Do you go to Mass regularly?

partyatmygaff

Siuin wrote: »

The decision of what to eat is a health issue-

What about something like "What friends to associate with"? If a 15 year old thinks hanging around with a load of shoplifting scangers and pretending that you're a "gangsta" straight out of South Central LA is a good idea but their parents don't and stop them from mixing with them they're imposing their views on their child. Which, as you can see, isn't always a bad thing, it's just the parent doing what they think is best for their child.

deciding to force one's child to go to mass (the Catholic Church, none the less, given their great ole record with how they've treated kids) is completely counterproductive.

From the OP's point of view, he doesn't seem to care much for the hierarchy of the RCC but seems to be there for other reasons (Which I can't guess at).

dpe

Quality wrote: »

I bring my kids most weeks.The way I see it, is If I have gone to the effort of having them christened and going to an r catholic school then why wouldn't I bring them to mass?

LOL. Since most people in Ireland don't have much choice about going to catholic school I may see a slight flaw in your argument. And while it may have been your effort to get them christened, they probably didn't have much say in the matter, and yet strangely they pay the price for all your "hard work".

J Cheever Loophole wrote:

I have kids that I bring to Mass and I insist they go. If, when they reach the age of 16, they feel that it is not for them, then I'm happy for them to bow out.

Fortunately my father was more enlightened. As soon as me and my brother pointed out the more self-evidently insane bits of the bible and pronounced the whole thing stupid (aged about 7), we got a pat on the back and didn't have to go any more. He later told us if we hadn't figured it out by the time we were 10 he was going to disown us.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

It's pretty clear as it is. Parents are there to parent. Going to 16 may be a tad extreme but to say a child is there to "establish themselves as an individual" at the expense of good parenting is just codology.

Bollocks!

Whoever said that "establishing themselves as an individual" is "at the expense of good parenting"?

You want the child to ultimately be independent. Therefore, you teach. You teach nutritional information, so the child can choose. You teach religious information, so the child can choose. You do NOT force something on said child simply becuase you are a parent, because the child then, ultimately, learns nothing.

Siuin

prinz wrote: »

As a matter of interest do you feel the same about feeding a child meat? Or feeding the child a vegetarian diet etc? Where do you draw the line between what is up to the parent.... and what is up to the child to decide for themselves?

I think there should be boundaries for kids (although I wouldn't have a problem with them being a vegetarian, so long as they ate healthily) but when it comes to something like religion, there is simply no good reason to force them to go other than trying to pound an ideology they have already rejected into their heads

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You want the child to ultimately be independent. Therefore, you teach. You teach nutritional information, so the child can choose. You teach religious information, so the child can choose. You do NOT force something on said child simply becuase you are a parent, because the child then, ultimately, learns nothing.

So the child decides they want McDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner, what you give it to them? It s their choice after all. I was under some bizarre impression the parents were there to parent, not pander to the choices of a toddler.

Siuin

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What about something like "What friends to associate with"? If a 15 year old thinks hanging around with a load of shoplifting scangers and pretending that you're a "gangsta" straight out of South Central LA is a good idea but their parents don't and stop them from mixing with them they're imposing their views on their child. Which, as you can see, isn't always a bad thing, it's just the parent doing what they think is best for their child.

From the OP's point of view, he doesn't seem to care much for the hierarchy of the RCC but seems to be there for other reasons (Which I can't guess at).

I don't see the association between worry about who the child is hanging out with and forcing them to go to mass when they don't want to go? I never said don't have boundaries, I just think religion is an issue where you should allow a child to see what is out there and let them make decisions as to what part it will play in their own lives, if at all. Forcing a child to sit through mass is completely counterproductive and selfish on the parent's behalf tbh.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

So the child decides they want McDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner, what you give it to them?

IS that what you read from my post? Go back and read it again. Esepcially the bit where I wrote, "you teach nutritional information". Because, for some reason, you seem to think I wrote, "you let the child eat whatever the **** they want."

Siuin

prinz wrote: »

So the child decides they want McDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner, what you give it to them? It s their choice after all. I was under some bizarre impression the parents were there to parent, not pander to the choices of a toddler.

This is a health issue and completely irrelevant- forcing a child to sit in mass is not doing anything for their physical or mental welbeing whatsoever.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

IS that what you read from my post? Go back and read it again.

Well yes, you said "you teach nutritional information, so the child can choose", and I am asking if the child chooses McDonald's every day do you cater for that choice?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Well yes, you said "you teach nutritional information, so the child can choose", and I am asking if the child chooses McDonald's every day do you cater for that choice?

You obviously have no concept of the phrases "teaching" and "nutritional information".

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You obviously have no concept of the phrases "teaching" and "nutritional information".

The one thing I have a concept of is that you can't answer a straight question.

Apparently teaching nutritional information equates to forcing the child to eat a healthy balanced diet....

partyatmygaff

Siuin wrote: »

I don't see the association between worry about who the child is hanging out with and forcing them to go to mass when they don't want to go? I never said don't have boundaries, I just think religion is an issue where you should allow a child to see what is out there and let them make decisions as to what part it will play in their own lives, if at all. Forcing a child to sit through mass is completely counterproductive and selfish on the parent's behalf tbh.

You're thinking and making decisions on the behalf of your child. You're imposing your own thoughts and opinions on them (Obviously with explanations as to why you're doing so) out of the belief that you're doing what's best for them. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

The one thing I have a concept of is that you can't answer a straight question.

Apparently teaching nutritional information equates to forcing the child to eat a healthy balanced diet....

No, it doesn't.

Your question was, "Do I let my child eat McDonald's three times a day?"
My answer was, "No, I educate them as regards nutrition. They then choose not to eat so much junk food."

I really can not make it clearer than that. You are making the implication that I simply let them run wild and do/eat waht they want because it fits your argument despite the fact that said implication is complete hysterical bull****.

Yes, I try to go as many sundays as I can. I miss some but I make an effort to go regularly.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Your question was, "Do I let my child eat McDonald's three times a day?"
My answer was, "No, I educate them as regards nutrition. They then choose not to eat so much junk food."I really can not make it clearer than that. You are making the implication that I simply let them run wild and do/eat waht they want.

Nope, I asked would you cater for their choices if they choose differently to how you'd like them to choose... hypothetically. Apparently that's too hard a question for you to answer, because they'll only ever choose what you want them to choose.

xsiborg

Siuin wrote: »

prinz wrote: »

It's pretty clear as it is. Parents are there to parent. Going to 16 may be a tad extreme but to say a child is there to "establish themselves as an individual" at the expense of good parenting is just codology.

I really don't see how 'good parenting' involves forcing a child to sit through services when they simply do not want to be there. It's a pretty good way of making them resent the church and/or the parent, but you can't FORCE a child to believe in God or Catholic doctrine

well i happen to treat people as individuals, and any of the priests in the church i go to anyway, to my knowledge, have never abused any children.

you could say the same for any activity the child might be involved in, be it basketball, hurling, swimming, etc, even hospitals and schools!

there have been numerous cases in many other areas where adults in a position of authority have abused that authority and abused children, its not just the catholic church. these people were pedophiles before they were priests, but becoming priests gave them easier access to children!

what would you suggest, that we lock children away and have them grow up in ignorance? my child doesnt want to be in school some days, should i keep him out of school because he's decided he 'doesnt want to be there'? and have him grow up ignorant and uneducated?

it is a parents duty to make these decisions for their children until their children are old enough and mature enough to understand the consequences of their decisions, and not just abandon something because they 'dont want to do it' or they 'dont want to be there.

its called teaching them discipline and responsibility, so that when they're older and mature enough and disciplined enough to take responsibility for their own actions, they'll also have thought about and understood the possible consequences!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Nope, I asked would you cater for their choices if they choose differently to how you'd like them to choose... hypothetically. Apparently that's too hard a question for you to answer, because they'll only ever choose what you want them to choose.

If they give me good reasons for their choice, then yes I would. They could not, however, give me good reasons for eating in McDonald's all the time.

If they gve me good reasons for going to mass, I would let them go. If they gave me good reasons afor not going to mass, I wouldn't foce them.

This is simple really: they present the idea and the argument, I see if it has merit or not. If not, I show they where it does not. If they can persuade me otherwise, I am open to changing my mind.

The idea that they choose what I want them to choose is what you WANT to think happens and not what actually happens. Assumption and bull**** again.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

This is simple really: they present the idea and the argument, I see if it has merit or not. If not, I show they where it does not. If they can persuade me otherwise, I am open to changing my mind.

Lol, and before they can express themselves? Ah debating and argument techniques with a toddler. Wonderful.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The idea that they choose what I want them to choose is what you WANT to think happens and not what actually happens. Assumption and bull**** again.

So you are saying when you teach them about nutrition you are completely neutral as to junk food.... You can't seem to make up your mind as to what your point is tbh.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, I educate them as regards nutrition. They then choose not to eat so much junk food.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Lol, and before they can express themselves? Ah debating and argument techniques with a toddler. Wonderful.

Who said anything about a toddler?

So you are saying when you teach them about nutrition you are completely neutral as to junk food.... You can't seem to make up your mind as to what your point is tbh.

The phrase - which you yourself defined and then decided conveniently to leave out - was "breakfast, lunch and dinner". I am not complely neutral as to junk food three times a day. I also said clearly that I would like to see my child present such an argument.

Galvasean

As someone of no religion I do not attend mass. The only exceptions are weddings and funerals, but that is to be there to support people through a harrowing (wedding) or joyous (funeral) occasion rather than any belief in or association with the church.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Who said anything about a toddler?

We were dicussing children. Is it ok for you to make decisions on behalf of a toddler? A 5 year old? a 7 year old?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The phrase - which you yourself defined - you left out there is "three times a day". I am not complely neutral as to junk food three times a day.

Of course not, and presumably if your hypothetical kids, in spite of all your good intentions and nutritional teaching, decided they wanted happy meals three times a day you'd say no.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

We were dicussing children. Is it ok for you to make decisions on behalf of a toddler? A 5 year old? a 7 year old?

I do not believe 7 year old toddlers exist.

Of course not, and presumably if your hypothetical kids, in spite of all your good intentions and nutritional teaching, decided they wanted happy meals three times a day you'd say no.

Again, you're assuming what I said and not actually reading what I said.

Child: "I want to do this because I like it."
Me: "Why?"

NOT

Child: "I want to do this because I like it."
Me: "Go for it."

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I do not believe 7 year old toddlers exist..

:pac: Yep. Well done indeed.

Siuin

xsiborg wrote: »

what would you suggest, that we lock children away and have them grow up in ignorance? my child doesnt want to be in school some days, should i keep him out of school because he's decided he 'doesnt want to be there'? and have him grow up ignorant and uneducated?

it is a parents duty to make these decisions for their children until their children are old enough and mature enough to understand the consequences of their decisions, and not just abandon something because they 'dont want to do it' or they 'dont want to be there.

its called teaching them discipline and responsibility, so that when they're older and mature enough and disciplined enough to take responsibility for their own actions, they'll also have thought about and understood the possible consequences!

School is not 'optional' until the age of 16-- attending the church or any other religious institution is. A child will not be 'ignorant' because they choose not to attend the church-- we are talking about forcing them to continue going after they already have a fair idea what the institution is about and have actively chosen not to participate.

Parents make decisions, but religion is an extremely personal matter and faith in God or whatever it is they believe in should be the perogative of that individual alone, not their busy body parent forcing their beliefs upon the child.

I fail to see what you teach a child about 'consequences' or 'discipline and responsibility' when you FORCE them to do something and give them no other option in the matter. Perhaps if they could choose not to go and actually had an alternative they might be able to assess the consequences of choosing for themselves. The only lesson I'd get from being forced to go is how to be a príck of a parent and make someone else do what I want because it's my own personal belief. If you can't trust a child to make decisions for themselves at 16 years old, then you have some serious issues which extend far beyond religion.

But suit yourselves- keep forcing your children to go to mass and I'm sure you'll succeed in making them bitter and resentful towards both the beliefs you force upon them and you as a parent. Good night

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

:pac: Yep. Well done indeed.

Point...? **** it, you haven't made one yet, why do I think you would do it now. You have tried to portray me as saying somehing I didn't, you failed. You tried to portray me as someone who lets my kids do what I want, you failed. You tried twisting the argument into something that fit your point, you failed.

As there is no logic to your last post and as you have resorted to pacman smilies, I assume you have nothing further to add. Good night.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

As there is no logic to your last post and as you have resorted to pacman smilies, I assume you have nothing further to add. Good night.

A bit like "I do not believe 7 year old toddlers exist".... I resorted to pacman because anything more would heve legitimised the stupidity of that attempt at being smart.

alphabeat

no i dont go ,

there much better produced fairy tales in the cinema

and who wants to have Benny the Nonce , Bishop McBugger and Fr Fiddler tell them how to live ?

Posy

Nope.

xsiborg

Siuin wrote: »

School is not 'optional' until the age of 16-- attending the church or any other religious institution is. A child will not be 'ignorant' because they choose not to attend the church-- we are talking about forcing them to continue going after they already have a fair idea what the institution is about and have actively chosen not to participate.

Parents make decisions, but religion is an extremely personal matter and faith in God or whatever it is they believe in should be the perogative of that individual alone, not their busy body parent forcing their beliefs upon the child.

I fail to see what you teach a child about 'consequences' or 'discipline and responsibility' when you FORCE them to do something and give them no other option in the matter. Perhaps if they could choose not to go and actually had an alternative they might be able to assess the consequences of choosing for themselves. The only lesson I'd get from being forced to go is how to be a príck of a parent and make someone else do what I want because it's my own personal belief. If you can't trust a child to make decisions for themselves at 16 years old, then you have some serious issues which extend far beyond religion.

But suit yourselves- keep forcing your children to go to mass and I'm sure you'll succeed in making them bitter and resentful towards both the beliefs you force upon them and you as a parent. Good night

when my child is a teenager and religion is the LEAST of their worries, they're going to hate me anyway, i take that as fact already.

i dont want to be my child's best friend, i am their parent. i will force my beliefs on them because i want them to do well in life, not grow up thinking that they can just abandon something because they cant be ársed with it.

its quite possible you know to make religion interesting for a child, and use it as a means to calibrate their moral compass so to speak.

its interesting too that you mention how school is not optional up until 16 because i wanted to leave school at 16 to do an apprenticeship to join my father in his business. he was absolutely insistent that there was no way i was quitting school without a leaving cert, and no questions asked!

best thing he ever did tbh, among of course the many other great things he did for me. he was a tough bástard and regularly resorted to physical discipline, but he kept me in line and taught me the meaning of respect, duty, and responsibility.

i absolutely hated him at the time for it, but i can see now that he did at the time what he thought was right, and i didnt turn out a scumbag, and i can only do what i believe is right by my child. i by no means think im the perfect parent either, but then anyone who hasnt got their head up their own hole will tell you there is no such thing as the perfect parent, nor the perfect way to be a parent, but one thing i can reassure you is that the last people i'll let influence my parenting decisions are a small group of anonymous internet hipsters with a hard-on for slating those who follow the catholic faith at every opportunity.

these threads are becoming a bit too mainstream in AH now. really i think its time for some people to move on and pracice what THEY preach- live and let live!

J Cheever Loophole

Sarky wrote: »

So you're just going to spite the prods? Awesome.

I'll confess that in my initial response, I was irked by what I feel is an unfair inference in this question.


However, given the 'thanks' that that question is now accumulating, I assume that others here, on the basis of what I wrote, see my attendance at Mass as a sectarian act on my own part.


Reluctantly therefore (because it is an unfair inference), I feel I will have to clarify my position. I am not sectarian and count myself lucky to have grown up in a mixed area. I did know people who were killed because they were Catholics and their deaths brought home to me the importance of my faith and renewed my determination to keep it as something of value to me. Hence what I said in my original post.


I have to say though Sarky that you picked up on one point only, of a number of points that I made around my attendance at Mass, and concentrated on that single point, and drew an erroneous inference, despite the fact that you don't know me.

Prejudiced or what?

Sarky

Or maybe I didn't have an issue with the rest. There's no need to jump to conclusions like that. People will think you're prejudiced.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

A bit like "I do not believe 7 year old toddlers exist".... I resorted to pacman because anything more would heve legitimised the stupidity of that attempt at being smart.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Point...? **** it, you haven't made one yet, why do I think you would do it now. You have tried to portray me as saying somehing I didn't, you failed. You tried to portray me as someone who lets my kids do what I want, you failed. You tried twisting the argument into something that fit your point, you failed.

.

I notice you have no porblem with the bold...?

Anyway: I was talking about children. You were talking about children. All of a sudden, you decided we were talking about toddlers. You specificed, 7 and 5 year old toddlers. A 7 year old or a 5 year old is not regarded as a toddler. Regardless, I tailor the pattern to suit the age. And, just before you go off on another one, this this not mean letting certain ages do what they want.

Back on topic(ish). I would not take my child (or toddler) to mass regularly for the same reason that I would not take my child (or toddler) to McD's regularly. It's not my job as a parent to force something on them that could well turn out to be detremental to their health. If, at some point, they want to persuade me to let them go to mass/McD's I will listen to their argument and, if it has merit, take them or make arrangemetns for them to be taken. It's unlikley multiple fast food requests will have merit, which is why I will teach them about nutrition. If it's mass (or any other religious service) in question, then I'll listen to what they know about the religion involved. It does not mean waiting until they are 16.

kincsem

Thursday* and Sunday.

*my mother is in a nursing home and they attend Mass on Thursday afternoon

Quality

dpe wrote: »

LOL. Since most people in Ireland don't have much choice about going to catholic school I may see a slight flaw in your argument. And while it may have been your effort to get them christened, they probably didn't have much say in the matter, and yet strangely they pay the price for all your "hard work".


Fortunately my father was more enlightened. As soon as me and my brother pointed out the more self-evidently insane bits of the bible and pronounced the whole thing stupid (aged about 7), we got a pat on the back and didn't have to go any more. He later told us if we hadn't figured it out by the time we were 10 he was going to disown us.

My kids don't mind going to mass with me and never complain or moan. Our church is full of children on a sunday.my husband and I are different religions. We made our decision to raise our children rc, as I was the one willing to involve religion in their lives.

There are plenty of choices of non denominational schools in our area, so yes options could have been made.

So I take it your enlightened father didn't allow you to take holy communion or confirmation? Really interested to hear this part.

Ellis Dee

I haven't been to Mass for many, many decades, but from what I remember of it, it's a bit like a play. However, the same character gets killed every time and the ending is always the same, so it beats me why people keep on going back.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

kfallon

Have to go today for a communion

padd b1975

Yes.

desertcircus

I attend mass once a year; it's a commemorative mass for someone. That's the sum total of my dealings with the RCC.

Also: if your kid can express a clear preference on something which doesn't carry any actual weight outside itself, why on earth would you force them to continue? Going to mass doesn't do a damn thing to inculcate ethics that can't be done outside of religion entirely, and it's arguable that it does more harm than good; by associating good and evil so closely with concepts of supernatural punishment, you run the risk of a subsequent conversion to atheism destroying the basis of their moral code. This is nothing to do with McDonald's food: that's an objectively bad choice of food. There's absolutely nothing objectively bad about not wanting to attend mass; you might as well declare all their T-shirts will be white until they turn sixteen no matter how much they protest.

Last of all: if your kid is becoming agnostic, the absolute surest way of accelerating the process and triggering full-blown atheism is to force them to attend mass for several more years. A fourteen-year-old doubter left to their own devices may return to religion; a fourteen-year-old doubter forced to attend mass will simply be given more and better reasons with every reading to abandon belief altogether.

dpe

Quality wrote: »

My kids don't mind going to mass with me and never complain or moan. Our church is full of children on a sunday.my husband and I are different religions. We made our decision to raise our children rc, as I was the one willing to involve religion in their lives.

There are plenty of choices of non denominational schools in our area, so yes options could have been made.

So I take it your enlightened father didn't allow you to take holy communion or confirmation? Really interested to hear this part.

I was raised in England so communion and confirmation aren't the bloodsports they are here, so no, I've neither taken communion or been confirmed. Once we'd dropped out of Sunday school it was simply irrelevant, there was no "not allow" involved, since we'd turned our backs on the whole process ourselves. When my kids get to that age here they'll have the choice as well, the difference here being peer pressure because its done in school, and the fact that kids here are routinely bribed to take communion.

xsiborg

dpe wrote: »

I was raised in England so communion and confirmation aren't the bloodsports they are here, so no, I've neither taken communion or been confirmed. Once we'd dropped out of Sunday school it was simply irrelevant, there was no "not allow" involved, since we'd turned our backs on the whole process ourselves. When my kids get to that age here they'll have the choice as well, the difference here being peer pressure because its done in school, and the fact that kids here are routinely bribed to take communion.

bloodsport?? bribed to take communion??

seriously?

Quality

Bribed to take communion? What is that all about.


Enlighten me?

xsiborg

Quality wrote: »

Bribed to take communion? What is that all about.


Enlighten me?

i'd love to hear their explanation of bloodsports too, might bring some elastoplast with me in my pocket to mass tomorrow, i guess you just never know when a boxing match will break out and we'll all start thumping the living daylights out of each other until we're told the mass is ended, go in peace...

this is what happens when people dont go to mass- they have no clue what they're talking about, but its much easier to be ignorant, than it is to be informed!

Acacia

Nope. I always found it painfully, painfully boring, the only thing that kept me attending was the fear that the Invisible Sky Man would send me to Hell if I missed even one weekly 40-minute boredom-fest. I know a lot of older people who go every week though, or more, and in a way I've more respect for them than the a-la-carte Catholics who ''don't really believe in Hell or any of that silly stuff'' but will go down to have an auld pray so God will grant them whatever they currently really, really want this week/month. Just to get favours basically. :rolleyes:

LETHAL LADY

No only when I have to, I hate all the sitting, kneeling and standing, plays havoc with my knees.

IvySlayer

No, I don't blindly believe in fairy tales, so no reason to set foot in a church other than a wedding/funeral.

mightdomighty

IvySlayer wrote: »

No, I don't blindly believe in fairy tales, so no reason to set foot in a church other than a wedding/funeral.

You can still go to Disney land even if you don't believe in Mickey Mouse and Co.

A church isn't as much craic though I'll give ya that. The Rides are all old and there wouldn't be two balloons to rub together

bbam

My OH goes most Sundays and brings the kids who at 3 and 9 actually like to go.
I'm often busy but make it along about once a month. I suppose we're those a la cart Catholics people talk about as we think lots of the popes thinking is way outta date.
You can bring your children AND teach them independent thinking at the same time. If nothing else religion teaches a good moral compass for children which can only be a good thing.

IvySlayer

bbam wrote: »

You can bring your children AND teach them independent thinking at the same time. If nothing else religion teaches a good moral compass for children which can only be a good thing.

What about the part with the gays?

bbam

IvySlayer wrote: »

What about the part with the gays?

Like I said, we don't believe in all the popes teachings.
I'm more than happy to pick and choose from what they teach.

BunShopVoyeur

The church, its paedophilic members and it's ignorant/dumb followers can go fück itself. Funerals only.

You have to be majorly thick to support or believe that shïte in this day and age.