School patronage

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

You've said yourself that the RCC's fundamental doctrinal statement about gay men and women, that they are "intrinsically disordered", is "unjust".

But you're now saying that what they say is just?

Which is it?

Come now, Robin, unjust and warranting a change /= hateful toward people.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

The Vatican's employee's...in this case Bishops in Ireland do not welcome gay people with open arms.....

That's not true. I've seen it myself.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not true. I've seen it myself.

Have you now? Amazing that. These bishops you've apparently seen welcomed a gay person who has gay sex did they?

Have you also seen the Vatican welcome gay women and men who have gay sex as well?

swampgas

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Come now, Robin, unjust and warranting a change /= hateful toward people.

Really? What does "intrinsically disordered" mean to you? To me, it's a fancy way of calling someone a deviant and/or a pervert. It's a pretty obnoxious term to use for a fellow human being.

eyescreamcone

What he's saying is - the RCC waters down what it says to the children in primary school because if they unloaded their whole program of:
- anti gay
- anti women
- anti divorce, abortion and contraception
- anti condoms to help prevent AIDS

...people might think that they are a bunch of crazies!!!

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Have you now? Amazing that. These bishops you've apparently seen welcomed a gay person who has gay sex did they?

They don't dwell on those private matters, but yes, I've seen bishops embrace gay people who happen to sing in choirs, are members of pilgramage groups, etc with their partners alongside them.

You should get out more Cabaal. The world isn't as black and white as you believe. Most people rub along nicely together and try to do their best by each other.

I Heart Internet

swampgas wrote: »

Really? What does "intrinsically disordered" mean to you? To me, it's a fancy way of calling someone a deviant and/or a pervert. It's a pretty obnoxious term to use for a fellow human being.

It is, indeed. I think it should change.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Come now, Robin, unjust and warranting a change /= hateful toward people.

As swampgas says, what does "intrinsically disordered" convey to you? This is the written policy of the RCC and, according to the RCC, all catholics are required to uphold it.

Does "intrinically disordered" send out warm, friendly vibes, or diseased and dangerous ones?

Sarky

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What he's saying is - the RCC waters down what it says to the children in primary school because if they unloaded their whole program of:
- anti gay
- anti women
- anti divorce, abortion and contraception
- anti condoms to help prevent AIDS

...people might think that they are a bunch of crazies!!!

Much like how Scientology gets in vulnerable and impressionable people by looking all nice and friendly at the stsart, and not really mentioning the child slave labour and litigating people to the point of suicide.

I Heart Internet

eyescreamcone wrote: »

What he's saying is - the RCC waters down what it says to the children in primary school because if they unloaded their whole program of:
- anti gay
- anti women
- anti divorce, abortion and contraception
- anti condoms to help prevent AIDS

...people might think that they are a bunch of crazies!!!

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Cabaal

swampgas wrote: »

Really? What does "intrinsically disordered" mean to you? To me, it's a fancy way of calling someone a deviant and/or a pervert. It's a pretty obnoxious term to use for a fellow human being.

intrinsically

belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something

disordered

- in a confused or messy state : having a lack of order or organization
medical : not working in a normal, healthy way

So we have two meanings,
naturally messy or confused
or
naturally unhealthy

Either way its a pretty ****ed up way to refer to people, I'm sure I Heart Internet will tell us it means something else though.

eyescreamcone

Sarky wrote: »

Much like how Scientology gets in vulnerable and impressionable people by looking all nice and friendly at the stsart, and not really mentioning the child slave labour and litigating people to the point of suicide.

But But Scientology is an evil money grabbing cult...whereas the RCC is






....an evil money grabbing cult!!!

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Stop skating around the issue
We know issues like this don't occupy the mindset of the church 100% of the time no more then a persons racist hatred of a black person also does not occupy a person's mindset 100% of the time, but it is none the less their view of black people....or in this case the RCC's view on gays.

It does not however change the very fact that the message of hatred by the Vatican is still their view on the matter,

End of,

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

End of,

Well you must be right so if this is the end.

swampgas

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Just because there are other issues that may concern Catholics doesn't make the RCC's official stance on homosexuality any less offensive. I fail to see what difference it makes, to be honest.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well you must be right so if this is the end.

Sadly I am proven right by the Vatican's stance on the matter as they head the Roman Catholic Church that has its ethos in so many of our schools,

I don't take joy in this, infact I find it so very sad that you're happy to keep religion pushed on a majority even those this very religion teaches hatred towards gay children/teenagers and towards kids parents,

I honestly wish I wasn't right, I take no joy in it what so ever.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

The USSR wasn't occupied with the Gulags most of its thinking time. Still didn't make it a nicer organisation.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Sadly I am proven right by the Vatican's stance on the matter as they head the Roman Catholic Church that has its ethos in so many of our schools,

I don't take joy in this, infact I find it so very sad that you're happy to keep religion pushed on a majority even those this very religion teaches hatred towards gay children/teenagers and towards kids parents,

I honestly wish I wasn't right, I take no joy in it what so ever.

I suggest, in all seriousness, that you visit a couple of weekend masses (where you'll get a sermon) in the next month or so and listen to see what kind of message is being given. Also, talk to some parents with children in RCC run schools and ask them what message is being given to their children. Please come back and let us know what you heard. You MAY find some reason to be less unhappy about the current state of affairs.

Cabaal

gaynorvader wrote: »

The USSR wasn't occupied with the Gulags most of its thinking time. Still didn't make it a nicer organisation.

They still use them, but sure Putin must be a lovely chap because it doesn't occupy his mind all of the time

eyescreamcone

The policies of the RCC belong in a bygone era.

Even the members of the RCC don't agree with their stance on many/all issues.

I can't understand how people (even RCC members) who don't believe in the core values of the RCC, are quite happy to say "we wan't our children taught all this rubbish ...even though it's nonsense".

If you don't go to mass, have sex outside of marriage, use contraception, vote yes for abortion, think transubstantiation is a bit weird, not sure about the whole Marian story...etc.

But then turn around and say I wan't my children taught the whole works in school and I want the lovely communion pictures etc.

Then that person in my opinion is a hypocrite and/or maybe even a little schizophrenic!






Maybe I'm closer to the truth than I imagine because the RCC god thinks he's 3 persons ...and man was made in his image!!!
Eureka!!!

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I suggest, in all seriousness, that you visit a couple of weekend masses (where you'll get a sermon) in the next month or so and listen to see what kind of message is being given.

I don't have to waste my time,
My wife attends a number of masses as part of her role in a Choir, so I hear all about the messages of peace and love and open arms.

- Messages of love outlined by the priest have included how marriage was just for men and women and should never be extended to gay people, how gay sex is unnatural and sinful.

- How sex outside marriage was awful and wrong

- The priest allowed Youth Defense to hand out leaflets within a church itself (yes, inside the church building), infact I had gone in to meet my wife and they tried to hand one to me

- Oh, one of my favs, how the people at a mass should pray for all the Christians involved in a disaster. Not people, but just the Christians even though the Christians were only a very small minority of the people killed/hurt.

There's more but really they don't paint a good picture....

Also, talk to some parents with children in RCC run schools and ask them what message is being given to their children. Please come back and let us know what you heard.

I'm not wasting my time going over this again,
We've established the message of hatred given by the Vatican and as such the RCC.

jank

swampgas wrote: »

Yet religious people demand that their religion be "respected". However if we ask for some clarification as to what their religion actually is, they cannot provide a coherent answer, or they refuse to. So it's a demand for the state, and other people, to "respect" their religion, a religion for which no two people seem to have the same definition?

Many can provide an answer to what their religion is and isn't but one is not interested in the answer, they just want to provoke a response and poke holes just for the fun of it and sake of it. At the end of the if you are an Atheist, who gives a crap? Now, before you go off on the whole "school patronage" thing I am surprise you that I agree that people should be offered choice and that religion in state schools should be taught after hours and only by the patents consent. I am very much in the separation of church and state on that one.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't have to waste my time.....

....I'm not wasting my time going over this again,

Ah fair enough, we all have busy lives.

Continue to leave your views well an truly untested. Good man.

Sarky

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Ah fair enough, we all have busy lives.

Continue to leave your views well an truly untested. Good man.

Uh... He just showed you that he does otherwise, and your church still comes out looking kinda hateful.

swampgas

jank wrote: »

Many can provide an answer to what their religion is and isn't but one is not interested in the answer, they just want to provoke a response and poke holes just for the fun of it and sake of it. At the end of the if you are an Atheist, who gives a crap?

It gets frustrating. If I criticize the RCC's position for being homophobic, many Catholics will claim that the RCC means many things to many people, and in fact is its members, not the hierarchy. Yet they will not take a stand against the RCC hierarchy nor object to its homophobic stance. They want to be part of the RCC yet refuse to accept any responsibility for what the RCC might say in their name. It's weak, and it's lacking in integrity.

Some will also be offended if I question their religion, when it seems to be the basis of their homophobia, and will try to hide behind "religious freedom" for their homophobic views. But yet will not say what their religious views actually are. It makes any kind of debate very difficult.

Now, before you go off on the whole "school patronage" thing I am surprise you that I agree that people should be offered choice and that religion in state schools should be taught after hours and only by the patents consent. I am very much in the separation of church and state on that one.

My preferred position is that the state should provide a neutral venue for everyone's children to be educated, free of religion. As a compromise position I would be happy to see Irish primary schools move to a situation where "faith formation" is done outside core school hours in such a way that it does not make any of the students feel excluded, and if it does not force the teachers to teach a religion that they disagree with.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The biggest mistake people make about the RCC is believeing that the above issues are what occupies its thinking most of the time. It is not. It is what occupies other people's thoughts about the RCC. It's a mistake made by some catholics too.

Nobody cares what "occupies its thinking" most of the time.

What pisses people off is that these are the public policy issues that it chooses to go to war with the rest of us over.

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I suggest, in all seriousness, that you visit a couple of weekend masses (where you'll get a sermon) in the next month or so and listen to see what kind of message is being given. Also, talk to some parents with children in RCC run schools and ask them what message is being given to their children. Please come back and let us know what you heard. You MAY find some reason to be less unhappy about the current state of affairs.

Are you facing into schooling options for your children I Heart Internet? The message I know is given to the children in our local state funded but Catholic ethos school is the Alive O programme. Its a heady mix of being nice to people and mammy and daddy and aren't the flowers lovely, with a catholic prayer on every page. What do those children of a different or no faith background take from such lessons, which are presented as facts in the same way 2+2=4 and the spelling of d-o-g?
And I happen to know many teachers in the school who loath having to do indoctrination on the church's behalf, and get annoyed when their lesson plan for the day is disrupted because the parish priest calls in for an unannounced visit, or who resent having to exclude non catholic children from art and music in sacrament years.
I also know many parents, catholic and non catholic, who would prefer non or multidemominational education for their children, and let schools concentrate on education not indoctrination.

lazygal

http://www.catholicireland.net/the-alive-o-programme/

Here's a link to what the programme contains.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Here's a link to what the programme contains.

It's an embarrassment to the country that this junk is presented to kids as though it were true.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

It's an embarrassment to the country that this junk is presented to kids as though it were true.

I think the Dept of Education should teach this as true,

www.amazon.co.uk/Grimms-Fairy-Tales-Jacob-Grimm/dp/1606600109/

It teaches morals, allows kids to express themselves etc. It meets all of the same requirements and they can even include songs.