conflict over communion

MistyCheese

Love that idea! I'm off to buy myself a great big sparkly FO white dress; veil; tiara; parasol, book somewhere to get my hair; nails; make up; spray tan done, hire a limo, book a photographer...

Then we have a big party afterwards. Who's with me? We'll be the Un-Catholics.

Lia_lia

OP, I was actually given the choice when I was a child. I chose to have my communion as I wanted to wear the white dress and fit in with the other kids. Never believed in any of it anyway, just didn't want to feel left out. Was baptised a few months before my communion so I could get into the school. This was in 1997, so I am guessing it's a bit different now. Many more children are opted out. I'm pretty sure everyone in the class made their communion back then. My brother "did it for the money" :rolleyes:. I advise letting the child decide. If I have kids I plan on not baptising them. Hopefully the school situation is better now.

Baggy Trousers

My sister has 2 daughters. Atheist family. One is in 2nd class this year. The school is Catholic but they have a lot of non-Catholics too. My 1st niece sailed through communion year a few years ago - the teacher had no issue with it and didn't make a big issue out of it. One Catholic parent did object to the 4 or 5 non-communion people being able to do homework or reading during communion preparation time (crazy I know!) but it got sorted. However my 2nd niece is getting a hard time this year - she is a bright kid but the teacher seems ultra-religious and is making her feel bad about not doing communion and about being atheist (better to be a Muslim or Hindu it seems). The teacher has said a few things which make me angry but my sister just wants to ride it out.

To be honest, if more non practicing parents don't opt their kids out of the communion event for "cultural" or "mock-wedding" reasons, we will never get religion out of the schools. It is beyond a joke that they spend so much time on religion in 2016.

jessicami

An ignorant person would just do that without ever questioning the idea behind this ritual. A rational person would refuse to participate, because he has rejected those foolish fairy tales long time ago. A wise person understands that community and spiritual needs are important, and joins the ritual.

Baggy Trousers

jessicami wrote: »

An ignorant person would just do that without ever questioning the idea behind this ritual. A rational person would refuse to participate, because he has rejected those foolish fairy tales long time ago. A wise person understands that community and spiritual needs are important, and joins the ritual.

Wise could be "hypocritical" too especially given the vulgar way the "ritual" has evolved in recent years. It's all about perspective.

homerjay2005

X6.430macman wrote: »

Your child, your decision. If you are worried about what people will think then it was your desision and you are comfortable with it. Your not the only one to be opting out.

should the child not have a say? i would leave the decision 100% up to the child.

they are 7 years old, they see their friends preparing for this big event for 7 or 8 months in the class and church and then theres the day itself, these are important for a child.

its just 1 day, out of the childs life, if it makes them happy then let them do it.

and "many" people opting out, could be 3 or 4 out of 50, that was the ratio in the commmunion i was at last week and all of them were foreign parents who were not catholic. i was at two more last year and attendance was 100%.

mordeith

homerjay2005 wrote: »

should the child not have a say? i would leave the decision 100% up to the child.

they are 7 years old, they see their friends preparing for this big event for 7 or 8 months in the class and church and then theres the day itself, these are important for a child.

its just 1 day, out of the childs life, if it makes them happy then let them do it.

and "many" people opting out, could be 3 or 4 out of 50, that was the ratio in the commmunion i was at last week and all of them were foreign parents who were not catholic. i was at two more last year and attendance was 100%.

We are Irish and opted out. So did two other kids from a class of 34. It's only important to the other kids because they feel peer pressure to participate. How many actually have any idea or real feelings about the religious aspect?

2RockMountain

homerjay2005 wrote: »

should the child not have a say? i would leave the decision 100% up to the child.

they are 7 years old, they see their friends preparing for this big event for 7 or 8 months in the class and church and then theres the day itself, these are important for a child.

its just 1 day, out of the childs life, if it makes them happy then let them do it.

But it's not 'just one day'. It is signing your child up to join the Catholic Church - so you need to decide if that's what you want to do or not.

It's very easy to offer any 7 year old a great alternative: "Why don't we meet your friends after the church, then we'll go and have a nice meal in [child's favourite] restaurant and then we'll go to the zoo/beach/jumpzone - whatever turns them on.

homerjay2005

2RockMountain wrote: »

But it's not 'just one day'. It is signing your child up to join the Catholic Church - so you need to decide if that's what you want to do or not.

why not let the child decide what they want to do?

i take if you are so opposed to communions, then you wont be attending weddings, funerals, christmas mass, family masses and all this also?

and you are not signing up your child for anything, you are just letting them do normal things that almost every other Irish child does.

mordeith wrote: »

We are Irish and opted out. So did two other kids from a class of 34. It's only important to the other kids because they feel peer pressure to participate. How many actually have any idea or real feelings about the religious aspect?

does the fact that only 2 more out of 33 opted out, no say enough to you?

who made the decision by the way, did the child come to you and say "i dont want to do that" or did you make the decision?

Baggy Trousers

My niece's class had 5 out of 25 opting out 3 years ago. 4 were daughters of "lapsed" Irish catholic parents. Times are a changing.
.

Baggy Trousers

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why not let the child decide what they want to do?

i take if you are so opposed to communions, then you wont be attending weddings, funerals, christmas mass, family masses and all this also?

More and more weddings and funerals do not involve a church. Open your eyes.

Big difference attending a family funeral/wedding out of respect and a communion for your child.

mordeith

homerjay2005 wrote: »

does the fact that only 2 more out of 33 opted out, no say enough to you?

It said plenty. It said that most parents are letting their kids make it so they can hire bouncy castles and paint the house. The kids come back to school the following week and talk about how much money they got. Not one says they got something from the sacrament.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

who made the decision by the way, did the child come to you and say "i dont want to do that" or did you make the decision?

Ever since our child began hearing stories in religion he was questioning it. Just like he didn't really believe the Pied Piper of Hamelin stole all the children by playing a whistle. If you ask they child what they think from an early age, rather than reinforcing stories you don't believe in yourself they will easily come to their own (logical) conclusions.

intheclouds

homerjay2005 wrote: »

why not let the child decide what they want to do?

i take if you are so opposed to communions, then you wont be attending weddings, funerals, christmas mass, family masses and all this also?

Because children need guidance from rational adults rather than indoctrination?

You can attend weddings and funerals without taking part in the ritual. Same way you might attend a Jewish wedding as a non Jew for example.

Baggy Trousers

Parents tell so many blatant lies to innocent children in relation to supernatural beings - Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Fair Godmother, Holy Ghost, various Gods etc...

How do kids trust their parents when they hit their teenage years??

lazygal

homerjay2005 wrote: »

should the child not have a say? i would leave the decision 100% up to the child.

they are 7 years old, they see their friends preparing for this big event for 7 or 8 months in the class and church and then theres the day itself, these are important for a child.

its just 1 day, out of the childs life, if it makes them happy then let them do it.

and "many" people opting out, could be 3 or 4 out of 50, that was the ratio in the commmunion i was at last week and all of them were foreign parents who were not catholic. i was at two more last year and attendance was 100%.

If a child decided to join scientology or Mormonism at eight would that be something you let a child decide on? There's loads of things my children want to do because it makes them happy, that does not mean they get to make the decision.

FishOnABike

greenman09 wrote: »

Don't you need the sacraments to get married? Friend of mine had to get confirmed at 40 to get the sacrament of
Marriage. I'd go with it I save this hassle in later life.

Just get married in the registry office or a civil ceremony.

If it wasn't important to get confirmed at 12 years old why do it almost 30 years later? Both people don't have to be Roman Catholic (or Church of Ireland, Anglican, etc.) to marry in church.

Baggy Trousers

I am curious; Do parents/teachers still teach their children that they have Original Sin from Adam & Eve?
Are they asked to confess their original sin in their first confession? Is it then "forgiven"?
Or has that "birth" sin been dismissed the same way as hell and limbo are now nonsense?

Does anyone know?

pwurple

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I am curious; Do parents/teachers still teach their children that they have Original Sin from Adam & Eve?
Are they asked to confess their original sin in their first confession? Is it then "forgiven"?
Or has that "birth" sin been dismissed the same way as hell and limbo are now nonsense?

Does anyone know?

I'm no expert, but isn't original sin where people have human nature rather than being mini-gods, and so are generally inclined by nature to do some sinning. So the concept is used in order to be aware of that tendency. I think the inclination to sin because of shared human nature is called concupiscence. (I'm going make that my Word of The Day) It's an interesting theological concept anyway. Loads and loads of writing on it, across orthodoxy, anglicanism, RC's etc.

From my limited understanding, I don't think it can be wiped out, as it's part of being a human. It's probably mentioned at baptism in various branches of christianity. Not mormonism as far as I'm aware, the mormons consider children to be totally sin-free up to some age.

mordeith

pwurple wrote: »

I'm no expert, but isn't original sin where people have human nature rather than being mini-gods, and so are generally inclined by nature to do some sinning. So the concept is used in order to be aware of that tendency. I think the inclination to sin because of shared human nature is called concupiscence. (I'm going make that my Word of The Day) It's an interesting theological concept anyway. Loads and loads of writing on it, across orthodoxy, anglicanism, RC's etc.

From my limited understanding, I don't think it can be wiped out, as it's part of being a human. It's probably mentioned at baptism in various branches of christianity. Not mormonism as far as I'm aware, the mormons consider children to be totally sin-free up to some age.

The Catholic church version (as I remember being taught) is that original sin is a legacy from when Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. As all humans after are her progeny, we inherit the stain of that 'original sin'. Baptism wipes the slate clean. Hence why unbaptized babes (back in the day) were not allowed to be buried in a graveyard. Isn't religion wonderful?

pwurple

mordeith wrote: »

The Catholic church version (as I remember being taught) is that original sin is a legacy from when Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. As all humans after are her progeny, we inherit the stain of that 'original sin'. Baptism wipes the slate clean. Hence why unbaptized babes (back in the day) were not allowed to be buried in a graveyard. Isn't religion wonderful?

Memory is gone foggy there mordeith, it was Adam who ate the fruit?

The babies and limbo thing is messed up, seems like a complete perversion (or misunderstanding if I'm being generous) to me, like a lot of Dev's notions.

I'm always digging for the source of these things, but if anyone else is interested in the official part, here's the vatican document, with the relevant quote.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children.

Anyhoo, doesn't matter. Question answered. Seems to be agreed it doesn't have much to do with communion... which is a bit new testament for adam and eve.

mordeith

pwurple wrote: »

Memory is gone foggy there mordeith, it was Adam who ate the fruit?

Ah yes, you're right. Eve tempted Adam into eating it iirc. Women eh? :rolleyes:

mohawk

A lot of kids are making their communion in order to keep Granny happy. A friend of mine said she doesn't want her two to make it, but her husband doesn't want to deal with his mother.

My son is not baptised. We were at his cousins communion last weekend and his Granny started on about how it would be nice for him to have his day.

Honestly my son believes those bible stories as much as he believes Jack and Beanstalk. When he asks about God I steer the conversation towards what he thinks. I have never said God is not real. He has his own mind and will figure out what's right for himself.

MistyCheese

Now I thought Original Sin was to do with the fact that your parents had to have sex in order to have you. You know, you were born because your parents had sex and sex is a sin... But then sure isn't it only recreational sex that's a sin? Procreative sex is okay (but only if the two are married) so the fact that they made a baby means the sex was okay. The baby invalidates the sin. I might be way off here.

Original sin is (literally) the first sin which was disobeying god and eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is believe that we are all corrupted because of this first sin of disobedience so we are all sinners from birth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man

And it was the serpent who did the "tempting", Eve just played nice and shared with Adam

Cabaal

MistyCheese wrote: »

Now I thought Original Sin was to do with the fact that your parents had to have sex in order to have you. You know, you were born because your parents had sex and sex is a sin... But then sure isn't it only recreational sex that's a sin? Procreative sex is okay (but only if the two are married) so the fact that they made a baby means the sex was okay. The baby invalidates the sin. I might be way off here.

Baby didn't take away the sin,
If you remember the baby and sex made women unclean in the eye's of the catholic church and thats why women had to be "churched" up until around the 1970's

MistyCheese

Okay, thanks guys, don't know where I picked up that bit of misinfo from. Not that I've ever considered myself a bible expert.

I'm now wondering though why sex makes women unclean but not men? Is it because women have the babies? I do know that women are cursed with bearing the babies because God considered Eve's crime of sneakily encouraging Adam to eat the forbidden fruit to be worse than Adam simply eating said fruit. Unless I'm mistaken about that too which is entirely possible.

Cabaal

MistyCheese wrote: »

Okay, thanks guys, don't know where I picked up that bit of misinfo from. Not that I've ever considered myself a bible expert.

I'm now wondering though why sex makes women unclean but not men? Is it because women have the babies? I do know that women are cursed with bearing the babies because God considered Eve's crime of sneakily encouraging Adam to eat the forbidden fruit to be worse than Adam simply eating said fruit. Unless I'm mistaken about that too which is entirely possible.

Its always the women's fault don't you know?

Church has always had a different view of women, on one hand they claim Mary is all important. On the other women aren't equal enough to be priests in the catholic church.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Its always the women's fault don't you know?

Church has always had a different view of women, on one hand they claim Mary is all important. On the other women aren't equal enough to be priests in the catholic church.

Mary Magdalene was never identified as a prostitute in the gospels but one @sshole pope in the middle ages declares she was and that's what's passed down.

People don't realise how little of what is practised today by the church has any connection to the gospels. They literally just made it up as they went along.

lazygal

Deleted User wrote: »

People don't realise how little of what is practised today by the church has any connection to the gospels. They literally just made it up as they went along.

Unlike the writers of the gospels?:p

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Unlike the writers of the gospels?:p

Don't get me started!