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

I Heart Internet

plannerscanner wrote: »

For once the CC are spot on in their threat. And they should carry it through come the aftermath of the vote.

Just to be clear - I am in favour of legislation in respect of the x-case. However, I am also interested in how the CC will go about renewing itself on the island after a lenghty period on the political sidelines. I have felt for a number of years that if they wish to be taken seriously they will have to start utilising their strong points to force their way back towards the centre of political discussion. And one of their strong points, as seen by politicians, is association. TD's want to be seen at mass, and more especially funerals. And if the CC has a rule that will exclude them then they should go ahead and use it to protect their values. The same goes for non-practising Catholics. You don't come to mass - then forget about the church wedding/baptism/communion etc.

Although I am very much in the lapsed Catholic camp, and I disagree with the CC on many issues, I have to admit, if they follow through on this threat I will be very impressed.

I understand where you're coming from Planner but I think your proposed approach lacks charity. The church is very slow to exclude people, even those legislating for abortion.

plannerscanner

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from Planner but I think your proposed approach lacks charity. The church is very slow to exclude people, even those legislating for abortion.

If the CC are happy to remain on the fringes of political discussion and to entertain an growing a la carte congregation then they should perhaps keep their threats to themselves and continue to maintain the current status quo. However, if they wish to be deeply involved how our secular society develops then they may have to dispense with the charity for the short-term and have people sit up and take notice.

murraykil

plannerscanner wrote: »

For once the CC are spot on in their threat. And they should carry it through come the aftermath of the vote.

Just to be clear - I am in favour of legislation in respect of the x-case. However, I am also interested in how the CC will go about renewing itself on the island after a lenghty period on the political sidelines. I have felt for a number of years that if they wish to be taken seriously they will have to start utilising their strong points to force their way back towards the centre of political discussion. And one of their strong points, as seen by politicians, is association. TD's want to be seen at mass, and more especially funerals. And if the CC has a rule that will exclude them then they should go ahead and use it to protect their values. The same goes for non-practising Catholics. You don't come to mass - then forget about the church wedding/baptism/communion etc.

Although I am very much in the lapsed Catholic camp, and I disagree with the CC on many issues, I have to admit, if they follow through on this threat I will be very impressed.

Threats, force, exclusion, that all sounds very Christian! :rolleyes:

Red Pepper

Birroc wrote: »

Sorry I was wrong, Smyth continued for another 18 years.

Brady’s so-called ‘investigations’ in 1975 concerning Smyth actually enabled Smyth to continue his reign of terror for another 18 years. It can be argued that Brady’s ‘investigations’ actually cleared Smyth – as Smyth stayed free for nearly TWO more decades. Brady must go and all the files relating to the Smyth ‘investigations’ must be released. Brady’s 1975 ‘detective work’ took place only yards from Dundalk Garda Station. Brady couldn’t walk those extra few yards to protect children … over 100 children were raped by Smyth AFTER Brady’s ‘investigation’.

He should be in prison.

Yeah it always kind of bothered me that this Brady guy wasn't jailed. Surely he broke all kinds of laws. People kept calling for his resignation but I considered that a complete cop out and then in the end he didn't even resign. Unfathomable really but every time I remember that this guy is leader of the Irish catholic church it makes me so glad to have left their clutches completely.

To be honest I dont understand how catholics somehow block what he did out and continue going to mass and listening to Brady's priests. Even a short protest or mass-strike would force Brady's hand. Why didn't the priests initiate some internal agitation to remove him? Clearly power is way more important to him than even abused little children. Very christian.

Bodhran

Freddy Smelly wrote: »

votes are secret. the church would have no way to tell who voted for it

The voting in Leinster House is not by secret ballot. It is a matter of public record.

plannerscanner

murraykil wrote: »

Threats, force, exclusion, that all sounds very Christian! :rolleyes:

They haven't been Christian for the longest time - I'm sure it will come more naturally than you think

Solair

I suppose while the Catholic Church isn't a democracy the one power that ordinary a la carte members do have is the ability to vote with their money.

I could see such a move resulting in drop offs in the number of envelopes being filled and returned for "dues" and other forms of collection.

Leftist

plannerscanner wrote: »

For once the CC are spot on in their threat. And they should carry it through come the aftermath of the vote.

Just to be clear - I am in favour of legislation in respect of the x-case. However, I am also interested in how the CC will go about renewing itself on the island after a lenghty period on the political sidelines. I have felt for a number of years that if they wish to be taken seriously they will have to start utilising their strong points to force their way back towards the centre of political discussion. And one of their strong points, as seen by politicians, is association. TD's want to be seen at mass, and more especially funerals. And if the CC has a rule that will exclude them then they should go ahead and use it to protect their values. The same goes for non-practising Catholics. You don't come to mass - then forget about the church wedding/baptism/communion etc.

Although I am very much in the lapsed Catholic camp, and I disagree with the CC on many issues, I have to admit, if they follow through on this threat I will be very impressed.

So let me get this straight, you don't agree with the CC on many issues but you want them to reinstate themselves as a heavy influence in irish political matters?

I just can't get my head around the stupidity in irish society sometimes.

Ghost Buster

Leftist wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you don't agree with the CC on many issues but you want them to reinstate themselves as a heavy influence in irish political matters?

I just can't get my head around the stupidity in irish society sometimes.

I read it as the poster wants (So called) Irish Catholics to walk the walk. Stop having sex before marriage, go to mass once a week, oppose homosexuality, stop using contraception, stop living together outside of marriage, oppose abortion in the name of their God rather than in the name of their party whip and generally do as their church tells them. Stop being ****ing hypocrites in other words.

PopePalpatine

Solair wrote: »

I suppose while the Catholic Church isn't a democracy the one power that ordinary a la carte members do have is the ability to vote with their money.

They're also not democracy's greatest fans.

Leftist

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I read it as the poster wants (So called) Irish Catholics to walk the walk. Stop having sex before marriage, go to mass once a week, oppose homosexuality, stop using contraception, stop living together outside of marriage, oppose abortion in the name of their God rather than in the name of their party whip and generally do as their church tells them. Stop being ****ing hypocrites in other words.

if so then fair enough. I would be favourable of any move that would further marginalise their horrendous church.

Kiwi in IE

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I read it as the poster wants (So called) Irish Catholics to walk the walk. Stop having sex before marriage, go to mass once a week, oppose homosexuality, stop using contraception, stop living together outside of marriage, oppose abortion in the name of their God rather than in the name of their party whip and generally do as their church tells them. Stop being ****ing hypocrites in other words.

I actually completely agree. They should enforce these ridiculous rules 100% for any person who wants to engage with the Church and call themselves Catholic. Baptisms, communions, confirmations, weddings etc should only be available to individuals and families who follow the above and regularly go to mass. I can think of nothing better than the percentage of Catholics in the country going from 90% to 5% overnight.

Cody Pomeray

clairefontaine wrote: »

What other lobby group gets so much media voice?

What other lobby group is invited to give so much media opinion?

Did Seán Brady kick in the door of the RTE studios? Did he call up Liveline and start sermonizing?

No, a respected RTE news program gave him a very prolonged radio interview on the News at One. I listen to the News At One every day and I can't remember an interview longer than that since Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis.

Why does RTE do this?

Of course if they ring up Seán Brady, he is going to agree to come on the show and give his stated opinion.

But for anyoen who heard the interview, or read the subsequent coverage, it is clear that the media were desperately fishing for a statement on excommunication or refusing communion which they did not get, whereafter they began to resort to naming foreign cardinals who have raised excommunication in other jurisdictions.

I'm no fan of the RC Church and would be happy never to set foot in one again, but to see the (very important) debate on abortion being reduced to some people's bugbear with the Catholic Church, both in the media and here on boards, is extremely irritating.

Sometimes I think society is so frustrated with the historic inability to stand up to the RC Church and the institutions of Church and Archbishop McQuaid when it mattered, that they are now overcompensating and strutting online and showing their atheist plumage when it matters the least, when the Church has been reduced to a corpse.

It's maddening because the Church is now completely irrelevant to the debate on abortion,and the abortion debate deserves an open and rational, and secular discussion.

Mardy Bum

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What other lobby group is invited to give so much media opinion?

Did Seán Brady kick in the door of the RTE studios? Did he call up Liveline and start sermonizing?

No, a respected RTE news program gave him a very prolonged radio interview on the News at One. I listen to the News At One every day and I can't remember an interview longer than that since Brian Lenihan's cancer diagnosis.

Why does RTE do this?

Of course if they ring up Seán Brady, he is going to agree to come on the show and give his stated opinion.

But for anyoen who heard the interview, or read the subsequent coverage, it is clear that the media were desperately fishing for a statement on excommunication or refusing communion which they did not get, whereafter they began to resort to naming foreign cardinals who have raised excommunication in other jurisdictions.

I'm no fan of the RC Church and would be happy never to set foot in one again, but to see the (very important) debate on abortion being reduced to some people's bugbear with the Catholic Church, both in the media and here on boards, is extremely irritating.

Sometimes I think society is so frustrated with the historic inability to stand up to the RC Church and the institutions of Church and Archbishop McQuaid when it mattered, that they are now overcompensating and strutting online and showing their atheist plumage when it matters the least, when the Church has been reduced to a corpse.

It's maddening because the Church is now completely irrelevant to the debate on abortion,and the abortion debate deserves an open and rational, and secular discussion.

The vast majority of the TDs are practising Catholics. Therefore a threat of excommunication would be a big deal for them. It is also an attempt to blackmail the TDs into voting against the bill. The media was right in attempting to find get an answer as it highlights the hypocrisy of the church and by his inability to give an answer should have given the TDs more confidence.

Cody Pomeray

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The vast majority of the TDs are practising Catholics.

link?

Therefore a threat of excommunication would be a big deal for them. It is also an attempt to blackmail the TDs into voting against the bill.

Except there was no threat of excommunication.

The media didn't catch their fish.

Sarky

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

link?

Except there was no threat of excommunication.

The media didn't catch their fish.

Brady essentially said "we'll think about it". He outright refused a straight answer specifically because he wanted that threat to be there without having to state it outright. If he was doing his job he'd have made the threat no bother, or would have acknowledged that TDs have a duty to legislate and that they're not to blame.

But he didn't. He let RTE make the threat for him and stayed vague to create uncertainty and fear around it. He's probably delighted that he got to make a threat like that while being able to claim that he didn't.

Cody Pomeray

Sarky wrote: »

Brady essentially said "we'll think about it". He outright refused a straight answer specifically because he wanted that threat to be there without having to state it outright.

That would probably be a reasonable point if Brady actually brought the issue up.

The issue was brought up first by Richard Crowley and then raised again with Brady by the print media.

What Brady actually said was that the issue hadn't been discussed by the Bishops. Clearly if the Bishops hadn't raised it in their deliberations, then it's not in their sights. But for Brady to dismiss it outright would be to go against Roman Catholic Dogma, and being a Cardinal, he's not really in a position to determine what the infallible teachings of the Church are so as he can lower the moral burden on Irish politicians.

It is clear to any rational observer that Brady did not raise excommunication, the Bishops did not raise it, and by saying he doesn't want to "politicise the Eucharist" Brady has shown an aversion to the prospect, if anything.

Anything more is just wishful thinking on behalf of a very vocal media and selection of internet posters desperate for a fight. Most people on this thread still seem to think there was an actual threat of excommunication. You just can;t get through to people who are determined to see this story in a certain light.

ruthloss

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That would probably be a reasonable point if Brady actually brought the issue up.

The issue was brought up first by Richard Crowley and then raised again with Brady by the print media.

What Brady actually said was that the issue hadn't been discussed by the Bishops. Clearly if the Bishops hadn't raised it in their deliberations, then it's not in their sights. But for Brady to dismiss it outright would be to go against Roman Catholic Dogma, and being a Cardinal, he's not really in a position to determine what the infallible teachings of the Church are so as he can lower the moral burden on Irish politicians.

It is clear to any rational observer that Brady did not raise excommunication, the Bishops did not raise it, and by saying he doesn't want to "politicise the Eucharist" Brady has shown an aversion to the prospect, if anything.

Anything more is just wishful thinking on behalf of a very vocal media and selection of internet posters desperate for a fight. Most people on this thread still seem to think there was an actual threat of excommunication. You just can;t get through to people who are determined to see this story in a certain light.

and youse are all going to hell!!:D

Cody Pomeray

ruthloss wrote: »

and youse are all going to hell!!:D

Was that supposed to be paraphrasing me?

I'm pro choice and have just been defending the pro choice position in another thread, so hardly.

I just think this is a ridiculous side show that is shifting the debate away from the genuine need for abortion legislation by some people exercising their infatuation with being anti-Chiurch. Fine if you want to be anti church, personally I ignore them. I'm just saying people should stop trying to drag the Catholic church into a secular debate.

Dionysius2

Yea, but it's nothing more than a virtual threat, now isn't that the truth ?

Morag

Dionysius2 wrote: »

Yea, but it's nothing more than a virtual threat, now isn't that the truth ?

It is enough of a threat to people and a moral stance which keeps up the perpetuation of shame related to abortion in this country.

Given the numbers of 12 women a day and at least 150,000 women who have had abortions I reckon there is a % of them who have gone to mass and gotten communion after their abortion. There is no way they'd confess it as it would mean they would be under the threat of excommunication.

Would a priest helping to bury the remains of a child brought back from the UK where the parents traveled due to fatal fetal abnormalities refuse to give absolution and communion to the parents? Cos that is what we are talking about.

It is the RCC using it's position to try and control people out of shame.

It is that shame which stops women from speaking out about their abortion and directly demanding the 8th amendment be repealed.

awec

plannerscanner wrote: »

For once the CC are spot on in their threat. And they should carry it through come the aftermath of the vote.

Just to be clear - I am in favour of legislation in respect of the x-case. However, I am also interested in how the CC will go about renewing itself on the island after a lenghty period on the political sidelines. I have felt for a number of years that if they wish to be taken seriously they will have to start utilising their strong points to force their way back towards the centre of political discussion. And one of their strong points, as seen by politicians, is association. TD's want to be seen at mass, and more especially funerals. And if the CC has a rule that will exclude them then they should go ahead and use it to protect their values. The same goes for non-practising Catholics. You don't come to mass - then forget about the church wedding/baptism/communion etc.

Although I am very much in the lapsed Catholic camp, and I disagree with the CC on many issues, I have to admit, if they follow through on this threat I will be very impressed.

They should have no involvement in politics whatsoever. They have shown themselves as unfit for such a position.

plannerscanner

awec wrote: »

They should have no involvement in politics whatsoever. They have shown themselves as unfit for such a position.

Are they not entitled to lobby and express their views like any other section. Drink and cigarette companies are entitled to and probably do more damage to society and on a larger scale than the CC could ever hope for. If you want to exclude the CC then a lot of other players come in for scrutiny

plannerscanner

Leftist wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you don't agree with the CC on many issues but you want them to reinstate themselves as a heavy influence in irish political matters?

I just can't get my head around the stupidity in irish society sometimes.

Please forgive me - you have taken this up incorrectly. I am merely intrigued by the dynamics of regaining political influence. Viewing their situation cold-heartedly and can see advantages to a hardline approach. And don't ever unders estimate the stupidity of Irish society

I Heart Internet

awec wrote: »

They should have no involvement in politics whatsoever. They have shown themselves as unfit for such a position.

^^This is the type of populist nonsense that gains much traction despite it being an outright afront to democratic values.

As much as some like to think they can silence a person or organisation becasue they don't pass some sort of fitness-to-speak test, we can not.

A healthy democracy needs a strong, inclusive civil society. Once you start trying to legitimise the exclusion of people, clubs, organisations, parties, etc from debate then you're chipping away at democracy itself.

krudler

Morag wrote: »

It is enough of a threat to people and a moral stance which keeps up the perpetuation of shame related to abortion in this country.

Given the numbers of 12 women a day and at least 150,000 women who have had abortions I reckon there is a % of them who have gone to mass and gotten communion after their abortion. There is no way they'd confess it as it would mean they would be under the threat of excommunication.

Would a priest helping to bury the remains of a child brought back from the UK where the parents traveled due to fatal fetal abnormalities refuse to give absolution and communion to the parents? Cos that is what we are talking about.

It is the RCC using it's position to try and control people out of shame.

It is that shame which stops women from speaking out about their abortion and directly demanding the 8th amendment be repealed.

Shame is their go to weapon in fairness.

gcgirl

COYW wrote: »

The pro-choice movement has a serious media voice to be fair clairefontaine, as does pretty much every trade union in the land. I think both sides have a fair share in the media voice on this.

Social media yes Managing to get on RTE hell no they've IONA on bloody speed dial

awec

I Heart Internet wrote: »

^^This is the type of populist nonsense that gains much traction despite it being an outright afront to democratic values.

As much as some like to think they can silence a person or organisation becasue they don't pass some sort of fitness-to-speak test, we can not.

A healthy democracy needs a strong, inclusive civil society. Once you start trying to legitimise the exclusion of people, clubs, organisations, parties, etc from debate then you're chipping away at democracy itself.

Does a healthy society need input from an organisation that abused children and then subsequently covered it up? An organisation that protects those who engaged in this activity?

Tell me, what place does such an organisation have in defining society?

They can have their say when there is a full, criminal investigation into that organisation from top to bottom and when filth like Brady is rotting behind bars. Until then, they can fcuk off - they have zero credibility and nothing to offer except disgusting hypocrisy.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

krudler

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

such as? the church really aren't ones for preaching morality, as morally repugnant as they are.

ottostreet

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

How does one set about getting excommunicated?

krudler

ottostreet wrote: »

How does one set about getting excommunicated?

kick a bishop up the arse

Sarky

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

Ahem. If I may:


Baaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa.

murraykil

I Heart Internet wrote: »

^^This is the type of populist nonsense that gains much traction despite it being an outright afront to democratic values.

As much as some like to think they can silence a person or organisation becasue they don't pass some sort of fitness-to-speak test, we can not.

A healthy democracy needs a strong, inclusive civil society. Once you start trying to legitimise the exclusion of people, clubs, organisations, parties, etc from debate then you're chipping away at democracy itself.

I doubt that anyone, except some extremists, want members of Catholic Church to have no voice, they are after all equal members of our society.

I think it's the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, the hierarchy who place their own, personal self-interest ahead of their congregation., that should not have a voice.

Until 2006 prisoners were not able to vote; I would be in favour of denying a vote and a voice to prisoners who commit violence crimes such as child abuse, and e.g. an Arch Bishop who protected a child abuser and did nothing to prevent that child abuser continuing to abuse.

Brady should be in jail and silent. The church even has a facility for this where he could join a silent monastery and seek to repent for his sins.

But no, fuk that, Brady is climbing a ladder made of broken children.

murraykil

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

For so many, for so long, it's the Roman Catholic church who were the cause of their "most difficult of times".

I firmly believe that all these loyal Catholics who still respect, listen to, and love the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church would stomp all over each other if they were tested at the pearly gates by being told there was room for only one more.

Those that still respect, listen to, and love the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church only care about self-preservation and their own salvation. Fuk whoever get trampled on on or who gets hurts along the way.

It disgusts me that such people call themselves Christian. :mad:

Sarky

murraykil wrote: »

I firmly believe that all these loyal Catholics who still respect, listen to, and love the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church would stomp all over each other if they were tested at the pearly gates by being told there was room for only one more.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that one. I bet it'd be vicious.

old hippy

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

So, people should stick to the RCCs teachings and not question anything?

They must agree with everything that organisations spews out and if they dare go against it - they're "hung out to dry"?

What an ugly, cruel thing organised religion is.

handlemaster

greenpilot wrote: »

Just heard this on RTE. Is this the last gasp of a dying church?

I dont think they will go hungry

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

krudler wrote: »

kick a bishop up the arse

If you kicked the Bishop of Rome, you'd be latae sententiae excommunicated.

Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 exist, the Code of Canon Law imposes latae sententiae excommunication on the following:

• an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
• a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;
• a person who uses physical force against the Pope;
• a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the penitent to break the commandment against adultery;
• a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a papal mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
• a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
• a person who procures a completed abortion;
• accomplices without whose assistance a violation of a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed.

Legislation outside of the Code of Canon Law may also decree latae sententiae excommunication. An example is that governing papal elections, which applies it to persons who violate secrecy, or who interfere with the election by means such as simony or communicating the veto of a civil authority.
The ipso facto excommunication that applied before 1983 to Catholics who became members of Masonic associations was not maintained in the revised Code of Canon Law that came into force in that year. However, the Holy See has declared that membership remains forbidden and that "the faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion".


Anyway, I'm sure all you hip and cool with-it dudes and dudesses have lots of original thinking under your belts that the church hasn't addressed.

Grayson

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I'd say excommunicate the lot of them.

Anyone who votes in favour of pro-abortion legislation (party whip or not) should be hung out to dry.

You can't have people who have had the benefit of a Catholic upbringing, a Catholic education and a church that has been by their side through the most difficult of times; simply turn their back on their faith in the church's tempore necessitatis just because it's politically expedient to do so.

They should be hung out to dry. Let them grovel to get back under the church's wing.

Not going to happen. Considering the catholic church won't actually let anyone leave. You could take a crap on the doorstep of a cathederal whilst wearing a devil suit and they still wouldn't take you off the roster.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

I won't repeat the libel by quoting the offending post. But if any of you cool and with-it dudes/dudesses have information that the DPP don't have, I'd go straight to your local garda station without delay.

Until then, put up or shut up.

krudler

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Anyway, I'm sure all you hip and cool with-it dudes and dudesses have lots of original thinking under your belts that the church hasn't addressed.

Ah you're one of those people who think anyone who's an atheist or against religion is just doing it to be cool, gotcha.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

krudler wrote: »

Ah you're one of those people who think anyone who's an atheist or against religion is just doing it to be cool, gotcha.

Roller-blading was cool in the 1990s. Atheism was cool since Dawkins wrote an airport best-seller.

Give atheism, oh, a hundred years or so. Then we can go about no longer describing it as an empty fad built on sand.

Grayson

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

I won't repeat the libel by quoting the offending post. But if any of you cool and with-it dudes/dudesses have information that the DPP don't have, I'd go straight to your local garda station without delay.

Until then, put up or shut up.

Could you at least reference it so we have some idea what you're talking about.

"I won't say who said what, but they should be ashamed with themselves" :rolleyes:

1ZRed

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

If you kicked the Bishop of Rome, you'd be latae sententiae excommunicated.

Unless the excusing circumstances outlined in canons 1321-1330 exist, the Code of Canon Law imposes latae sententiae excommunication on the following:

• an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
• a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;
• a person who uses physical force against the Pope;
• a priest who uses confession as a pretext to solicit the penitent to break the commandment against adultery;
• a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a papal mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
• a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
• a person who procures a completed abortion;
• accomplices without whose assistance a violation of a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication would not have been committed.

Legislation outside of the Code of Canon Law may also decree latae sententiae excommunication. An example is that governing papal elections, which applies it to persons who violate secrecy, or who interfere with the election by means such as simony or communicating the veto of a civil authority.
The ipso facto excommunication that applied before 1983 to Catholics who became members of Masonic associations was not maintained in the revised Code of Canon Law that came into force in that year. However, the Holy See has declared that membership remains forbidden and that "the faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion".


Anyway, I'm sure all you hip and cool with-it dudes and dudesses have lots of original thinking under your belts that the church hasn't addressed.

I fail to see whats so special about the pope. If I kicked anyone up the arse I'd expect to be treated the same, what's the exception of some old man in a gown?

Grayson

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Roller-blading was cool in the 1990s. Atheism was cool since Dawkins wrote an airport best-seller.

Give atheism, oh, a hundred years or so. Then we can go about no longer describing it as an empty fad built on sand.

Socrates was an athiest. It's not going away.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

krudler wrote: »

such as?

Funerals, baptisms, confirmations, holy communions, community support, etc.

krudler wrote: »

the church really aren't ones for preaching morality, as morally repugnant as they are.

Oh you're one of those! Next time you need to visit a hospital, you should thank God for the catholic church. And when you're crying like a baby for a priest on your death bed.

1ZRed

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Roller-blading was cool in the 1990s. Atheism was cool since Dawkins wrote an airport best-seller.

Give atheism, oh, a hundred years or so. Then we can go about no longer describing it as an empty fad built on sand.

But a 2000 year old book written about a Jewish super hero with magic powers will still be seen as 100% legit in a hundred years?

Riiiiiiiiight.....

Grayson

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Funerals, baptisms, confirmations, holy communions, community support, etc.


Oh you're one of those! Next time you need to visit a hospital, you should thank God for the catholic church. And when you're crying like a baby for a priest on your death bed.

Unless your pregnant and your name is Savita

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Grayson wrote: »

Socrates was an athiest. It's not going away.

Ancient Greece, unlike the Catholic Church, hasn't survived the test of time now, has it?

Why don't you atheists feck off to Greece where you can wallow in your nihilism to your hearts' content?