td's wont be allowed to take communion if they vote for abortion.

Cody Pomeray

awec wrote: »

Perhaps it was the hilarity of an organisation like the catholic church trying to tell anyone what is morally right. Would you take a lecture on morals from Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville?

I wouldn't take a lecture from them. And I wouldn't be ringing them up requesting a 20 minute lecture as the main piece on the news either.

That's why, like I said, the main question is why the media are focusing such major attention on a pretty bland Bishops' statement, which said nothing about denying Communion. Again for emphasis - nothing.

Almaviva

Have they fleshed out how the ban will work ?

TD's to be 'pre-approved' by the church to take communion; carry a voting card from the dail showing how they voted; a blacklist with mugshots of the non conforming tds at the entrance of churches; a new website keeping priests nationwide up to date on who qualifies and who doesnt ?

What are they they going to do about tds going abroad for communion? Do TDs have a right to travel if that is the purpose of their trip? What if they are suicidal? How many psychiatrists will decide if they are really suicidal ?

How can they expect tds to make a decision without knowing the full details?

RobertKK

glynf wrote: »

They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but lets face it the catholic church has overstepped the mark by trying to manipulate politicians who support abortion by refusing communion-a sneaky, scummy tactic as most rural politicians rely on the older god fearing demographic for re-election.

The main issue I have is they try and shove said opinion down everyone else's throats. I can't understand who in their right mind would take moral/spiritual guidance from such a bunch of hypocrites who have and still actively covered up clerical child abuse?

Abortion should be the right and choice of the woman seeking an abortion, most people are capable of making rational and moral decisions on their own. The catholic church should only have an opinion when women are ordained as priests.

A Catholic is suppose to live a Catholic life. Abortion is a life and death matter and it has been practice for those who legislate or support abortion and who claim to be catholic to be refused the sacraments.

Plenty of women go to mass, plenty of women are against abortion, and plenty of people view abortion as a human rights violation.

Lightbulb Sun

Any source/link for this? Don't see any in the OP.

HurtLocker

Has there ever been a survey of serving TDs who actually go to mass every week.

Keep your catholic morals off me. I hate how the church and some church members think they can force non members to adhere to their morals. F*ck off please.

the culture of deference

Phoebas wrote: »

It was all part of some grand scheme to save mankind from the sinfulness he created them with. He could have just done a spell or something, but he went with the whole elaborate crucifiction / resurrection plan.
It didn't work out, but an heroic attempt nonetheless.

Not only that,

god sent down an angel and found a sexy 12 year old virgin Girl (just to be clear) who he impregnated with himself.

jimd2 wrote: »

Just because I have a different opinion to you I have to be living on a different planet. Says a lot more about you than me.

And your point about detection of pregnancy early on is mind numbingly naive. Early stage miscarriages happen - We didn't need your post to confirm that. Of course the woman may not know She had been pregnant in some cases..

It's nothing about a different opinion.

It's about reality and bullsh1t.

you choose to ignore all the evil that the catholic church has done, you ignore the evidence, and you choose still to believe bullsh1t when it is clearly BS. The issue is with you, not me.

The point about miscarriages is that if you believe god designed it (there is no god) with natural abortion built in, then god aborts 70% of all possible children.

I cannot be responsible for your misconstruing of facts.

Birroc

=RobertKK;84471219Plenty of women go to mass, plenty of women are against abortion, and plenty of people view abortion as a human rights violation.

Its interesting how women are essentially 2nd class citizens as far as the Roman catholic church is concerned and yet they (especially the older ones) are it's bigger supporters. Makes them look a little foolish really.

Lets face it though, this new "abortion" bill changes nothing. We will continue to export our abortions especially where suicide is an issue - the option of the flight to UK as opposed to convincing 6 medical experts, what would most do?

murraykil

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

Any source/link for this? Don't see any in the OP.

Cardinal Sean Brady said the bishops have not discussed whether politicians who advocate support for the legislation should be barred from communion, as has happened in some US dioceses.

"There would be a great reluctance to politicise the Eucharist," he told RTE Radio.

"I say that they (politicians) have an obligation to oppose the laws that are attacking something so fundamental as the right to life and they would have to follow their own conscience."

kildare-nationalist.ie

I wonder is the reluctance to politicise the Eucharist as strong as the reluctance to publicise child abuse.

Cody Pomeray

Almaviva wrote: »

Have they fleshed out how the ban will work ?

TD's to be 'pre-approved' by the church to take communion; carry a voting card from the dail showing how they voted; a blacklist with mugshots of the non conforming tds at the entrance of churches; a new website keeping priests nationwide up to date on who qualifies and who doesnt ?

What are they they going to do about tds going abroad for communion? Do TDs have a right to travel if that is the purpose of their trip? What if they are suicidal? How many psychiatrists will decide if they are really suicidal ?

How can they expect tds to make a decision without knowing the full details?

The OP was wrong. He misunderstood the interview.

The Cardinal in question, and the Irish Bishops, did not say TDs will be refused Communion.

The Cardinal actually said he didn't want to politicize Communion, so how the OP took this understanding of events is curious.

I have no problem with people criticizing the Catholic Church - as I, an agnostic, do. What I do have a problem with is with characterizing anyone as having said something offensive which they absolutely did not.

nowanathiest

murraykil wrote: »

A lot of people still love and support the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church despite their facilitation of child abuse, their attempts to cover it up and their absolute failure to make amends, seek forgiveness, or help enforce justice.

The doctrine of the church is more important than anything. If it wasn't such a serious issue, their stance on the right to life of an un-born child would be laughable when you consider what they have done to so many needy and vulnerable children.

Their stance on contraception is more about increasing their numbers more than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the reasoning for their stance on abortion was the same.

Agree, the irony is that the Catholic Church needs women far more than they need it. I have long believed that the ban in contraception is there to ensure their numbers do not dwindle. They need women to have as many babies as possible - they are new recruits.

They further need women to remain in the fold to raise these children in the Catholic faith and ensure the organisation's future. What baffles me is what women get in return? I cannot fathom what benefits there are for women to remain in the catholic church, other than habit and tradition.

clairefontaine

nowanathiest wrote: »

Agree, the irony is that the Catholic Church needs women far more than they need it. I have long believed that the ban in contraception is there to ensure their numbers do not dwindle. They need women to have as many babies as possible - they are new recruits.

They further need women to remain in the fold to raise these children in the Catholic faith and ensure the organisation's future. What baffles me is what women get in return? I cannot fathom what benefits there are for women to remain in the catholic church, other than habit and tradition.

Women get to sustain their illusions they live in a matriarchal culture.

Obliq

nowanathiest wrote: »

Agree, the irony is that the Catholic Church needs women far more than they need it. I have long believed that the ban in contraception is there to ensure their numbers do not dwindle. They need women to have as many babies as possible - they are new recruits.
They further need women to remain in the fold to raise these children in the Catholic faith and ensure the organisation's future.

It's within living memory that a priest would walk into a person's house and suggest to the family that their new TV was a luxury that was a step too far. If they hadn't spent money in that way, they could be supporting more children and it was their duty to provide "souls for the church". I heard that from an old man who asked me about the placard I was carrying on a pro-choice march last year in Galway. You are exactly right, and it is tragically ironic that the women are only needed for child bearing purposes - hence the ongoing attempt to control our sexuality and reproductive rights.

What baffles me is what women get in return? I cannot fathom what benefits there are for women to remain in the catholic church, other than habit and tradition.

Here in rural Ireland, habit and tradition die hard. Why wouldn't it? The community aspect of the church is much stronger here - the precarious nature of any small village, with the young folk leaving in droves since the beginning of the Republic, and before, means that all and every element of community cohesion is clung onto for dear life. To speak out publicly against the church and declare yourself not part of it anymore is tantamount to betrayal of your people.

Young women leave mostly, or stay, get married/have children here and are intimately tied into these traditions whether they like it or not. To extract themselves and their own children from this cycle would take immense strength of will in the face of everyone who knows them disapproving of showing up their families/parents, etc.

It's much easier for these young people to go along with the status quo, and not even approach the subject of their subjugation by the church until they may be forced to by circumstance (such as a crisis pregnancy). Very sad, but it is slowly changing and becoming easier to openly challenge the silence. I am the ONLY person in my small village who is publicly pro choice on facebook - many agree with me privately, many would like to show support, but nobody dares comment on my posts in public. However, I am happy to be able to present a feminist view on these issues. It can only help the tide turn.....slowly.

harris33

they need more ten commuion the shower of wasters

clairefontaine

Obliq wrote: »

It's within living memory that a priest would walk into a person's house and suggest to the family that their new TV was a luxury that was a step too far. If they hadn't spent money in that way, they could be supporting more children and it was their duty to provide "souls for the church". I heard that from an old man who asked me about the placard I was carrying on a pro-choice march last year in Galway. You are exactly right, and it is tragically ironic that the women are only needed for child bearing purposes - hence the ongoing attempt to control our sexuality and reproductive rights.



Here in rural Ireland, habit and tradition die hard. Why wouldn't it? The community aspect of the church is much stronger here - the precarious nature of any small village, with the young folk leaving in droves since the beginning of the Republic, and before, means that all and every element of community cohesion is clung onto for dear life. To speak out publicly against the church and declare yourself not part of it anymore is tantamount to betrayal of your people.

Young women leave mostly, or stay, get married/have children here and are intimately tied into these traditions whether they like it or not. To extract themselves and their own children from this cycle would take immense strength of will in the face of everyone who knows them disapproving of showing up their families/parents, etc.

It's much easier for these young people to go along with the status quo, and not even approach the subject of their subjugation by the church until they may be forced to by circumstance (such as a crisis pregnancy). Very sad, but it is slowly changing and becoming easier to openly challenge the silence. I am the ONLY person in my small village who is publicly pro choice on facebook - many agree with me privately, many would like to show support, but nobody dares comment on my posts in public. However, I am happy to be able to present a feminist view on these issues. It can only help the tide turn.....slowly.

Which is why arguably, mothers have more rights. As breeding cattle and nannies for the state/church women are far more under their insidious controls. That is what I find ironic about father's rights. Don't you get it? Women don't have them either. They are just babysitters that are easier to control.

Obliq

clairefontaine wrote: »

Which is why arguably, mothers have more rights. As breeding cattle and nannies for the state/church women are far more under their insidious controls. That is what I find ironic about father's rights. Don't you get it? Women don't have them either. They are just babysitters that are easier to control.

Don't I get what? I think I get what I'm observing.

Obliq

clairefontaine wrote: »

Women get to sustain their illusions they live in a matriarchal culture.

Do you mean this? I'm sorry, but I've never heard Ireland described as a matriarchal culture before!

clairefontaine

Obliq wrote: »

Don't I get what? I think I get what I'm observing.

Rhetorical question not aimed directly at you .

clairefontaine

Obliq wrote: »

Do you mean this? I'm sorry, but I've never heard Ireland described as a matriarchal culture before!

You have never heard this? Or the more caustic mammy republic?

Obliq

clairefontaine wrote: »

You have never heard this? Or the more caustic mammy republic?

Well of course you're right, it was just a bit unclear what you meant at first. The traditional role of the Mammy conducting all the momentous occasions of your family through the church is the only integral role that women play in it - and is in fact, the mainstay of the church. Yes - which is why it is so difficult for any woman around here to come out publicly and voice opinions that could shake them loose from those community traditions.

I say community rather than church, because it is actually unthinkable, down here, that these traditions should be lost within such small communities, and that's why it would be seen as such a betrayal.

Solair

This is exactly what happens when you allow your country to be run by a religious organisation.

I'm getting this constant sense that I've stepped into the 1950s through one of those subspace anomalies that seem to plague startrek crews !

The other aspect of democracy that could be used is to simply not donate any more money to the Catholic Church.

There's lobbying and there's manipulating. This falls into the latter category.

Cody Pomeray

Solair wrote: »

This falls into the latter category.

What does?

Solair

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What does?

See thread title above!

nowanathiest

what has struck me most about your last few posts is the equation with the Muslim community, where women have few rights and dare not voice their personal opinions within their families and communities.

If what you say about the rural environment is your personal experience, then how is the Catholic community any different to a Muslim one, in terms of it's attitudes towards women? Other than you are not required to wear a burkha and may choose your own husband, though it's not that long ago that Irish women were required to wear headscarves or veils in church, and the practice of "churching" married women who had given birth before they were allowed to attend mass, only died out in the 60's.

Cody Pomeray

Solair wrote: »

See thread title above!

See the past few pages.

The OP was wrong - no Irish Catholic Bishop or Priest has said this - if anything, Cardinal Brady rejected it.

I Heart Internet

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

See the past few pages.

The OP was wrong - no Irish Catholic Bishop or Priest has said this - if anything, Cardinal Brady rejected it.

Husssshhhh Cody! Facts have never been known to derail an AfterHours anti-church thread. Don't let them start now

clairefontaine

nowanathiest wrote: »

what has struck me most about your last few posts is the equation with the Muslim community, where women have few rights and dare not voice their personal opinions within their families and communities.

If what you say about the rural environment is your personal experience, then how is the Catholic community any different to a Muslim one, in terms of it's attitudes towards women? Other than you are not required to wear a burkha and may choose your own husband, though it's not that long ago that Irish women were required to wear headscarves or veils in church, and the practice of "churching" married women who had given birth before they were allowed to attend mass, only died out in the 60's.

Scratch the surface and the Irish RC is not all that different. Unless you cherry pick what you practise, it is fundamentalist.

It's ironic that so many defend Islam on boards and slam the Irish RC. Lol...

awec

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Husssshhhh Cody! Facts have never been known to derail an AfterHours anti-church thread. Don't let them start now

You go on about "anti-church" as if that's a bad thing.

1ZRed

Seriously what good has this institution ever done? They couldn't give a flying fuck about morals unless they can benefit from them in some way and even then it's a 'pick and choose' mentality when it comes to morality.

The sooner this scum burns down to the ground and is eradicated from society the better, imo

I Heart Internet

awec wrote: »

You go on about "anti-church" as if that's a bad thing.

Badum Tissssh!

Solair

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

See the past few pages.

The OP was wrong - no Irish Catholic Bishop or Priest has said this - if anything, Cardinal Brady rejected it.

I was posting on a mobile phone. It's not easy to just randomly go back through pages upon pages of posts sometimes!

It still doesn't take away from the fact that it feels rather like I've stepped into the 1950s. Only with iPhones!

murraykil

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Husssshhhh Cody! Facts have never been known to derail an AfterHours anti-church thread. Don't let them start now

He did say this however:

“I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign,”

Cathal Brday 2009. :rolleyes:

I think most people are offended by a hypocritical facilitator of child abuse being in a position of such authority and influence and thus having his opinion relayed far and wide and respected by so many.

This is very offensive to many, and probably even most members of civilised society.

jimd2

Solair wrote: »

See thread title above!

Solaris, have you read through this thread? Do you not realise that the thread title is total bullsh!t?

I didn't want to get any more involved in this thread as, frankly, I have more to be doing with my time on a day like today but to see people continue to believe that the thread title is correct is actually funny in some ways. It shows how limited a forum like boards is when it comes to real debate.

I suggested last evening that the thread should be closed but no one did anything about it. I might pm a moderator.

Edit, I just saw your post above. I wasn't trying to have a swipe at you. Just wondering how many others are going to be reading the thread and going off on a rant about the church.

murraykil

1ZRed wrote: »

Seriously what good has this institution ever done? They couldn't give a flying fuck about morals unless they can benefit from them in some way and even then it's a 'pick and choose' mentality when it comes to morality.

The sooner this scum burns down to the ground and is eradicated from society the better, imo

The problem is mostly with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church. Most of their ranks are very good people who do lots to help others.

If those at the top who facilitated the international paedophile ring and allowed it to flourish for years were brought to justice and sent to prison, the church could be cleansed of evil and the remainder could continue in good conscience and faith*.

* using their own terminolgy and spin

Solair

jimd2 wrote: »

Solaris, have you read through this thread? Do you not realise that the thread title is total bullsh!t?

I didn't want to get any more involved in this thread as, frankly, I have more to be doing with my time on a day like today but to see people continue to believe that the thread title is correct is actually funny in some ways. It shows how limited a forum like boards is when it comes to real debate.

I suggested last evening that the thread should be closed but no one did anything about it. I might pm a moderator.

Edit, I just saw your post above. I wasn't trying to have a swipe at you. Just wondering how many others are going to be reading the thread and going off on a rant about the church.

If they haven't said it, then the thread title needs to be changed.
A lot of people don't have the time to read hundreds of posts to get to the facts of a situation. If the title's not accurate, perhaps a mod might modify it ?

1ZRed

murraykil wrote: »

The problem is mostly with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church. Most of their ranks are very good people who do lots to help others.

If those at the top who facilitated the international paedophile ring and allowed it to flourish for years were brought to justice and sent to prison, the church could be cleansed of evil and the remainder could continue in good conscience and faith*.

* using their own terminolgy and spin

I still don't like any of the nonsensical bullshit they preach and how they try to force others and the government to abide by their beliefs just because they don't like something, even if it's got nothing to do with them, but that's my opinion.

murraykil

1ZRed wrote: »

I still don't like any of the nonsensical bullshit they preach and how they try to force others and the government to abide by their beliefs just because they don't like something, even if it's got nothing to do with them, but that's my opinion.

I hate the preaching too. I find it a shame though how so many in the church will defend those who facilitated the child abuse.

There are so many people on the ground in the church who are doing so many good things world wide to help the needy.

Great men and women who sacrificed their whole lives (including personal well-being, e.g. celibacy) to help others while those in their jewel encrusted hats in Rome are being worshipped as demi-gods; their word being taken as gospel (pun-intended); while at the same time shipping paedophiles from town to town spreading terror and torture.

the culture of deference

1ZRed wrote: »

Seriously what good has this institution ever done? They couldn't give a flying fuck about morals unless they can benefit from them in some way and even then it's a 'pick and choose' mentality when it comes to morality.

Brian McDonald – 05 May 2013
The Catholic Church has left the threat of excommunication hanging over the heads of Catholic members of the Dail who vote for the abortion legislation in its current format.


Cardinal Sean Brady yesterday refused to be drawn on the consequences for either Catholic ministers who introduce the legislation or those TDs who vote for it as it stands.


He was speaking to the media at Knock shrine in Co Mayo, where a national prayer vigil for the right to life of mothers and babies was held.


Asked if a TD who voted for the legislation as published would not automatically be excommunicated and should not therefore present himself/herself for Holy Communion, Archbishop Brady replied: "That is down the line at the moment, as far as we are concerned.
"It (our job) is to convince the electorate first of all and the legislators."


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-keeps-excommunication-threat-hanging-over-abortion-tds-29242992.html





ALSO spouting nonsense elsewhere



The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, has signalled a possible legal challenge to proposed abortion legislation unless it is changed.

Catholic bishops have described the proposed bill as "morally unacceptable," and Cardinal Brady has told politicians they have a "solemn duty" to oppose abortion.

The Catholic Primate said legislators had an obligation to oppose laws that sought to attack the right to life.

Spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops Conference, Father Tim Bartlett, said the Bishops will vigorously oppose the bill if its not changed.

He said: "What has happened in this legislation, very few people have picked it up, and it is difficult to believe it is not quite deliberate in its intent.

"But its intent is to prevent Catholic and other faith-based hospitals that share our view and indeed organisations with no faith that still share our views on abortion, it is going to impose a duty to provide abortion in those hospitals.

"That is totally unacceptable and a breach of the principle of religious freedom."

http://www.roscommonherald.ie/2013/05/03/bishops-abortion-laws-a-breach-of-the-principle-of-religious-freedom/


I like what the polly's put in the draft

(3) No institution, organisation or third party shall refuse to provide a lawful termination of pregnancy to a woman on grounds of conscientious objection.
(4) In the event of a doctor or other health professional having a difficulty in undertaking a required medical procedure, he or she will have a duty to ensure that another colleague takes over the care of the patient as per current medical ethics”.

the_syco

I find this very unfair. We as a people cannot excommunicate ourselves, but if a TD uses his vote against the wishes of the church, they get excommunicated?

Clandestine

All you need to know about Sean Brady:

hmmm

I love the idea of being lectured about morals by an institution that discriminates against gay people, that says that rape victims should bear their rapists child, and who actively covered up child abuse.

If this was anything other than "religious" they would be banned and the heads of the church would have been arrested for running an illegal organisation.

COYW

I don't get what the big issue is here. The RC church has a set of rules like any other organisation and one of those rules is that they are anti-abortion full stop. By supporting abortion in any form, TDs, well those of the RC faith, are breaking the rules of the church and therefore they are no longer welcome as part of that church.

Before anyone jumps :

1) I am not anti-abortion.
2) I am not a member of the RC church.

Like most of their rules, eg: you are not allowed to cohabit or have sex before marriage, the RC church will turn a blind eye to this when a TD turns up with a few quid looking for a service, wedding or funeral, I'm pretty sure.

I still believe that the potential loss of votes will be the biggest worry for politicians in relation to this issue. Plenty could lose their seat over this. The extremists on both sides are vicious and uncompromising.

efb

Would Sean Brady ever fcuk off!

COYW

efb wrote: »

Would Sean Brady ever fcuk off!

Why? He is the leader of the RC church in the RoI (not sure about this so correct me if I'm wrong) and has a set of rules to govern his people by. 87% of the population in this country, as per the last census, are of that faith, so they chose to include themselves in his church and thus empower him.

efb

COYW wrote: »

Why? He is the leader of the RC church in the RoI (not sure about this so correct me if I'm wrong) and has a set of rules to govern his people by. 87% of the population in this country, as per the last census, are of that faith, so they chose to include themselves in his church and thus empower him.

Moral authority - swearing kids to secrecy??? How many of the 87% want him gone!

Lightbulb Sun

murraykil wrote: »

kildare-nationalist.ie

I wonder is the reluctance to politicise the Eucharist as strong as the reluctance to publicise child abuse.

Ah, so the thread title is a sensationalist untruth then.

Ash.J.Williams

COYW wrote: »

Why? He is the leader of the RC church in the RoI (not sure about this so correct me if I'm wrong) and has a set of rules to govern his people by. 87% of the population in this country, as per the last census, are of that faith, so they chose to include themselves in his church and thus empower him.

I know this may seem mental but a significant percentage of that 87% are pro choice.

stoneill

Jemember the time when a threat from the church was all fire and brimstone and a eternity of pain and suffering.
Miracles were people rising from the dead and bushes on fire talking and apparitions all over the place .

Now, the best they can come up with is no wafer at mass for you and Jesus appears on toast or as a cat's arséhole.

Even if I was told I was excommunicated, that would mean as much to me and my daily life as someone telling me my shoe lace was open.

Sarky

Going by recent polls, a good 80% of that 87% are pro-choice.

murraykil

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

Ah, so the thread title is a sensationalist untruth then.

Untruth, yes it is, but it's very apt when the thread is about a statement made by Cathal Brady.

“I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign,”

Forest Demon

How many were still allowed to give communion when they were known to be child abusers?

Gary Glitter apparently is welcome for communion.