Archbishops issue strongly worded statement on Government decision for abortion

Stark

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I dare you to say that to a rape victim.

.

Pherekydes

The religious right: truly a contradiction in terms.

publicious

Disgusting bigoted and hate-filled thread.

Boards.ie Ltd.: hang your heads in shame.

poeticseraphim

They are not part of my Ireland.....any of them nor that of my peer group.

They are an enemy to the safety/health/sexual safety of the children of this country.

They are an enemy to my way of life.

The Catholic church cannot justify it's existance.

I find it disgusting that politicians are to meet with them in the New Year.

I hope people remember that the next time people try to convince us Ireland is not repressed.

They need to be put in their place.

poeticseraphim

publicious wrote: »

Disgusting bigoted and hate-filled thread.

Boards.ie Ltd.: hang your heads in shame.

Disgusting HATE filled bigoted Institution that abused members of my family for years.

How would you feel about them if it had happened to your family???

I just don't get the people who file in every sunday....sorry but you are funding it.

You were funding that stuff for years????


Why....why did you do it??

And people knew...and if they didn't they do now..


It is paying the rent of peadophiles.

Manach

I fully and completely agree with the Bishops statement and note that Mr. Rabbitte seems to single this out for his particular brand of venom. He would be right at home in AH.

eyescreamcone

Those bastions of democracy, Roman Catholic bishops, want a free vote on the issue.
I say let's give it to them.
Let's have a referendum once and for all on the whole issue.

Would you support abortion in the following circumstances?
To save the life of the mother (suicide included)
To save the health of the mother
In the case of rape or incest
In cases where the foetus is not viable
On demand (up to whatever term is internationally acceptable)
etc etc

We should vote on each issue.
Would the bishops be happy then???

blacklilly

The level of hatred in this thread is disgraceful.
They like any other citizen of this country are entitled to an opinion on this matter.
A minority of them abused children and have thankfully (most)been sentenced for their crimes. What the minority did is horrific but we wouldn't want to tar them all with the same brush would we....oh hold on this is AH so I guess its a given.
The majority of child abuse is perpetrated by relatives or people known to the children,do we tar all fathers with the same brush as some have raped their children?
I understand the anger people feel towards the crimes some priests have done but seriously get off your high horses.
I'm getting sick and tired of people being so vulgar on thus subject, instead of saying f*ck all priests maybe we would just say f*ck all child abusers and rapists.
I have absolute sympathy for any person that has been abused as a child whether by a member of the clergy, relative or family friend.

Delirium

blacklilly wrote: »

The level of hatred in this thread is disgraceful.
They like any other citizen of this country are entitled to an opinion on this matter.
A minority of them abused children and have thankfully (most)been sentenced for their crimes. What the minority did is horrific but we wouldn't want to tar them all with the same brush would we....oh hold on this is AH so I guess its a given.
The majority of child abuse is perpetrated by relatives or people known to the children,do we tar all fathers with the same brush as some have raped their children?
I understand the anger people feel towards the crimes some priests have done but seriously get off your high horses.
I'm getting sick and tired of people being so vulgar on thus subject, instead of saying f*ck all priests maybe we would just say f*ck all child abusers and rapists.
I have absolute sympathy for any person that has been abused as a child whether by a member of the clergy, relative or family friend.

And what about the members of the church who protected the child-abusing priests? Or the members of the church who swore children to secrecy when abuse was discovered?

It's not just the abuse that was a problem, it was the attitude of the organisation when abuse was discovered that people have a problem with too. It was more interested in protecting the organisation than seeing the abusers prosecuted and the children given help that they so desperately needed.

The church abused it's place of trust within the community, damn right people are going to be pissed!

nozzferrahhtoo

blacklilly wrote: »

A minority of them abused children and have thankfully (most)been sentenced for their crimes. What the minority did is horrific but we wouldn't want to tar them all with the same brush would we....

I agree. We would not. And should not.

At the same time however I think it very important to correct anyone who thinks that the anger people feel is reserved solely for the people who actually perpetrated the rapes and abuses.

Those the facilitated those crimes and in many cases made administrative and other moves to shield and protect the guilty from justice and excuse making and blame shifting for the crimes.... and more recently... have been doing their best to renege on promised compensation payments and contributions.... all receive just as much, often more, anger and ire from the public too.

So while I wholeheartedly agree with you it is massively poor form to tar the entire clergy with the abuses of the minority.... it is also worth remembering and mentioning at every importunity that the issues people have are far from limited to the actual rapists and in some cases goes to the highest levels of the organisations in question.

And as for "levels of hatred"... I honestly do not know how to even begin quantifying what level of hatred IS justifiable for such people... both the abusers and rapists and those that facilitated that abuse and rape.

padd b1975

Stark wrote: »

Would you have been happy to die with him if complications arose?

And the award for 'loaded question of the year' goes to .........

blacklilly

koth wrote: »

And what about the members of the church who protected the child-abusing priests? Or the members of the church who swore children to secrecy when abuse was discovered?

It's not just the abuse that was a problem, it was the attitude of the organisation when abuse was discovered that people have a problem with too. It was more interested in protecting the organisation than seeing the abusers prosecuted and the children given help that they so desperately needed.

The church abused it's place of trust within the community, damn right people are going to be pissed!

I understand there was a major cover up, I also understand that there are many completely innocent preists who have lived their lives in a good way.
There are also many families that have covered up for a rapist father, the children were told they were dirty and it was their fault and no one would believe them. This is my point, do we tar all families with the same brush? No we shouldn't. I'm not for one minute trying to defend the church.

Delirium

blacklilly wrote: »

I understand there was a major cover up, I also understand that there are many completely innocent preists who have lived their lives in a good way.
There are also many families that have covered up for a rapist father, the children were told they were dirty and it was their fault and no one would believe them. This is my point, do we tar all families with the same brush? No we shouldn't. I'm not for one minute trying to defend the church.

Where has anyone said all Catholic priests are child abusers?

People are voicing the disgust/anger that an organisation that has lost all moral credibility because of their comtemptible response when child abuse was discovered.

To borrow from your analogy, imagine if a member of the family who had covered up the abuse perpetrated by the father began to lecture you on the correct way to raise your own kids. Would you think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to giving advice on the best practise for raising your children? Personally, I'd tell them to take a running jump.

blacklilly

koth wrote: »

Where has anyone said all Catholic priests are child abusers?

People are voicing the disgust/anger that an organisation that has lost all moral credibility because of their comtemptible response when child abuse was discovered.

To borrow from your analogy, imagine if a member of the family who had covered up the abuse perpetrated by the father began to lecture you on the correct way to raise your own kids. Would you think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to giving advice on the best practise for raising your children? Personally, I'd tell them to take a running jump.

I don't want to go into too much personal detail but this has happened in my family and I feel a lot of anger towards certain people that covered up.
What posters are insinuating here is that any clergy that speaks up on the abortion issue are immediately told to f off by a large majority, I do not think this is fair, that's all I'm saying. Religious organisations have and continue to do a lot of good in the world, I myself am not religious but that doesnt mean I can't acknowledge the good they've done.

hardCopy

What I don't get is why this is even being covered on RTE?

It's the catholic church, they've always been opposed to abortion and always will be. Why are they being asked for comment?

They're not elected representatives, they're not medical experts and they have no more votes than anyone else so how can RTE justify giving them national airtime?

J Cheever Loophole

blacklilly wrote: »

The level of hatred in this thread is disgraceful.

Whilst you're right, it's nor particularly unusual. Any chance of reasoned debate is usually swamped by the herd mentality which is so prevalent in After Hours - a mentality which in turn generates a momentum of its own as each poster tries to outdo the previous poster in self righteous outrage. Consequently the 'debate' will inevitably spin out of control towards hysteria.

If you learn to accept it for what it is, then it's possible to sit back and have a laugh at it!

blacklilly

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Whilst you're right, it's nor particularly unusual. Any chance of reasoned debate is usually swamped by the herd mentality which is so prevalent in After Hours - a mentality which in turn generates a momentum of its own as each poster tries to outdo the previous poster in self righteous outrage. Consequently the 'debate' will inevitably spin out of control towards hysteria.

If you learn to accept it for what it is, then it's possible to sit back and have a laugh at it!

It's ridiculously annoying you yes you are correct

Ghost Buster

blacklilly wrote: »

The level of hatred in this thread is disgraceful.
They like any other citizen of this country are entitled to an opinion on this matter.
A minority of them abused children and have thankfully (most)been sentenced for their crimes. What the minority did is horrific but we wouldn't want to tar them all with the same brush would we....oh hold on this is AH so I guess its a given.
The majority of child abuse is perpetrated by relatives or people known to the children,do we tar all fathers with the same brush as some have raped their children?
I understand the anger people feel towards the crimes some priests have done but seriously get off your high horses.
I'm getting sick and tired of people being so vulgar on thus subject, instead of saying f*ck all priests maybe we would just say f*ck all child abusers and rapists.
I have absolute sympathy for any person that has been abused as a child whether by a member of the clergy, relative or family friend.

Even if the opinion isnt actually theirs but the opinion of a mystical being with a very unlikely existence and dubious morals. And this opinion twisted and contorted by rich guys with power in Rome?

StudentDad

As I've said before. People are free to live their lives believing in whatever they like. However, I draw the line when a group (any group) who are unelected and unaccountable to the Irish electorate try and dictate the direction and content of Irish law.

If a cleric wants to shape govt. policy, let him stand for election. There will be another general election in a few years.

The arrogance and unaccountable nature of the RC Hierarchy is abhorrent to me.

SD

blacklilly

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Even if the opinion isnt actually theres but the opinion of a mystical being with a very unlikely existence and dubious morals. And this opinion twisted and contorted by rich guys with power in Rome?

That's your opinion and thats fine, they have a belief which should be respected. Can you say that your beliefs and opinions are totally independent? I doubt it. As I said before I am not here to defend their beliefs, I am just giving my opinion on the matter which I am fully entitled to do

Dodge

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Any chance of reasoned debate is usually swamped by the herd mentality which is so prevalent in After Hours

Good job there's no herd mentality in religion then, isnt it? :rolleyes:

bodice ripper

blacklilly wrote: »

The level of hatred in this thread is disgraceful.
They like any other citizen of this country are entitled to an opinion on this matter.
A minority of them abused children and have thankfully (most)been sentenced for their crimes. What the minority did is horrific but we wouldn't want to tar them all with the same brush would we..

Nah sorry. Rich white, old, male elite in Europe who tell poor brown people condoms spread aids, hide and shelter child rapists.

Stay within that organisation, you warrant contempt.

Min

Sorry if this is already posted, but I didn't see any thread or condemnation of this. Probably wasn't as it wasn't a pro-choice person who was threatened and the extreme on this forum, would encourage such extremism. We already had a post about burning down churches...

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was sent a threatening letter by an extremist on the pro-choice side.
He was told in the letter his safety on the streets was in danger over his views on abortion.

Morag

Min wrote: »

Sorry if this is already posted, but I didn't see any thread or condemnation of this. Probably wasn't as it wasn't a pro-choice person who was threatened and the extreme on this forum, would encourage such extremism. We already had a post about burning down churches...

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was sent a threatening letter by an extremist on the pro-choice side.
He was told in the letter his safety on the streets was in danger over his views on abortion.

Got a link or citation for that?

Dodge

Min wrote: »

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was sent a threatening letter by an extremist on the pro-choice side.
He was told in the letter his safety on the streets was in danger over his views on abortion.

Disgraceful. Hopefully he reports this crime to the Gardai. Whats the church's record on reporting crime btw?

humanji

min wrote:

Sorry if this is already posted, but I didn't see any thread or condemnation of this. Probably wasn't as it wasn't a pro-choice person who was threatened and the extreme on this forum, would encourage such extremism. We already had a post about burning down churches...

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was sent a threatening letter by an extremist on the pro-choice side.
He was told in the letter his safety on the streets was in danger over his views on abortion.

Do you have a source? Because, while it's great and all to claim nobody has mentioned it because the guy is pro-life, I'm going to say it may be something to do with nobody hearing about it before.

blacklilly

Morag wrote: »

Got a link or citation for that?

It was on the news yesterday

Min

humanji wrote: »

Do you have a source? Because, while it's great and all to claim nobody has mentioned it because the guy is pro-life, I'm going to say it may be something to do with nobody hearing about it before.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-probe-threats-to-archbishop-over-abortion-3333192.html

GARDAI are to probe threats against Archbishop Diarmuid Martin warning him to be careful while "out on the streets" because of his views on abortion.

upstairs for coffee

Min wrote: »

Sorry if this is already posted, but I didn't see any thread or condemnation of this. Probably wasn't as it wasn't a pro-choice person who was threatened and the extreme on this forum, would encourage such extremism. We already had a post about burning down churches...

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was sent a threatening letter by an extremist on the pro-choice side.
He was told in the letter his safety on the streets was in danger over his views on abortion.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-probe-threats-to-archbishop-over-abortion-3333192.html

Well obviously it is deplorable but no doubt it will be used by you religious loons to beat pro - choice with whilst simultaneously ignoring your own churches atrocities

Min

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-probe-threats-to-archbishop-over-abortion-3333192.html

Well obviously it is deplorable but no doubt it will be used by you religious loons to beat pro - choice with whilst simultaneously ignoring your own churches atrocities

Nah, just the pro-choice like to paint themselves in a certain light, I mean I can find quotes on AH from the past week which laughed at the idea that the pro-choice side has extremists.
Most people from both sides can have a civil debate, but even your language is extreme in nature in that you use the word 'loons' to describe people you don't agree with.

upstairs for coffee

Min wrote: »

Nah, just the pro-choice like to paint themselves in a certain light, I mean I can find quotes on AH from the past week which laughed at the idea that the pro-choice side has extremists.
Most people from both sides can have a civil debate, but even your language is extreme in nature in that you use the word 'loons' to describe people you don't agree with.

And what, "pro - life" don't like to paint themselves in a certain light? Ha! Absolute hypocrite.

Name me one pro-choice extremist. Then let's compare it to your religion extremists. We'll see quite the difference.

I would respect your opinion if it wasn't influenced and dictated by an pedophilic, misogynistic, corrupt amoral organisation. Why do you need an institution of destruction, purveyors of self righteousness to guide your morals?

Ghost Buster

blacklilly wrote: »

That's your opinion and thats fine, they have a belief which should be respected. Can you say that your beliefs and opinions are totally independent? I doubt it. As I said before I am not here to defend their beliefs, I am just giving my opinion on the matter which I am fully entitled to do

Its not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Their view point, since based upon superstition and nonsense should be given as much consideration as those of people who have views based upon their star signs, numerology, reading of tea leaves and rune casting.

humanji

upstairs for coffee wrote:

And what, "pro - life" don't like to paint themselves in a certain light? Ha! Absolute hypocrite.

Name me one pro-choice extremist. Then let's compare it to your religion extremists. We'll see quite the difference.

I would respect your opinion if it wasn't influenced and dictated by an pedophilic, misogynistic, corrupt amoral organisation. Why do you need an institution of destruction, purveyors of self righteousness to guide your morals?

Calm the f*ck down!

gurramok

Pro-choice or pro-life. No matter what your view on the subject is, the Church and religion as a whole should have no influence on the outcome of a citizens free will, this especially true for Archbishops who protected child rapists.

Death and Taxes

I see the military wing of the Roman Catholic Church are at it again.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-city-council-removes-anti-abortion-posters-578608.html

blacklilly

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Its not an opinion. It is a statement of fact. Their view point, since based upon superstition and nonsense should be given as much consideration as those of people who have views based upon their star signs, numerology, reading of tea leaves and rune casting.

Look I'm not going to argue with you because its totally pointless and it'll just put me in bad form, so good luck oh and happy Christmas, or should i say happy 25th December

Min

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

And what, "pro - life" don't like to paint themselves in a certain light? Ha! Absolute hypocrite.

Name me one pro-choice extremist. Then let's compare it to your religion extremists. We'll see quite the difference.

I would respect your opinion if it wasn't influenced and dictated by an pedophilic, misogynistic, corrupt amoral organisation. Why do you need an institution of destruction, purveyors of self righteousness to guide your morals?

If one sends a letter with a threat to a person who is pro-life because of a pro-life view. I seriously doubt a pro-life person sent it, any sensible person would see this person being pro-choice, and the vast majority of the pro-choice people would not agree with making threats of this nature.

People of every hue are entitled to voice their opinions, doesn't matter if we view their opinion as being wrong.

My opinions are based on who I am, not someone else. We could all pigeon hole someone we disagree with as being influenced by someone or something else.
But most people use logic to come to their opinions. Like I could tell you your unique DNA is the same DNA that was present at conception. We are influenced by our genetics and environment. We are who we are from conception and influenced by the environment we have been brought up in.

I don't see the need to look down on someone based on their beliefs or if they have none. We are all lucky to have the chance of life and to have different experiences whether good or bad, but if religion works for one person then there is no problem there, if it doesn't for someone else then there is no problem there.
I don't think it is helpful to be looking down on someone for being different to what you believe.
We all try to get through this life in a way that works for us, for everyone it is different.

Dodge

Min wrote: »

and the vast majority of the pro-choice people would not agree with making threats of this nature.

Of course any sensible person is against threats. But you're the person who brought it into this thead

Min wrote: »

Sorry if this is already posted, but I didn't see any thread or condemnation of this. Probably wasn't as it wasn't a pro-choice person who was threatened and the extreme on this forum, would encourage such extremism. We already had a post about burning down churches...

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was sent a threatening letter by an extremist on the pro-choice side.
He was told in the letter his safety on the streets was in danger over his views on abortion.

Why did you feel the need to do that, if you believe that all sensible people would condemn it. Surely it goes without saying that letters threatening voilence (whether they be to bishops, or doctors performing medical procedures) are completely disgusting?

It wasn't just that you believed it was relevent, you're first sentance is already looking for it to be condemned when later you say

Min wrote: »

and the vast majority of the pro-choice people would not agree with making threats of this nature.

These archbishops make me sick, and i simply can't understand the amount of media coverage they get with their stone age nonsense. Get the ride (from someone of the age of consent) and then we'll talk, ye paedos.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

.......
I don't think it is helpful to be looking down on someone for being different to what you believe.
We all try to get through this life in a way that works for us, for everyone it is different.

Isn't it a shame people don't hold that view when it comes to legislation.

Min

Dodge wrote: »

Of course any sensible person is against threats. But you're the person who brought it into this thead



Why did you feel the need to do that, if you believe that all sensible people would condemn it. Surely it goes without saying that letters threatening voilence (whether they be to bishops, or doctors performing medical procedures) are completely disgusting?

It wasn't just that you believed it was relevent, you're first sentance is already looking for it to be condemned when later you say

I simply reported on a threat.

If anyone had been reading some of these threads over the past couple of weeks or longer. One would see views which are not very civil, and if views by someone who is not of sound mind it would give then succour.

The first sentence was to depict how it would be portrayed if it was a pro-life person making threats against someone of a pro-choice nature. Nothing more, nothing less. Probably would have it's own thread too.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

Isn't it a shame people don't hold that view when it comes to legislation.

The suicide part of any legislation is where the problem is. It is literally a life and death matter.
People who are suicidal should get the mental health treatment to prevent them killing themselves.

It doesn't help that Fine Gael lied to the electorate, in regards to legislation.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

The suicide part of any legislation is where the problem is. It is literally a life and death matter.
People who are suicidal should get the mental health treatment to prevent them killing themselves.

It doesn't help that Fine Gael lied to the electorate, in regards to legislation.

The electorate voted to have suicide as a legitmate reason for access to abortion, so I'd drop that one were I you.

There is and will be no access to suicide in cases or rape or incest regardless. Neither will there be in cases of unviable pregnancies, as far as I understand it.

Pherekydes

Min wrote: »

People who are suicidal should get the mental health treatment to prevent them killing themselves.

And if the treatment is an abortion?

Min

Nodin wrote: »

The electorate voted to have suicide as a legitmate reason for access to abortion, so I'd drop that one were I you.

There is and will be no access to suicide in cases or rape or incest regardless. Neither will there be in cases of unviable pregnancies, as far as I understand it.

No they didn't, Dana and Ivana Bacik campaigned for a no vote, one is pro-life, one is pro-abortion being legal.
The pro-life vote was split, but pro-choice spread the myth that the people voted for suicide to be a reason.

Min

Pherekydes wrote: »

And if the treatment is an abortion?

Abortion is not a treatment for mental health problems.

What if your mistress was got pregnant and she wanted the baby, but it affected your mental health to the degree you were suicidal because you knew the wife would kill you if she found out. Should the woman abort for his mental health, even though she wants the baby?

I would argue of course not, he should get mental health care, because the problem is of the mind, not the womb.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

No they didn't, Dana and Ivana Bacik campaigned for a no vote, one is pro-life, one is pro-abortion being legal.
The pro-life vote was split, but pro-choice spread the myth that the people voted for suicide to be a reason.

I'm sorry, but you seem confused. A referendum was run in 2002 to remove suicide as a reason for access and this was rejected by the electorate. Thats very straightforward, clear cut, and a matter of record.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

Abortion is not a treatment for mental health problems.

...........

I'd imagine a woman pregnant with her fathers child and appalled at the prospect might disagree.

Pherekydes

Min wrote: »

Abortion is not a treatment for mental health problems.

What if your mistress was got pregnant and she wanted the baby, but it affected your mental health to the degree you were suicidal because you knew the wife would kill you if she found out. Should the woman abort for his mental health, even though she wants the baby?

I would argue of course not, he should get mental health care, because the problem is of the mind, not the womb.

And what if a woman gets pregnant and is in such a bad place that she feels suicidal (because she is pregnant)?

Min

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you seem confused. A referendum was run in 2002 to remove suicide as a reason for access and this was rejected by the electorate. Thats very straightforward, clear cut, and a matter of record.

Yes and the pro-life was split. Some voted no as it didn't go far enough in preventing abortion.

Please look it up.

The 2002 referendum was defeated by just 10,000 votes after splitting the pro-life camp - and was also opposed by pro-choice groups, Labour and a Michael Noonan-led Fine Gael.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/micheal-martin-wants-focus-on-abortion-debate-1-4524670