The Bishop of Elphin

Sheep Lover

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't agree with his views, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to air them. How can you win a debate if you're not prepared to listen to the other side?

Typical of the burgeoning shouty, "I'm right and everyone else is a caveman" attitude that many neckbeards have developed. Usually they are sweaty, pot bellied, Che t shirt students who are ultra left wing and PC mad as long as it's still cool.

volchitsa

reprise wrote: »

Far from shocking or unique.

Ethical dilemmas are very much a secular headache too.

I don't think you'll find a secular ethics board which needs to spend any time considering whether it might be ethical to force a woman who has been raped to gestate against her will.

This frees up time for genuine ethical dilemmas about end of life care and so on. IMe Ireland's hospitals could do with a bit more real ethical care, as opposed to theology disguised as ethics.

Hotblack Desiato

Eutow wrote: »

If he no longer holds any influence on hospital boards, schools etc, I say let him talk this nonscene and he can be easily defeated by good arguements. That way more people will turn away from people like him. No ethical or right thinking organisation will have him anywhere with influence to dictate policy.

He's a bishop so is the patron of RC schools in his diocese, so yes he has influence and appoints his representative onto every school board.

volchitsa

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't agree with his views, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to air them. How can you win a debate if you're not prepared to listen to the other side?

I dont think he said anything we haven't heard multiple times though, many of us since primary school. The church has privileged access eve when it has nothing new to say (though the business about God being non-omnipotent intrigues me - what exactly did he say please?

One eyed Jack

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't agree with his views, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to air them. How can you win a debate if you're not prepared to listen to the other side?

By all means people should have the freedom to air their views, that way people can discriminate as to whether they're even worthy engaging with or not. Sometimes it's better to pick your battles than to try and have a debate when the other side has no qualms about talking utter nonsense.

reprise

Eutow wrote: »

More so the fact that the other two had a problem with contraception.
Whatever about abortion, which non religious can be against for ethical reasons.

I am no expert but the very brief look at the issue surrounding contraception did suggest a compromise that involved advising abstinence as opposed to mandating contraception. There is more to the issue than meets the eye and ample opportunity to misrepresent the individuals concerned.

As the treatment was ultimately approved, it's irrelevant.

Eutow

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He's a bishop so is the patron of RC schools in his diocese, so yes he has influence and appoints his representative onto every school board.

Why am I not suprised.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

I am no expert but the very brief look at the issue surrounding contraception did suggest a compromise that involved advising abstinence as opposed to mandating contraception. There is more to the issue than meets the eye and ample opportunity to misrepresent the individuals concerned.

As the treatment was ultimately approved, it's irrelevant.

A celibate man, celibate woman and some holy joe telling somebody that they can't have sexual relations during what could be the remainder of their lives when theres a simple precaution available...Yeah, that's a real fucking alternative alright.

Hotblack Desiato

He can eff off, telling grown adults they shouldn't have sex because they are being treated in a 'catholic' hospital paid for by taxpayers' money?

Eff that right effing off.

Nodin

Eutow wrote: »

Why am I not suprised.

It's why we give out. If this was John Waters we'd have started taking the piss by now.

Sheep Lover

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He can eff off, telling grown adults they shouldn't have sex because they are being treated in a 'catholic' hospital paid for by taxpayers' money?

Eff that right effing off.

If it's a Catholic hospital, unmarried pregnant women shouldn't be treated as it's against a fundamental of the church's belief

Hotblack Desiato

Icepick wrote: »

He also said that god isn't omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, and that it's apparently a common view held by Catholics. Was news to me.

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

- Epicurus

Eutow

reprise wrote: »

I am no expert but the very brief look at the issue surrounding contraception did suggest a compromise that involved advising abstinence as opposed to mandating contraception. There is more to the issue than meets the eye and ample opportunity to misrepresent the individuals concerned.

As the treatment was ultimately approved, it's irrelevant.

That's the problem there though, and seems very Irish. An Irish solution to an Irish problem. Rather than just giving out the drug and telling the patient to take contraception, they have to insert the "Oh we can't advice you to take contraception because it is against catholic teachings, so practice abstinence", but knowing this isn't very practical.

The fact that it needlessly delayed things makes it relevant. It is just stupid and pointless, and potentially dangerous.

volchitsa

reprise wrote: »

I am no expert but the very brief look at the issue surrounding contraception did suggest a compromise that involved advising abstinence as opposed to mandating contraception.

Why exactly would it be more important for women to avoid using artificial contraception than to have lung cancer treatment though? How can those two issues even be considered to have the same level of importance that the cancer treatment could possibly be delayed because of questions about whether the catholic church approved or not?

And why was contraception advised if not because there was a possible risk of fetal abnormality? So why would it ever be considered acceptable to allow women to run the risk of getting pregnant with a disabled baby rather than just tell her to use contraception?

reprise wrote: »

As the treatment was ultimately approved, it's irrelevant.

It certainly was relevant for the women whose treatment was delayed by several months though! Or maybe you don't understand that lung cancer treatment is often time-critical?

reprise

Sheep Lover wrote: »

If it's a Catholic hospital, unmarried pregnant women shouldn't be treated as it's against a fundamental of the church's belief

And that raises a fair point. To the best of my knowledge, there is no requirement to be a catholic as a patient in the Mater nor are they refusing treatment to women on the pill for example.

reprise

volchitsa wrote: »

Why ..... maybe you don't understand that lung cancer treatment is often time-critical?

I'm not on the board, I am not a Bishop, nor am I an oncologist so I really cannot answer your questions.

Eutow

reprise wrote: »

I'm not on the board, I am not a Bishop, nor am I an oncologist so I really cannot answer your questions.

Cancer from the lungs could spread to the brain while a hospital board decides for six months whether to allow a drug or not because contraception has to be used. By then the patient is dead, or at best, that drug will no longer be effective on the barely alive patient.

That's just an example, no medical knowledge myself.

volchitsa

reprise wrote: »

I'm not on the board, I am not a Bishop, nor am I an oncologist so I really cannot answer your questions.

Well then you shouldn't try to explain away stuff you don't understand, should you? It matters that women's treatment for lung cancer because of the churhc's belief that contraception is so evil that it is worth refusing them access to lung cancer drugs rather than advise them to use it, and that it is worth knowingly risking babies being born with unknown disabilities (since it was a new drug) than advising women to use the most effective form of contraception, instead of none.

volchitsa

Eutow wrote: »

Cancer from the lungs could spread to the brain while a hospital board decides for six months whether to allow a drug or not because contraception has to be used. By then the patient is dead, or at best, that drug will no longer be effective on the barely alive patient.

That's just an example, no medical knowledge myself.

Well exactly, that is common knowledge. The fact that Reprise is so transparently trying to avoid saying something that the vast majority of people in the country know shows that he's not even being honest..

reprise

Eutow wrote: »

Cancer from the lungs could spread to the brain while a hospital board decideds for six months whether to allow a drug or not because contraception has to be used. By then the patient is dead, or at best, that drug will no longer be affective.

Drugs can and have been delayed for years over cost and/or contraindication issues that have nothing to do with religion. No threads about these though.

Pumpkinseeds

Eutow wrote: »

^^^^^^^

It just shows you how far Ireland still needs to go to be dragged into the 21st century. How is a priest, nun or bishop given the opportunity to suit on a hospital board. Why are hospitals still owned by a religious organisation. Forcing religious beliefs on hospials, having a religious ethos. Fking ridiculous.

I'd love to see a complete seperation of Church and State. Keep religion out of schools and while we're at it get rid of the Irish language classes as well. If we eliminated religion and Irish from the curriculum the money saved could be used to provide teachers to educate kids in subjects that actually matter.

volchitsa

reprise wrote: »

Drugs can and have been delayed for years over cost and/or contraindication issues that have nothing to do with religion. No threads about these though.

Pure whataboutery - always shows when someone has been pwned.

Nodin

reprise wrote: »

Drugs can and have been delayed for years over cost and/or contraindication issues that have nothing to do with religion. No threads about these though.

...because concerns over cost effectiveness and harm to patients is perfectly equivalent to the objections of people who have a problem with contraception.....

reprise

volchitsa wrote: »

Well then you shouldn't try to explain away stuff you don't understand, should you? It matters that women's treatment for lung cancer because of the churhc's belief that contraception is so evil that it is worth refusing them access to lung cancer drugs rather than advise them to use it, and that it is worth knowingly risking babies being born with unknown disabilities (since it was a new drug) than advising women to use the most effective form of contraception, instead of none.

I'm not explaining anything away. I laid out the facts as I know them.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well exactly, that is common knowledge. The fact that Reprise is so transparently trying to avoid saying something that the vast majority of people in the country know shows that he's not even being honest..

Hyperbole isn't honesty.

reprise

volchitsa wrote: »

Pure whataboutery - always shows when someone has been pwned.

LOL My kids use that expression too

Eutow

reprise wrote: »

Drugs can and have been delayed for years over cost and/or contraindication issues that have nothing to do with religion. No threads about these though.

You can't compare a delay in drugs being allowed on the market because of religious beliefs to a delay because of a lack of knowledge on effectiveness, potential serious side-effects etc

Eutow

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I'd love to see a complete seperation of Church and State. Keep religion out of schools

Long overdue, but may be a while before that happens due to the spineless politicans that pollute the country.

volchitsa

reprise wrote: »

I'm not explaining anything away. I laid out the facts as I know them.

Hyperbole isn't honesty.

Except you then claimed not even to know what any adult of normal intelligence in the country probably knows - that creating unnecessary delays in access to lung cancer treatment is potentially fatal to the people concerned. Where is the hyperbole there?

reprise

volchitsa wrote: »

Except you then claimed not even to know what any adult of normal intelligence in the country probably knows - that creating unnecessary delays in access to lung cancer treatment is potentially fatal to the people concerned. Where is the hyperbole there?

I am not claiming to know what the vast majority of people know about oncology in an increasingly insulting and sneery manner. Feel free to tone down your comments.

reprise

Eutow wrote: »

You can't compare a delay in drugs being allowed on the market because of religious beliefs to a delay because of a lack of knowledge on effectiveness, potential serious side-affects etc

I'm not making that comparison, I am stating that other considerations can and do cause delays.

jahalpin

Lapin wrote: »

What a fucking arsehole....:mad:

From the Indo


A Catholic Bishop has claimed that women who have abortions after being raped were likely doing so to get back at their rapist.

The Bishop of Elphin Kevin Doran liken the termination of a foetus to that of killing a terminally ill patient, adding that “to kill another human being is always sinful”.

“The child is still a human being, you don’t destroy a life in order to get back at the mother’s rapist,” he said.

Speaking to mark the first day of the Spring Meeting of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, Bishop Doran told Newstalk Breakfast that it was not for him to pass judgement on those women who had travelled to the UK seeking terminations.

“It is between them and God, it isn’t a matter for public debate,” he said when questioned on whether they had committed a ‘sin’.

He is a citizen and is entitled to his opinion just as any other citizen is entitled to theirs

I don't think he said anything about the victim forgiving the rapist but rather not taking it out on an innocent unborn child

conorh91

Lux23 wrote: »

I listened to the whole segment and he did not say one sensible thing

• All people are equal in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the State.
• Gay people are just as welcome at mass as straight people
• Same-sex relationships contain love and affection
• The Catholic Church is not an expert on nature vs nurture
• It is not a sin to be gay in the eyes of the Church
• All children deserve equal love and care, whether their parents are gay or straight, or single parents, etc.
• He felt sure that a gay couple were capable of raising children well.

You don't agree with any of this? You don't think any of those points are "sensible"?

I wonder how many people actually listened to the interview, and I wonder how many of those listened to the comments on the whole.

I disagree with a few of the things he said, but most of what he said was perfectly sensible.

Most people seem to be basing their opinion on what the Indo wrote. The same people probably regularly criticise the Indo when it suits them.

hotmail.com

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't agree with his views, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to air them. How can you win a debate if you're not prepared to listen to the other side?

Has anyone said he is not entitled to his opinion?

jahalpin

I've just listened to the full interview and I think the bishop was fair and reasonable in everything he said. He didn't come across as someone who is anti-gay etc.

The bishop even admitted that he had questioned his sexuality when he was younger so could understand what gay people are going through

What people have to remember is that being anti-Gay Marriage is not the same as being anti-gay

For some reason there is a very anti-Catholic bias in the Irish media and on this site and people are very quick to attack any priest who dares to give an opinion.

Lets not forget that priests are men who have forsaken everything to help their fellow human beings in times of need.

Nodin

jahalpin wrote: »

I've just listened to the full interview and I think the bishop was fair and reasonable in everything he said. He didn't come across as someone who is anti-gay etc.

..............

Ye reckon?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94606997&postcount=7985

PopePalpatine

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Typical of the burgeoning shouty, "I'm right and everyone else is a caveman" attitude that many neckbeards have developed. Usually they are sweaty, pot bellied, Che t shirt students who are ultra left wing and PC mad as long as it's still cool.

Most of the time I've found neckbeards to be be massively sexist (e.g. calling for the likes of date rapists like Ched Evans to be declared innocent) rather than massively PC.

Chorcai

where the **** is Elphin??

Dravokivich

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Most of the time I've found neckbeards to be be massively sexist (e.g. calling for the likes of date rapists like Ched Evans to be declared innocent) rather than massively PC.

One thing I know about neckbeards, they don't take too kindly to shaving :mad:

the_monkey

What an absolute little sewer rat, Why are these "peoples" opinions even printed ?

Would the indo also run up a story on a homeless lad writing poetry in **** under some bridge ?

They should do, his opinion is probably more valid.

Lux23

If what he said was so acceptable, how come he has had to apologise for his comments? Like I said, I listened to the interview and what you have posted below is out of context.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0310/685963-same-sex-marriage-referendum/

conorh91 wrote: »

• All people are equal in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the State.
• Gay people are just as welcome at mass as straight people
• Same-sex relationships contain love and affection
• The Catholic Church is not an expert on nature vs nurture
• It is not a sin to be gay in the eyes of the Church
• All children deserve equal love and care, whether their parents are gay or straight, or single parents, etc.
• He felt sure that a gay couple were capable of raising children well.

You don't agree with any of this? You don't think any of those points are "sensible"?

I wonder how many people actually listened to the interview, and I wonder how many of those listened to the comments on the whole.

I disagree with a few of the things he said, but most of what he said was perfectly sensible.

Most people seem to be basing their opinion on what the Indo wrote. The same people probably regularly criticise the Indo when it suits them.

Akrasia

One thing I found interesting was his statement (paraphrasing) 'that things happen that god does not intend to happen, because if everything that happens was part of gods intention, then he would be a very different god to the one he believes in....'

How the **** does that work when the god you believe in is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient.

Combining these three properties means that nothing that has ever happened could have been 'unintended' by god.

God 'knew' before everything started, how everything will end, and every quantum of time in between.

Either god is all powerful, or 'he' isn't

Either god is 'all knowing' or 'he' isn't

Either god is 'omnipresent' or 'he' isn't

God doesn't get to use the 'oops, that didn't go according to plan' excuse and still be the christian god.

Nothing about christianity is coherent if you think about it properly, and that fact that old men in silly hats still have a platform to influence government and social policy in the 21st century is such a joke.

Lux23

You just can't match up present day sensibilities with a 2,000 year old dogma. I have more respect for an evangelical that says 'if you're gay, you will burn in hell', rather than someone who tries to rationalise a fantastical argument.

ScumLord

Chorcai wrote: »

where the **** is Elphin??

I'm don't know lord of the rings that well, is it middle earth or is that just were the leprechauns come from?

kylith

Akrasia wrote: »

One thing I found interesting was his statement (paraphrasing) 'that things happen that god does not intend to happen, because if everything that happens was part of gods intention, then he would be a very different god to the one he believes in....'

He.... he does know that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnicognisant god is the cornerstone of his religion, right? If something can happen that 'he' doesn't intend then he is not the all-powerful creator of everything; he's just some jumped up djinn or afreet in a toga. I mean, if a god isn't all powerful then what's the frigging point!? He's not a god, is he?

Littlekittylou

I saw this. The Bishop talking about the victims of rape rather coldly considering a lot of what we now know about the church and it's cover up seems very cruel.

Forget about logical arguments a 'normal' person knows you really should not talk so callously.

PopePalpatine

Littlekittylou wrote: »

I saw this. The Bishop talking about the victims of rape rather coldly considering a lot of what we now know about the church and it's cover up seems very cruel.

Forget about logical arguments a 'normal' person knows you really should not talk so callously.

Welcome to religious conservatism!

conorh91

Lux23 wrote: »

If what he said was so acceptable, how come he has had to apologise for his comments?

.

Conorh91 wrote:

I disagree with a few of the things he said, but most of what he said was perfectly sensible.

sligojoek

Chorcai wrote: »

where the **** is Elphin??

Roscommon, I think.

mikom

jahalpin wrote: »

He is a citizen and is entitled to his opinion just as any other citizen is entitled to theirs

He is a citizen with a loud hailer offered to him by the media.

sligojoek

Slightly OT but here goes anyway.

Last year, due to winning a poetry competition, my daughter was invited to a function that was also attended by the President. It was to celebrate the 100th anniversary of a local school. One of the items on the agenda was for the President to be presented with a framed copy of the 10 winning poems and the authors would get to read their work for him. However when that segment came the principal stood up and announced that instead we'd be having a speech from a surprise guest. Yeah, you guessed it. The newly crowned bishop of fu*king Elphin. He jabbered on for half an hour and then we were told the President had to be at another function at 2 o clock and had to go. There were ten very disappointed children there that day.