What do Irish Catholics actually believe in?

FergusODowd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does Mickey D sit on a golden throne?

Yes, it was on tv. It cost €3,000, before that they sat on the throne left behind by the British in dublin castle. He also lives in a comfy palace called the Aras, while the homeless sleep on Dublin streets.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does the Irish State possess countless priceless works of art

Yes, check out the gallaries and museums, and the bank collections. Some nice priceless works of art there.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The sale of a Michelangelo and a Raphael should cover the Church's liability.

And the sale of the paintings in the state gallery would go some way to cover theirs.

FergusODowd

Pushtrak wrote: »

My post was directed at Fergus. It seemed like he was taking one view of the state, and one of the catholic church.

No I don't as I have clearly pointed out, but other people here do.

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

No I don't as I have clearly pointed out, but other people here do.

Yes, indeed. Just clarifying in that response what my other post was about. I did say seemed, as in I no longer thought that.

catbear

Fergus, the state and RCC are two different entities. One has to serve the needs of everyone in the state, the latter just serves those loyal to Rome. Rome and followers must pay for their own mistakes. unafiliated tax payers of a host state are not liable. If state employees colluded with the RCC then they must pay themselves for their neglect of duty by being removed from position and have their privalages recinded.

FergusODowd

catbear wrote: »

Fergus, the state and RCC are two different entities. One has to serve the needs of everyone in the state, the latter just serves those loyal to Rome. Rome and followers must pay for their own mistakes. unafiliated tax payers of a host state are not liable. If state employees colluded with the RCC then they must pay themselves for their neglect of duty by being removed from position and have their privalages recinded.

I'm sorry but the "all Catholics are bad and all bad state decisions are Catholic caused" argument does not wash with me. The Catholic Church must make amends for its failures, but equally, so must the state, anything else is just hypocrisy. 115 Children died in state care over the last 10 years in this country, and yet hardly a word is being breathed about it, and because it can't be pinned on the Catholic Church this time, it's not fashionable to dare speak about it.

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

115 Children died in state care over the last 10 years in this country

This warrants discussion in another thread. Was about to ask for a link on it. Perhaps you could start another thread on the issue with the link?

TehDagsBass

What is an Irish Catholic?

Catholics are expected to adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, by definition (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM). No "Catholic" I know does, so they're not Catholics. 84% of the country claim to be Catholic, yet I would imagine not 5% of that 84% adhere to the rules of the Catholic Church. So they're not Catholics.

Just because I call myself something, does not mean I am that. I could say I'm a CEO, but if I'm not the chief executive of a company, then I'm not a CEO, no matter how much I assert that I am. I can assert that I'm a Muslim, however I neither read the Qu'ran nor follow its teachings, I don't participate in their rituals nor do I pray to their God, so I'm not a Muslim, no matter how much I assert that.

For some reason we here just respect the delusional people's "right" to call themselves something that they're clearly not. Irish "Catholics" have no "belief", they're just scared of having no belief.

When someone who does not adhere to the teachings of the Catholic church calls themselves a Catholic, all I see is a lazy, ignorant and fearful person.

Lazy, as they will not follow the rules of the religious organisation they claim membership of, lazy because they do not investigate or consider the alternatives, lazy because they do not open their minds and read about how life and nature actually work.

Ignorant because they have no knowledge or even desire for the knowledge of how life or the universe have come to be, so instead fall back on "Er, God made it". What God they're referring to? Who knows, but I hope it isn't the Catholic God as he'll **** them up for their behaviour.

Fearful because they're afraid to face their own "belief" and find out where they actually stand, fearful because they're afraid to NOT "believe" in something in case it "comes back to get them" (such as Pascal's Wager), despite the fact that claiming such beliefs and not following the rules attached to it have dire consequences, fearful because they're afraid to announce that they're in some way different to the other lazy, ignorant and fearful sheep that they've been raised surrounded by.

I am, however, thankful that we don't have Christian fundamentalists the way the US do, and seem to be getting more of. A bunch of hand wringing "Catholics" beats the people who force creationism into the school curriculum and send death threats to anyone who expresses a different opinion to theirs, such as the case of Jessica Alquist.

Galwayguy35

TehDagsBass wrote: »

What is an Irish Catholic?

Catholics are expected to adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, by definition (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM). No "Catholic" I know does, so they're not Catholics. 84% of the country claim to be Catholic, yet I would imagine not 5% of that 84% adhere to the rules of the Catholic Church. So they're not Catholics.

Just because I call myself something, does not mean I am that. I could say I'm a CEO, but if I'm not the chief executive of a company, then I'm not a CEO, no matter how much I assert that I am. I can assert that I'm a Muslim, however I neither read the Qu'ran nor follow its teachings, I don't participate in their rituals nor do I pray to their God, so I'm not a Muslim, no matter how much I assert that.

For some reason we here just respect the delusional people's "right" to call themselves something that they're clearly not. Irish "Catholics" have no "belief", they're just scared of having no belief.

When someone who does not adhere to the teachings of the Catholic church calls themselves a Catholic, all I see is a lazy, ignorant and fearful person.

Lazy, as they will not follow the rules of the religious organisation they claim membership of, lazy because they do not investigate or consider the alternatives, lazy because they do not open their minds and read about how life and nature actually work.

Ignorant because they have no knowledge or even desire for the knowledge of how life or the universe have come to be, so instead fall back on "Er, God made it". What God they're referring to? Who knows, but I hope it isn't the Catholic God as he'll **** them up for their behaviour.

Fearful because they're afraid to face their own "belief" and find out where they actually stand, fearful because they're afraid to NOT "believe" in something in case it "comes back to get them" (such as Pascal's Wager), despite the fact that claiming such beliefs and not following the rules attached to it have dire consequences, fearful because they're afraid to announce that they're in some way different to the other lazy, ignorant and fearful sheep that they've been raised surrounded by.

I am, however, thankful that we don't have Christian fundamentalists the way the US do, and seem to be getting more of. A bunch of hand wringing "Catholics" beats the people who force creationism into the school curriculum and send death threats to anyone who expresses a different opinion to theirs, such as the case of Jessica Alquist.

What's it got to do with you if a person wants to call themselves Catholic.

Pushtrak

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What's it got to do with you if a person wants to call themselves Catholic.

Lets see.

1) The Catholic Church is corrupt.
2) The Catholic Church uses the faux Catholic numbers as a means of showing their relevance today which is as empty as a politician’s address to the people.
3) I tend to prefer people who are honest to both others and themselves.
4) Leave the best (worst?) till last.. Primary school education, and the impact of the catholic church on it would be better as a sad memory than a depressing reality. (Guess this ties in to point 2 but kinda wanted to make this a point on its own, too.)

I'm sure there are more but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

TehDagsBass

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

What's it got to do with you if a person wants to call themselves Catholic.

Because, when they're not Catholic and they put down that they're Catholic on the official census of the country, they skew statistics that are both used by the State for planning and the Catholic Church for using against other people.

Galwayguy35

Pushtrak wrote: »

Lets see.

1) The Catholic Church is corrupt.
2) The Catholic Church uses the faux Catholic numbers as a means of showing their relevance today which is as empty as a politician’s address to the people.
3) I tend to prefer people who are honest to both others and themselves.
4) Leave the best (worst?) till last.. Primary school education, and the impact of the catholic church on it would be better as a sad memory than a depressing reality. (Guess this ties in to point 2 but kinda wanted to make this a point on its own, too.)

I'm sure there are more but I'll leave it at that for the moment.

Hmm, so you don't like Catholics then.

Galwayguy35

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Because, when they're not Catholic and they put down that they're Catholic on the official census of the country, they skew statistics that are both used by the State for planning and the Catholic Church for using against other people.

Why on earth would someone put down that they were Catholic if they aren't?
The fact is that people, although they might not go to Mass every week would still marry, christen their kids and bury their loved ones in Catholic churches. The sooner church bashers realise this and accept peoples right to call themselves what they wish the better.

Pushtrak

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Hmm, so you don't like Catholics then.

I don't like the ramifications of Catholicism on the country.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why on earth would someone put down that they were Catholic if they aren't?

There are people who are cultural catholics, i.e they don't subscribe to any of the tenets but will go to Christenings, funerals, marriages and will take part in said festivities. They don't believe in the tenets which in the eyes of the vatican would excommunicate them. I posted about this already.

Then there are a la carte catholics, who will remove the things they don't buy in to. I've seen people reject the idea of the resurrection, transubstantiation, and I think we've all seen people who have no issue with the use of condoms, for instance and other things that are decidedly uncatholic.

They post here that they are catholic, and they put down on the census that they are so. It is self identity not based in reality.

The fact is that people, although they might not go to Mass every week would still marry, christen their kids and bury their loved ones in Catholic churches. The sooner church bashers realise this and accept peoples right to call themselves what they wish the better.

Being a catholic means more than that though. There are specific dogmas that go along with being a catholic. It is a pretty simple issue. It is a "follow this or you aren't in the club" type thing but lots of people haven't got the memo.

And I have posted some examples of the effect on the country of people who proclaim to be one thing when they are not. It is well for us that we aren't living in a Islamic country or we'd well be living under Sharia. Perhaps you can see in that analogy that perhaps apathy on the issue isn't an entirely sensible approach.

Oh, one last point about non catholics down on the census. It is, if you have never encountered this "Catholic by mammy" which basically is about the person who fills in the census for the family, say the mother will put down catholic regardless of the truth value of the claim.

It is well that there are Educate Together schools, but it isn't so great that 90% of the schools are Catholic. With placement prioritized for those of the faith... who generally aren't really of the faith anyway.

FergusODowd

Pushtrak wrote: »

Lets see.

1) The Catholic Church is corrupt.

No, the Catholic church consists of millions of people, and some people in the Catholic Church are corrupt, just as some people in Ireland are corrupt, just as some black people steal cars, just as some white people steal money.

Pushtrak wrote: »

2) The Catholic Church uses the faux Catholic numbers as a means of showing their relevance today which is as empty as a politician’s address to the people.

If you have more accurate numbers, and a more accurate source feel free to post them up.

Pushtrak wrote: »

3) I tend to prefer people who are honest to both others and themselves.

Agreed, I also prefer people to practice what they preach, see note 1 and 4

Pushtrak wrote: »

4) Leave the best (worst?) till last.. Primary school education, and the impact of the catholic church on it would be better as a sad memory than a depressing reality. (Guess this ties in to point 2 but kinda wanted to make this a point on its own, too.)

Many of us were provided with quite a good education in Catholic owned schools, more non Catholic owned schools are now needed, again a major failure of the state rather than the Catholic church.

FergusODowd

Pushtrak wrote: »

I don't like the ramifications of Catholicism on the country.

Actually it was the failure to practice their Catholicism that had the ramifications on the country, apart from preaching to us on sites like this, I doubt Irish people will bother their arse practice any other replacement morality system fully either in future.

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

No, some people in the Catholic Church are corrupt, just as some people in Ireland are corrupt, just as some black people steal cars, just as some white people steal money.

The catholic church is an organisation. Yes, organisations are full of individuals, but let us talk about the organisation as a whole here. The cover ups go all the way to the pope. And it is by his dictate what those under him do.

If you have more accurate numbers, and a more accurate source feel free to post them up.

What numbers? The census numbers? Surely you have come across them by now. Anyway, maybe this and this.

Many of us were provided with quite a good education in Catholic owned schools, more non Catholic owned schools are now needed, again a major failure of the state rather than the Catholic church.

It isn't a question of quality of education, for the most part. Though, I'd say that religious education isn't really necessary in the schools. Or, if it was, more so as a neutral platform for pluralistic reasons. I posted in my previous, but I'll add a little bit. You would probably say a catholic school has a right to an ethos. I'm not going to go so far as to assume what checks and balances you'd be thinking if you do think that way.

But, for instance, placements for education being prioritized for those of the religion firstly... Also, there was the big story about the individual who had a child and was refused entry on ethos grounds. I'll find the story if you need me to, but I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of it.

Galwayguy35

Pushtrak wrote: »

I don't like the ramifications of Catholicism on the country.

There are people who are cultural catholics, i.e they don't subscribe to any of the tenets but will go to Christenings, funerals, marriages and will take part in said festivities. They don't believe in the tenets which in the eyes of the vatican would excommunicate them. I posted about this already.

Then there are a la carte catholics, who will remove the things they don't buy in to. I've seen people reject the idea of the resurrection, transubstantiation, and I think we've all seen people who have no issue with the use of condoms, for instance and other things that are decidedly uncatholic.

They post here that they are catholic, and they put down on the census that they are so. It is self identity not based in reality.

Being a catholic means more than that though. There are specific dogmas that go along with being a catholic. It is a pretty simple issue. It is a "follow this or you aren't in the club" type thing but lots of people haven't got the memo.

And I have posted some examples of the effect on the country of people who proclaim to be one thing when they are not. It is well for us that we aren't living in a Islamic country or we'd well be living under Sharia. Perhaps you can see in that analogy that perhaps apathy on the issue isn't an entirely sensible approach.

Oh, one last point about non catholics down on the census. It is, if you have never encountered this "Catholic by mammy" which basically is about the person who fills in the census for the family, say the mother will put down catholic regardless of the truth value of the claim.

It is well that there are Educate Together schools, but it isn't so great that 90% of the schools are Catholic. With placement prioritized for those of the faith... who generally aren't really of the faith anyway.

I'm aware of cultural Catholics, they are no different to cultural Protestants which despite what people might think exist as well. It's a fact of life and there is nothing that can be done about it. In my opinion though if people aren't full members then they shouldn't bother with church ceremonies.

Pushtrak

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm aware of cultural Catholics, they are no different to cultural Protestants which despite what people might think exist as well. It's a fact of life and there is nothing that can be done about it. In my opinion though if people aren't full members then they shouldn't bother with church ceremonies.

I don't care what people believe, really. I'd never actually talk about it but for the negatives caused by it in society. For instance, in education as I have mentioned. And then as we all know by now there is the serious, persistent issue of cover ups. All in the name of a religion most people don't, at a base level support. Ridiculous.

FergusODowd

Pushtrak wrote: »

The catholic church is an organisation. Yes, organisations are full of individuals, but let us talk about the organisation as a whole here. The cover ups go all the way to the pope. And it is by his dictate what those under him do.

I know it’s not popular to jump on the hysteria bandwagon, but I'm the type of person that requires evidence and facts. Yes there's plenty against some individuals in the Church, and yet none except the usual prejudiced spin and hysteria against others. The golden thread of justice in any democracy is that people are innocent until proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Otherwise I could just claim and spread a rumour for the sake of it, that you, for example, are also a paedophile, or that you facilitated a relative’s paedophilia by not stopping / reporting them, and there is very little you could do to prove your innocence. I could then go around demanding you prove yourself innocent, and that your failiure to do so is proof of your guilt.

Pushtrak wrote: »

What numbers? The census numbers? Surely you have come across them by now. Anyway, maybe this and this.

You seem to be disputing the number of Catholics, again, other than speculation, if you have any better figures and accurate sources to back them up, feel free to post them. Sorry, I know its not popular to ask for such things, I don't mind anyone disputing figures if they are at least provide some accurate alternatives.

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

I know it’s not popular to jump on the hysteria bandwagon, but I'm the type of person that requires evidence and facts....

My assertion was relating to cover ups going all the way to the top... So, lets get on with it. Hmmm...

In an attempt to contain the fallout from abuse cases, Vatican officials expressed concern that the church's insistence on confidentiality in its treatment of priestly sexual abuse cases was seen as a ban on reporting serious accusations to the civil authorities.

Earlier this year, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the head of the Congregation for Clergy group, said instances of sexual abuse by priests were "criminal facts" as well as serious sins, and required co-operation with the civil justice system.

I wonder who Vatican officials might respond to. Anyway, onwards..
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html

On March 10, the chief exorcist of the Vatican, the Rev. Gabriele Amorth (who has held this demanding post for 25 years), was quoted as saying that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican," and that "when one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' in the holy rooms, it is all true—including these latest stories of violence and pedophilia."

There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it.

The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor.

(Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.

From same:

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

(The source mentioned at the end) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

For more info, I'll provide some more links...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/europe/13pope.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/world/europe/14pope.html?_r=1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8587082.stm
http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Caught_Orchestrating_Church_Pedophile_Cover_Up.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abuse-victims-call-investigation-pope-vatican-officials/story?id=14509592#.T6WZE-tYsto
http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/03/27/big-ol-hat-fails-to-shield-pope-ratzinger-from-sex-abuse-cover-up-allegations/
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blogs/pope-ratzinger-amp-the-cover
http://religionandallthefools.blogspot.com/2012/03/pope-benedict-xvi-led-cover-up-of.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/abuse-victims-ask-international-criminal-court-to-prosecute-pope-225831-Sep2011/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse

You seem to be disputing the number of Catholics, again if you have any better figures and accurate sources to back them up, feel free to post them. sorry, I know its not popular to ask fo such things.

You are asking me for exact numbers of people who put down on the census that they are Catholic, but are not? Is this really what you are asking? Surely you realise the ridiculousness of asking this. Where would one find a source for that? Ah, yes, but of course that is the whole point. It can not exactly be quantified, so you'll go and assume it doesn't happen. I know there have been a lot of polls on this on boards, but so far I have only found one. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71638032

marty1985

catbear wrote: »

However when Bertie made me financially accountable for abuse compensation, being passive was no longer acceptable. I believed it was unfair for non RCC taxpayers to do penance for a crime someone else committed. Since then I have been vocal in my criticism of the RCC culture of secrecy, some RCC think my secular desire for common justice is persecution of their religion. Whatever people want to believe is fine as long as they don't persecute my wallet or let their faith interfere in their duty to the common good. Simples really, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.

If RCC followers and supporters believe that their priests and bishops are above accountability to Irish state law, then they are bigots.

This is a difficult issue to discuss, but I need to object to something you raise here, and I hope you don't mind.

Firstly, Ahern's apology. It was something of a disingenuous masterstroke, and you may have unwittingly fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

As taxpayers, we do have a collective responsibility to compensate this victims of physical, mental and sexual abuse.

To return to the issue of industrial schools, let's remember these weren't instituted by the church, it was a system well-established throughout the British isles in the nineteenth century. As experienced by children, it all began with committal by the courts, and the Irish district courts handed out outrageously long sentences in comparison with the UK. It was not the church but the Irish Free State that parted children from their families, deprived them of their names, of contact with the outside world, of their rights under the constitution. It was the state that were culpable for this, and the knowledge of what was happening was held by successive ministers for Education, Justice and Health, the Taoiseach, the Civil and Public service, the courts of law, the police force in every town, the local authorities and, notoriously, the NSPCC.

Evidence of serious criminal abuse surfaced regularly but were never fully investigated, dismissed always by successive ministers for Education as "isolated incidents" - as if that was an excuse not to investigate.

For the state, the unrelenting waves of evidence of wrongdoing by the religious was a welcome distortion from a scary reality. The state was responsible in law for the system, and they were resolutely determined to block all investigation into the most crucial issue of all - the illegal and unethical committal of thousands of children by the secular courts.

Undoubtedly wrong had been done, and it was traceable directly to the State, not to the Church.

This brings me to Ahern.

Macabre though it may sound, when States of Fear was shown, in 1999, the reaction of shock and horror manifested by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and his Minister For Education, Micheal Martin, was clearly, and misleadingly, designed to emulate, in a dispicable way, the genuine and well-researched lead given in the RTE series. Bruce Arnold - The Irish Gulag

What was being revealed was a malfunctioning state operation, not a private, covert sequence of events that the state would have acted upon had it known. The main issue was that the State had run a horrific prison system for children and Ahern sidestepped the main issue by focusing on a revealed pattern of abuse.

As taxpayers we have a collective responsibility that you should not shirk. The state imprisoned children. The church didn't - they didn't have the power to do so. The state constructed the regime of committing and incarcerating children. The church didn't have the power to do that. The religious orders did horrific things, within a system run by the state, and the state knew and let it happen, and there are victims crying to high heaven for the state to recognise this, and as long as it is ignored the abuse hasn't stopped.

KeithM89_old

Mod

FergusODowd Banned so save your essay length replies

Ghost Buster

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Hmm, so you don't like Catholics then.

Taking it as given that you understand the differance between The Catholic Hierarcy and regular Catholics ....where do you draw this conclusion?

Galwayguy35

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Taking it as given that you understand the differance between The Catholic Hierarcy and regular Catholics ....where do you draw this conclusion?

Yes i do and I draw the conclusion from reading various threads here where anyone who says they are Catholic has been told they are paedophile sympathizers or that they should no longer be part of the church because of the cover ups. Read throught the various threads if you doubt me.

Pushtrak

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yes i do and I draw the conclusion from reading various threads here where anyone who says they are Catholic has been told they are paedophile sympathizers or that they should no longer be part of the church because of the cover ups. Read throught the various threads if you doubt me.

There are those who speak out against the cover ups. Obviously these people are not sympathizers. I'd take issue with those who don't speak up about the issue or try to defend the cover ups. They are still part of the catholic church, and it is appropriate they are called on trying to defend the cover ups when they try to defend that view.

Then there are the people who do not follow the dogma of the church that has certain dogma that to break means you are out of the club. Again, regarding this phenomenon I prefer people who are honest to others and themselves than those who are not.

Galwayguy35

Pushtrak wrote: »

There are those who speak out against the cover ups. Obviously these people are not sympathizers. I'd take issue with those who don't speak up about the issue or try to defend the cover ups. They are still part of the catholic church, and it is appropriate they are called on trying to defend the cover ups when they try to defend that view.

Then there are the people who do not follow the dogma of the church that has certain dogma that to break means you are out of the club. Again, regarding this phenomenon I prefer people who are honest to others and themselves than those who are not.

I think you will find that most ordinary Catholics are disgusted with the abuse and the cover up afterwards. Personally I think Cardinal Brady should resign.
I would like to see Diarmuid Martin in the job.
On your second point again I agree, it's a bit strange people who never set foot in a church getting their kids christened etc when they don't believe a word of what is being said.

Pushtrak

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think you will find that most ordinary Catholics are disgusted with the abuse and the cover up afterwards. Personally I think Cardinal Brady should resign.

I'm not sure if most is appropriate there. I can't really say its a minority, either though. Nothing to cite for either perspective. Anyway, some posts from the thread about the cardinal...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78514614&postcount=221
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75770437&postcount=19
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75770489&postcount=22
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78513464&postcount=169
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78513493&postcount=170

Also worth checking out this thread and also this article.

Anyway, an important thing to consider, I feel though is consider what Brady was saying, that he was a note taker. Notes are taken with the intention of keeping them. I really wonder how populous the clergy would be if all the notes were to be revealed, and facilitators, or those who covered up these crimes were to be removed from their positions. I guess, I too can be guilty of excess wishful thinking.

Galwayguy35

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm not sure if most is appropriate there. I can't really say its a minority, either though. Nothing to cite for either perspective. Anyway, some posts from the thread about the cardinal...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78514614&postcount=221
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75770437&postcount=19
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75770489&postcount=22
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78513464&postcount=169
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78513493&postcount=170

Also worth checking out this thread and also this article.

Anyway, an important thing to consider, I feel though is consider what Brady was saying, that he was a note taker. Notes are taken with the intention of keeping them. I really wonder how populous the clergy would be if all the notes were to be revealed, and facilitators, or those who covered up these crimes were to be removed from their positions. I guess, I too can be guilty of excess wishful thinking.

I'm not sure what point you are making here with the various posts. I'm not on here to speak for other posters opinions on Cardinal Brady, I stand by my view that he should go.

Pushtrak

The point was, I can't say there is a majority who'll continue to defend the cover ups, or that it is a minority. But what I could do was to show some examples of the phenomenon. What tends to happen is if I don't provide a source, I'll be asked for one. So, better to just skip that formality. Especially when it was so easily done.

Galwayguy35

Pushtrak wrote: »

The point was, I can't say there is a majority who'll continue to defend the cover ups, or that it is a minority. But what I could do was to show some examples of the phenomenon. What tends to happen is if I don't provide a source, I'll be asked for one. So, better to just skip that formality. Especially when it was so easily done.

Fair enough. Personally I think it's amazing that anyone would even try to defend the cover ups.

1stimpressions

68Murph68 wrote: »

Basically Irish Catholics in my experience believe

1) you get a child baptised to get into school
2) First Communion and Confirmation are 1) so that the kid will get money and wont be left out and 2) to have a day out
3) Marriage - you get married in a church because a church is where people have proper romantic weddings in films/ where your parents got married
4) Funerals - Less hassle to have a church funeral. What the alternative?
5) Christmas - Midnight Mass/ Mass on Christmas morning is a nice ritual but it doesn't mean anything really.
6) Heaven is a nice idea and less scarier than the alternatives even though it doesn't hold up to any sort of critical thinking
7) Religion in schools is fine because you have to teach kids right from wrong :rolleyes:
8) Confession is really weird and creepy

Their real opinion on the whole theology business of the church
Virgin birth - pull the other one
Jesus the son of God - no not really
Jesus died and came back three days later - yeah right
Transubstantiation - you're having a laugh
Children are born in a state of sin and thus need to be baptised to be cleansed - feck off

Hardly any Irish Catholics believe that any of the following are in any way actually morally wrong
-sex outside marriage
-contraception
-homosexuality
-divorce

Most believe that
-Priests shouldn't be celibate
-The Pope is not infallible and is a bit of a bollix
-The organisation itself is massively corrupt and there are some serious bad apples.

This is based on my experience with my family (parents, siblings, cousins) and friends. My family would all identify as Catholic (that's what they put down on the census) All have been married in churches. My sister had no problem with me being godfather to her son (even though I told her I believed it was morally wrong to baptism him - her response was "yeah but that doesn't matter" :rolleyes: ; I baptised him in the name of Satan, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Batman while babysitting him one day and I reckon that I this baptisms cancel out the other one)

Hopefully this post ends the incessant threads on the subject. Ireland and its Catholicism/religion/culture very accurately described.

bnt

There's a thread in the A&A forum about a letter in the Irish Times, here. I'm not going to quote the whole thing here, but I'm curious to know just how representative that is. The author basically says that he's the Pope's servant, and that what the Vatican says, goes.

In my view, there's definitely a major gap between a) the beliefs of the average Christian priest or believer, and b) the
sophisticated theology of intellectual Christians, some of whom have so many rationalisations that you can't tell what they believe any more. Some of them are residents of Vatican City. So much time and effort by otherwise smart people, poured in to debates and analysis of semiotics, hermeneutics, semantics ... such a waste of time and talent.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

It's amazing when you actually start to realise what people are saying in church. I got chills the first time I realised everyone in unison chanted "IT IS RIGHT TO GIVE HIM THANKS AND PRAISE"

Really, how far away is that from chanting "THE LEADER IS GOOD, THE LEADER IS GREAT. WE SURRENDER OUR WILL AS OF THIS DATE"

Na na na na na Na na na na na LEADER!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fnmhj58o0k