaeyvpromiscuous

flanders1979

later10 wrote: »

I don't know how opposed I am to this.
Abortion is a serious issue, whether you are pro or anti legalisation. A society that cannot bear to look at a dead foetus may not have much credibility in deciding that that foetus can lawfully have its life ended.

Obviously, if this religious couple were spouting lies about abortion, that deserves to be met head on with facts. Photos (in the case of older adolescents),I'm more okay with.

.

Glad I got an intelligent response, but I don't believe the CBS had any right trying to influence us in such a delicate and personal subject. We were around 14 at the time. Abortion is a difficult decision a couple or mother might have to make some day, that should have no influence from a bunch of frustrated elderly religious people on a bunch of impressionable teens.

Bannasidhe

later10 wrote: »

I think you're making a schoolchild's error of answering the question that you want to answer, and not responding to what was said.

The issue is essentially a matter of why Christianity was successful in its earliest years in Ireland. And a significant reason for this was Irish moral and religious law, which was more systematic and more centralised than Brehon and which was less heterogenous, oral in tradition at first, and more diffuse. A fine example of the influence of Christianity,and this compromise between the Pagan relics and Christian morality and would be the the Seanchas Mor, which was known sometimes as Cain Phadraig.

Not only did Irish christianity help to formalise the social order of the region in a legal sense, its systemic and comprehensive treatment of Catholic mythology and superstition was highly compatible with the population and its own pre-existing mythology,which again had never had an outlet in formal or written form prior to Christianity, which could provide a more consistent source of myth which the natives could live with quite happily.

Most of that makes no sense whatsoever!

Seriously, Give me strength - it wasn't bloody successful in it's earliest years in Ireland. It was a few hundred monks stuck on a craggy rock somewhere.
Up until the 12th century there were people in Ireland who never even heard of Christianity - and could care less.



Church law may have been more centralised and systematic then Brehon law but it also had no impact in Ireland and Brehon Law continued to be used until the Tudor period!!!!!!

Please go and read a decent history book before spouting nonsense and accusing other people of making a schoolchild's error. I would recommend the Daithi O Cronin one I referred to in a previous post as a good starting point.

BunShopVoyeur

OP was clearly fingered at mass.

Bannasidhe

as125634do wrote: »

Explains it all really when u say strict irish catholic u think sexually frustrated and likely to start a fight over something. Fighting irish? Wat a lie we got owned by the church and english. After reading this thread you canhardly blame the church for pedo if our societyvwas alreaeyvpromiscuous

What are you on about?

Paparazzo

Back to the thread subject.
If I came into a room and a priest was standing there and my hamster was gone, I'd assume he done a "Richard Gere", not ate it.

Logical Fallacy

as125634do wrote: »

Explains it all really when u say strict irish catholic u think sexually frustrated and likely to start a fight over something. Fighting irish? Wat a lie we got owned by the church and english. After reading this thread you canhardly blame the church for pedo if our societyvwas alreaeyvpromiscuous

Ah yes, promiscuity, a gateway act to kiddy-fiddling.

Or not.

c_man

What did the Catholic Church ever do to deserve all the abuse it gets in Ireland???










:pac::pac::pac:

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Afraid not in Ireland..or Scotland for that matter..

It all has to do with who was and who wan't in the Roman Empire.

Imperial Rome would come along, take over, impose centralisation and their own legal system, 'adopt' the local Gods and change their names, impose Roman culture, create an infrastructure and build cities.
The Roman Catholic church then used that existing structure. A diocese for example was the Roman administrative name for a geographical region. The RCC is just that - the church of ROME. It attached religion to the trappings of the empire - when the empire fell, the church was poised to fill the vacuum. And it did.

The Roman empire never got to Ireland. So it remained tribal, had no cities until the Vikings built them, had no central authority with control over the whole island until the Tudors imposed it, already had its own legal code and culture which existed for at least a thousand years before Christ and survived until into the 17th century, etc etc.

In fact, scholars of the early Christian church in Ireland are still debating why the Gaelic Christian church followed the model of the Egyptian Coptic church rather then Rome.

Gerald of Wales had a lot to say about that in the 12th century. The Gaelic church did not evangelise in Ireland at all, where it was based around independent monastic settlements (often very isolated) which were controlled by the ruling clan in the region.

From the 6th to the 12 centuries there was a serious power struggle between the Gaelic church and the Roman church - Rome won.

So no, the church of Rome did not partially formalised a pre-Christian social order. It actually worked with the crown of England to bring Ireland 'into line' - which meant destroying the existing social order completely.

Twice the Pope granted control of Ireland to English monarchs in perpetuity. First to Henry II in the 12th century and later to Mary I in the 16th. It also supported the Act of Union in 1801.

There are so many assumptions and generalisations and outdated theories that its often misleading but true elsewhere. Much of it based on flimsy 20th century revisionism.

For instance

Twice the Pope granted control of Ireland to English monarchs in perpetuity. First to Henry II in the 12th century.

You are referring to the Laudabiliter. However, many think this a fake. To quote Fintan O'Toole

Henry did not refer to Laudabiliter when he landed near Waterford in 1171. It does not appear in the English or Vatican archives. It is not referred to in subsequent papal correspondence with Henry. Giraldus (our informant on it), moreover, was not averse to a spot of forgery: his book also contains a letter from Adrian’s successor as pope, Alexander III, that no one believes to be genuine.

The idea that the Early Medieval church was based on remote monastic settlements has also being largely debunked. The evidence suggests most churches were for lay people and monasteries were the exception not the norm (Ó Carragáin. 2010. Churches in Early Medieval Ireland: Architecture, Ritual and Memory).

Even from an early date the church looked to Rome. Some of what you have written is widely accepted though. Yet, there are many gaps in our knowledge of the interaction between ordinary people and the church. There is a lot we don't know and it’s right to be wary of any simplistic anti (or pro church) grand narratives.

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Most of that makes no sense whatsoever!

Up until the 12th century there were people in Ireland who never even heard of Christianity - and could care less.

Just out of interest could you provide a source for that? I am quite interested. Thanks.

OP's right IMO, no need to get all philosophical with him (Overheal, I'm presuming you're posting as a Joe Soap, adn not The Almighty Mod)

Anyways, this whole atheist evangelism/religious evangelism is nothing more than

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAcnDevkTnc

I'm never in After Hours anymore. The godful & Godless bullsh*t ruins it.

cloud493

Ive considered the catholic church to be an extremely positive influence on my life. The local priest who helped me after a very bad time with protestants(not that its at all relevant) was extremely.... good? Anyway, people are entitled to believe what they want. I don't need everyone bawling in my ear, telling me how **** the church is. Thats your opinion, good for you. Keep it to yourself.

humanji

cloud493 wrote: »

Ive considered the catholic church to be an extremely positive influence on my life. The local priest who helped me after a very bad time with protestants(not that its at all relevant) was extremely.... good? Anyway, people are entitled to believe what they want. I don't need everyone bawling in my ear, telling me how **** the church is. Thats your opinion, good for you. Keep it to yourself.

Can the church keep to itself too? I don't need to be woken up by the Angelus on Sundays. I've a bit of a feeling that Catholics know what time mass is on at.

Corkfeen

Father Damo wrote: »

Say there's 200 million priests in the world, and 5% of them are paedophiles, that's still only 10 million.


Had to throw the Ted one in there People seem to forget that when all this was happening in the industrial schools there was Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the Gardai, the health boards....there was all these different organisations who failed to act or turned a blind eye to what was happening, not just the church.

You do realise the Church had a large influence upon the Irish state. Condoms only became fully legalised in 1993, divorce in 1995 and homosexuality in 1988. So you're telling me that the church had no impact on the everyday lives of people of Ireland? This is of course not including numerous other present day issues that they're involved in; homophobia, the spread of aids in Africa (although you will vehemently deny this), Sex abuse scandals etc. Alot of people did not speak up the scandals purely because of the influence that they held.

Kepti

cloud493 wrote: »

Ive considered the catholic church to be an extremely positive influence on my life. The local priest who helped me after a very bad time with protestants(not that its at all relevant) was extremely.... good? Anyway, people are entitled to believe what they want. I don't need everyone bawling in my ear, telling me how **** the church is.

Thats your opinion, good for you. Keep it to yourself.

oppenheimer1

Corkfeen wrote: »

You do realise the Church had a large influence upon the Irish state. Condoms only became fully legalised in 1993, divorce in 1995 and homosexuality in 1988. So you're telling me that the church had no impact on the everyday lives of people of Ireland? This is of course not including numerous other present day issues that they're involved in; homophobia, the spread of aids in Africa (although you will vehemently deny this), Sex abuse scandals etc. Alot of people did not speak up the scandals purely because of the influence that they held.

The spread of Aids in Africa has little to do with the Catholic Church. Only a tiny proportion of Africans are Catholic.

I believe the Catholic advice was to abstain from sexual relationships if you have Aids. Abstention is the best was to prevent its spread - I know I wouldn't be happy using a condom as my only protection against catching the disease.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

Just out of interest could you provide a source for that? I am quite interested. Thanks.

robp - Gerald of Wales first said it in the Topography of Ireland - do some research on recent work on that and you will find the evidence indicates he was telling the truth.

As for Laudabil- yes. It's a more then likely a fake. However, some research on the subject will soon uncover the fact that the Papacy did indeed issue a grant of Ireland to Henry II - what he did not issue was a Papal Bull which is what Laudabil (as I like to call it) was meant to be.

It you want to continue this discussion on 'flimsy' 20th century revisionism and the role of the church in Gaelic Ireland my I suggest we move it to History and Heritage where I promise you I will inundate you with primary sources in support of my statements.

In the mean time - what was posted in answer to a specific comment is beginning to drag us off topic and now we may never find out what happened the hamster.

Father Damo

Corkfeen wrote: »

You do realise the Church had a large influence upon the Irish state. Condoms only became fully legalised in 1993, divorce in 1995 and homosexuality in 1988. So you're telling me that the church had no impact on the everyday lives of people of Ireland?

Where did I say it didnt? But by the 80s its impact had become minimial compared to 20 years previously.

How many people in the 1980s were in prison for being gay, out of curiousity? The rule might have been on the books but it wasnt enforced. Im fairly sure there were gay bars in Dublin in the 80s FFS.

Condoms may have been illegal but seeing as every person aged 15 and over wasnt pregnant 24/7 I have a feeling there may have been a black market for the things.

As for divorce, cant you have your marriage annulled by the church anyway?

As for abortion, we dont have it. So what. We dont have the death penalty either. We dont have a ban on alcohol consumption. We dont have quite a few rules other countries have.

, the spread of aids in Africa (although you will vehemently deny this), .

Of course I will deny it. For the same reason I will deny the world is going to end in December 2012- because its a flawed theory for pesudo intellectual fcukwits to use as a platform for their inane ramblings.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In the mean time - what was posted in answer to a specific comment is beginning to drag us off topic and now we may never find out what happened the hamster.

Thought it was obvious. Didn't the Catholic Church eat it? Them frock wearing god bothering bastards.

30Min

So the Catholic Church actually managed to avoid molesting the OP.

Pat on the back for them !!

30Min

cloud493 wrote: »

Ive considered the catholic church to be an extremely positive influence on my life. The local priest who helped me after a very bad time with protestants(not that its at all relevant) was extremely.... good? Anyway, people are entitled to believe what they want. I don't need everyone bawling in my ear, telling me how **** the church is. Thats your opinion, good for you. Keep it to yourself.

No- the people who have had awful experiences with the Catholic Church should and have every right to speak out.

If the TRUTH hurts- tough ****- its the TRUTH !!

http://bocktherobber.com/2009/05/questiona-and-answers-clerical-rape-victim-confronts-minister