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

awec

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Can I ask AH inhabitants, what's your problem with the "hierarchy"?

The "hierarchy" has been around for more than 2000 years. How long will your thoughts be around for?

And nobody's forcing you to listen to the "hierarchy".

That it contains filth like Sean Brady?

The fact that child abuse was covered up by the church hierarchy, more interested in protecting the church than protecting the young victims.

Would have thought that was obvious.

Do you listen to what the likes of Brady says?

awec

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Comments like this make me think there is indeed no place for rational discussion in AH.

Social Justice is a term that comes from the Catholic Church itself, through the Jesuit line. It is alive today through liberation theology, although liberation theology fell out of vogue with the previous 2 popes.

If criticism of the Catholic Church is to be meaningful, it has to start with being realistic and honest.

We\'re never going to get anywhere, and we're never going to be able to convince Catholics to change if we dismiss every last whit of the Catholic Church as being evil and malicious.

Another poster said something previously along the line of what would the Church know about culture? Mad stuff, people should look at what they're saying before they dive in with silly statements.

Well, the church has done a brilliant job of evading and hiding from any type of justice for all these years. I guess you have to know what something is in order to avoid it, so you may have a point.

1ZRed

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Can I ask AH inhabitants, what's your problem with the "hierarchy"?

The "hierarchy" has been around for more than 2000 years. How long will your thoughts be around for?

And nobody's forcing you to listen to the "hierarchy".

Eh, the "hierarchy" is forcing everyone to listen to it. If it didn't do that we would've have half of the amount if problems we have now. That's the point.

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Grayson wrote: »

]
You should read some philosophy. The word philosophy means the search for wisdom. It's about asking questions and thinking it through in a rational way.

Do you think the church aren't aware of philosophy?

Do you think it's practical for all the faithful to be experts in philosophy?

When you say I "should read some philosophy", who would you recommend?

Cody Pomeray

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Can I ask AH inhabitants, what's your problem with the "hierarchy"?

I bet it could be summed up in one word: Trust.

The Catholic hierarchy have given Catholics plenty of reasons not to trust them.

Why are you so determined to publicly show your support for the Hierarchy? Don't you feel they have damaged their trust-worthiness?

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

1ZRed wrote: »

Eh, the "hierarchy" is forcing everyone to listen to it. If it didn't do that we would've have half of the amount if problems we have now. That's the point.

What are you smoking?

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Totally agree.

I've had constructive conversations with Catholics... including my parents... about criticisms of the Church.

You don't establish a constructive dialogue by hammering everyone with clangers like "what would the Church know about social justice/ culture".

There are better ways to bring people round to your way of thinking. Criticize, please, but don't completely alienate everyone willing to listen with militant catholic-bashing. I'm sure there are Catholics on AH who just zone out when this comes up. The debate is shoved out of the forum by the extremists on both sides.

Again, not defending the RC Church, just my 2c.

I have not been hammering as you described. The statements made by the hierarchy of Roman Catholic church will, and should never again be taken seriously while they are being made by the likes of Brady.

You should not expect rational debate when one side is debating the view of or a message relayed by a man like Brady.

Regardless of the content of the message, they should not be listened to while they still allow a person such as him remain in such a position and be their messenger.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

I have not been hammering as you described. The statements made by the hierarchy of Roman Catholic church will, and should never again be taken seriously while they are being made by the likes of Brady.

Yes I agree. I think every time he speaks out on morality and yet remains a Cardinal, the Catholic Church shoots itself in the foot.

But people have to learn to pick their fights.

If you (not necessarily you, I'm talking about people in general) go in all guns blazing, criticizing every last particle of Catholicism, denying that there are very good Catholic lay people and religious, then nobody who is Catholic or open to a rational discussion is likely to listen.

So far, I think this thread has been dominated by extremism. There is an interesting debate to be had if we all calmed down.

murraykil

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

What are you smoking?

Very selective replying there!

awec

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I bet it could be summed up in one word: Trust.

The Catholic hierarchy have given Catholics plenty of reasons not to trust them.

Why are you so determined to publicly show your support for the Hierarchy? Don't you feel they have damaged their trust-worthiness?

If I were a church going Catholic I would be absolutely livid and disgusted with the hierarchy that has completely destroyed the credibility of the church in this country.

The only way to rebuild that credibility is to get rid of the bad eggs, to have a full investigation and stop protecting certain individuals in order to save face.

1ZRed

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

What are you smoking?

The church seems to have a nasty habit of making it's stance known on civil, non religious issues and always seems to kick up a fuss and have their day when it's not wanted and when it's got nothing to do with them.

That's how they force their views on the rest of us, even if we don't follow the religion at all.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes I agree. I think every time he speaks out on morality and yet remains a Cardinal, the Catholic Church shoots itself in the foot.

But people have to learn to pick their fights.

If you (not necessarily you, I'm talking about people in general) go in all guns blazing, criticizing every last particle of Catholicism, denying that there are very good Catholic lay people and religious, then nobody who is Catholic or open to a rational discussion is likely to listen.

So far, I think this thread has been dominated by extremism. There is an interesting debate to be had if we all calmed down.

Yes it's true that lots slam the church in it's entirety. I think when you see some lay members who will defend the hierarchy regardless of any wrong they may have done, then it's to be expected that people will get angry and often make such remarks as slamming the whole church.

Grayson

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Do you think the church aren't aware of philosophy?

Do you think it's practical for all the faithful to be experts in philosophy?

When you say I "should read some philosophy", who would you recommend?

Start with the basics. Plato. He's quite entertaining.

Then move onto other religious thinkers like Descartes, Kierkegaard & Hegel. Descartes and Kierkegaard are easy to read. Hegel is a bit heavy going.

But if you're looking for a primer, start with sophies world. It's a nice little story about a girl getting philosophy lessons. It'll give you a brief introduction to loads of stuff.

Ghost Buster

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

Ancient Greece is a nice trip on the tourist trail, but it's long gong. It doesn't exist anymore. Ancient Greece (like Ancient Rome) is history that has been successfully appropriated by the Holy See.

The Vatican is a living, breathing entity that has been around for thousands of years and is the spiritual home to 1.3 billion of the world's people.

You should go to the Vatican museum some time and check out their collection of Greek artifacts.

And I, indeed am one of those 1.3 billion despite not setting foot inside a church of my own accord in 23 years and being atheist for 20 .they may need to revise those figures

Grayson

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

What are you smoking?

To be fair, objecting to the mother and child scheme in the 60's was one of the more shameful actions of the church in Ireland. It was a scheme to give all mothers and all children free health care. That's not even vaguely religious and can only be seen as good. But the church objected because they considered it communist.

Likewise they supported many horrible people in the name of stopping communism.

murraykil

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair, objecting to the mother and child scheme in the 60's was one of the more shameful actions of the church in Ireland. It was a scheme to give all mothers and all children free health care. That's not even vaguely religious and can only be seen as good. But the church objected because they considered it communist.

Likewise they supported many horrible people in the name of stopping communism.

It's most likely that they has ulterior here where they wanted to create more reliance on church run institutions, such as more mothers being unable to support themselves and their children thus needing the help of the laundries.

Once they have this grasp they can indoctrine 24/7 and get the kids while they are young.

Sick when you think about it, when they knew what they would face! :mad:

padd b1975

murraykil wrote: »

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:

It would be nothing compared to the stampede of aethists if they were convinced it was the real deal;)

padd b1975

murraykil wrote: »

It's most likely that they has ulterior here where they wanted to create more reliance on church run institutions, such as more mothers being unable to support themselves and their children thus needing the help of the laundries.

Once they have this grasp they can indoctrine 24/7 and get the kids while they are young.

Sick when you think about it, when they knew what they would face! :mad:

Whats really sick is that a great number of these young women were placed in these institutions on the consent of their own families.

As far as the families were concerned it was either the laundries or the gutter.

handlemaster

jimd2 wrote: »

Just to let people know, I have pm'd the moderators twice about this thread because it is total bullsh!t. Nothing done about it...

I am not a frequenter of After Hours but I would have thought that there would be some sort of standards. And I see they closed a thread in which a few people were having a bit of a banter about a one night stand!

boo hoo

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

Whats really sick is that a great number of these young women were placed in these institutions on the consent of their own families.

As far as the families were concerned it was either the laundries or the gutter.

I think what the clergy did was really sick also, but each to their own. :rolleyes:

padd b1975

murraykil wrote: »

I think what some of the clergy did was really sick also, but each to their own. :rolleyes:

FYP.

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

It would be nothing compared to the stampede of aethists if they were convinced it was the real deal;)

I'd expect most atheists can be proud of having lead a good life where they tried their best to be good people and used their best judgement rather than listening to people who put their own self interests ahead of innocent children.

Where do the limbo babies fit into this for you? So sad for the ones that didn't make the cut-off. :rolleyes:

Birroc

Smidge wrote: »

Why do you want the thread closed?

The truth hurts some people.

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

FYP.

Cody Pomeray

padd b1975 wrote: »

As far as the families were concerned it was either the laundries or the gutter.

I think it's reasonable to hold the Catholic Church to a different standard to individual families.

Individual family members are not a well resourced organization claiming to have a monopoly on morality. They are humans, they err. The Church not only claims to be an authority on morality, it claims to have spiritual guidance to that end, and is staffed by people whose job it is, day in, day out, to help determine 'the common good' for their membership.

Rightly or wrongly, individual family members placed trust in that well resourced, wealthy 'moral authority'. Unlike the heads of those institutions, most of those family members were probably very poor, uneducated and essentially subjects of that organisation.

And while they did put their daughters and sisters into those institutions, we know that many of them got more than what they had anticipated, or could have known about.

Cody Pomeray

Smidge wrote: »

Why do you want the thread closed?

the OP was totally wrong.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I think it's reasonable to hold the Catholic Church to a different standard to individual families.

Individual family members are not a well resourced organization claiming to have a monopoly on morality. They are humans, they err. The Church not only claims to be an authority on morality, it claims to have spiritual guidance to that end, and is staffed by people whose job it is, day in, day out, to help determine 'the common good' for their membership.

Rightly or wrongly, individual family members placed trust in that well resourced, wealthy 'moral authority'. Unlike the heads of those institutions, most of those family members were probably very poor, uneducated and essentially subjects of that organisation.

And while they did put their daughters and sisters into those institutions, we know that many of them got more than what they had anticipated, or could have known about.

Many families were left with little choice with the Mother and Child Scheme; exactly as planned by the church?

padd b1975

murraykil wrote: »

The fact that being called over an insulting and unfair generalisation amuses you really says a lot about the bigoted and sectarian attitude you have displayed on this thread.

murraykil

padd b1975 wrote: »

The fact that being called over an insulting and unfair generalisation amuses you really says a lot about the bigoted and sectarian attitude you have displayed on this thread.

No I'm amused at the fact that you edited my post under the guise of fixing my post because you seem to have misinterpreted what I though was very basic English. I can understand though, the English language is very flexible so if you needed the word 'some' added for you to understand what I meant. I am very surprised that it was possible to make this mistake as you have been quoting previous posts so you must be following the thread. But thanks, there might be others who have difficulty with English also.

Or then again, are you trying to be deceitful and trying to attribute something to me which I did not say or mean? That would not be nice.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

No I'm amused at the fact that you edited my post under the guise of fixing my post because you seem to have misinterpreted what I though was very basic English. I can understand though, the English language is very flexible so if you needed the word 'some' added for you to understand what I meant. I am very surprised that it was possible to make this mistake as you have been quoting previous posts so you must be following the thread. But thanks, there might be others who have difficulty with English also.

Or then again, are you trying to be deceitful and trying to attribute something to me which I did not say or mean? That would not be nice.

You didn't qualify your statement by saying "some of the clergy".

murraykil wrote: »

I think what the clergy did was really sick...

Nobody here is a mind reader. It's a perfectly fair correction for him to make.

You can't make this sort of error and then propose that the problem is with other users' grasp of the language.

Smidge

padd b1975 wrote: »

Whats really sick is that a great number of these young women were placed in these institutions on the consent of their own families.

As far as the families were concerned it was either the laundries or the gutter.

These women would not have been committed to these laundries and asylums had it not been for the POWER the RCC had over the community and society as a whole in Ireland.

Not only the woman would have been shunned but the family and anyone else who associated with this woman, would have been outcast and tormented.

People were called from the pulpit for less.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You didn't qualify your statement by saying "some of the clergy". Nobody here is a mind reader. It's a perfectly fair correction for him to make.

You can't make this sort of error and then propose that the problem is with other users' grasp of the language.

It's not an error and yes it is a very poor grasp of English; this is in fact how English is commonly used.

On Friday, Israel hit what unidentified officials told The Associated Press was a shipment of ground-to-ground missiles bound for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Do you need clarification here what is meant by Israel or do you think it means that every man woman and child in Israel was part of the military operation?

Kiwi in IE

Ecce_Agnus_Dei wrote: »

The church has been through bigger challenges in her 2000 year history.

You do know about history, don't you? (assuming you get the chance to get away from porn, social media and cat videos on the internet)

Hmmmmmmmmm one who believes in virgins giving birth, little wafers magically turning to the flesh of a person who died 2000 years ago, that water once blessed by a priest gains magical powers, etc, questioning the intelligence of others? Nice.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

It's not an error and yes it is a very poor grasp of English; this is in fact how English is commonly used.



Do you need clarification here what is meant by Israel or do you think it means that every man woman and child in Israel was part of the military operation?

Sorry I'm not a grammar nazi, but if you must argue this point then I have no choice.

When used in the context the clergy..., the definite article is a synsemantic word which indicates the entire collective of that body of individuals under reference. It denotes all of the membership.

This is a very simple point. I don't believe you can really want to contest this point of English grammar... do you?

hatrickpatrick

Read through the first several pages of this to no avail, does anyone have an actual link to any article or interview which directly quotes someone in the church directly threatening excommunication as the title suggests?

Note: I believe it's true and I'm no fan of the church's behavior, but I'm trying to show this to my dad who's skeptical that someone made these remarks and it's pretty frustrating when someone posts a thread like this with no sauce...

Sarky

Alas, the threat was implicit rather than direct. Brady certainly refused to rule it out. He hinted that everyone knew how canon law deals with these cases. He's a contemptible sack of sh*t but he's smart enough to know that if he'd answered yes or no, he'd have lost.

1ZRed

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read through the first several pages of this to no avail, does anyone have an actual link to any article or interview which directly quotes someone in the church directly threatening excommunication as the title suggests?

Note: I believe it's true and I'm no fan of the church's behavior, but I'm trying to show this to my dad who's skeptical that someone made these remarks and it's pretty frustrating when someone posts a thread like this with no sauce...

I agree, sauce is always welcomed. Apple would be good right now

Cody Pomeray

Sarky wrote: »

Alas, the threat was implicit rather than direct.

Except the Bishops didn't raise it in their meeting.

Richard Crowley raised it.

Brady replied saying he didn't want to politicize the Eucharist..

I don't think the Cardinal has the authority to change Church teaching. Powerful and all as he is like, I'm sure... but please don't let the facts concern you.

murraykil

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Read through the first several pages of this to no avail, does anyone have an actual link to any article or interview which directly quotes someone in the church directly threatening excommunication as the title suggests?

Note: I believe it's true and I'm no fan of the church's behavior, but I'm trying to show this to my dad who's skeptical that someone made these remarks and it's pretty frustrating when someone posts a thread like this with no sauce...

The thread title in not correct according to what Brady said.

According to the Kildare Nationalist his exact words were: "There would be a great reluctance to politicise the Eucharist".

He is a highly educated man; I believe he chose his words very carefully and was deliberately vague so as to leave a threat; he followed up with: "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."

He did not say "he didn't want to politicise the Eucharist" or that he would not politicise the Eucharist.

http://www.kildare-nationalist.ie/

FoxT

disingenuous thread title is disingenuous.

Proper quote please, or GTFO.

murraykil

It would be fine to change the word "won't" to "might not".

Had Brady said "We will not politicise the Eucharist" the thread might not have started! :pac:

Weathering

What about all the priests that raped young girls and left them pregnant. I bet they're still woofling down communion

snouts

Weathering wrote: »

What about all the priests that raped young girls and left them pregnant. I bet they're still woofling down communion

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

murraykil

snouts wrote: »

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

Exodus 11:5

Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

What were the first born sons of the slaves guilty of?

Weathering

snouts wrote: »

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

What?? My comment was nothing to do with abortion it was highlighting the hypocrisy of priests.

I think raping minors and being hid/shielded from justice by an organisation which bases itself on living a good life is a lot worse than a crime against faith. You're deluded

snouts

murraykil wrote: »

What were the first born sons of the slaves guilty of?

Are you aware of the context of what you have just quoted? If you're trying to justify abortion by way of Exodus 11:5 (Protestant version), then you are stupider than I gave you credit for.

murraykil

The all powerful God described by Moses could not think of a better way to convince the Pharaoh to free the Israelis so he decided on killing children who I think were innocent. Since the intentional killing of innocent human life is such a moral ill I don't see why the children were killed. Surely an all powerful God as described by Moses could have come up with a better way?

Had this all powerful God the vision of Lincoln or Ghandi who knows how many lives would have been spared.

snouts

murraykil wrote: »

The all powerful God described by Moses could not think of a better way to convince the Pharaoh to free the Israelis so he decided on killing children who I think were innocent. Since the intentional killing of innocent human life is such a moral ill I don't see why the children were killed. Surely an all powerful God as described by Moses could have come up with a better way?

Had this all powerful God the vision of Lincoln or Ghandi who knows how many lives would have been spared.

What riveting and rigorous insight.

murraykil

It seems that noone can make sense of it! But . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0

ScumLord

snouts wrote: »

The intentional killing of innocent human life is a greater moral ill.

I don't see why it would be, when people are killed they get to go to god don't they? The worse crime would be to make someone suffer through their lives.

(FYI: the worst type of crimes are crimes against the Faith)

Worst to who? Crimes against the faith are victimless crimes.