Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should we protest against the pope's visit?
Comments
-
An_Toirpin wrote: »No you are misquoting me. The Vatican has a role but it is much smaller than people make it out to be. They have the power to remove someones position as a priest but apart from this it is limited
Well, I took your direct quotes so I cannot be misquoting you. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you meant, but from my POV it was very clear from the 1st post today that you felt that the Vatican had little to do with how the CC in Ireland was run.
So part from setting doctrine, setting out how mass and other sacraments should be carried out, apart from defrocking priests, apart from the centre of Canon Law, apart from having the head of the organisation, apart from proving guidance on church teachings.
Yeah I guess you are right, the vatican has very little actual control0 -
Just do something productive or interesting.
Have a ****
Go to the pub etc0 -
Well, I took your direct quotes so I cannot be misquoting you. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you meant, but from my POV it was very clear from the 1st post today that you felt that the Vatican had little to do with how the CC in Ireland was run.
So part from setting doctrine, setting out how mass and other sacraments should be carried out, apart from defrocking priests, apart from the centre of Canon Law, apart from having the head of the organisation, apart from proving guidance on church teachings.
Yeah I guess you are right, the vatican has very little actual control
dont forgot appointing the bishops and archbishops. But apart from that they have no control at all.0 -
Hector Bellend wrote: »Just do something productive or interesting.
Have a ****
Go to the pub etc
You make it sound like an either/or choice!0 -
Well, I took your direct quotes so I cannot be misquoting you. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you meant, but from my POV it was very clear from the 1st post today that you felt that the Vatican had little to do with how the CC in Ireland was run.
So part from setting doctrine, setting out how mass and other sacraments should be carried out, apart from defrocking priests, apart from the centre of Canon Law, apart from having the head of the organisation, apart from proving guidance on church teachings.
Yeah I guess you are right, the vatican has very little actual control
Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wow I am convinced by your stunning rebuttal! :pac:JupiterKid wrote: »Your outright lies and distortions are a massive insult to those damaged by the church and what they did in this country. I've no problem with engaging with any poster that wants to debate those against the church with valid informed opinion but your odious views suggest to me a clear attempt at baiting and trolling.
I'm out of this thread for this reason. There is no reasoning whatsoever with posters like you. Absolutely none at all.0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.
so it is just a coincidence that the response of the church to abuse was identical in every country that it occurred. nright.0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.
Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple.
As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive.
Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.0 -
An excellent post. I completely agree.hatrickpatrick wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.
Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple.
As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive.
Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.
Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple.
As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive.
Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.
Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right? Is cheating on a spouse ok? It is perfectly legal. Is degrading violent porn ok? It is legal. What about computer generated violent rape porn? It is 100% legal. Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature. This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk. Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong. Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.0 -
Advertisement
-
It wasn't at all identical. It is quite famous that the US Catholic Church took a harder line on abusers than the Vatican initially. The events this year in Chile show the Chilean church were not acting at all as quick as the US or Ireland. Don't get me wrong, condemn where condemnation is due, but I don't buy the notion that if the Vatican was run by 'right thinking' folk that the sex abuse scandal would have been vastly better addressed and much faster addressed.ohnonotgmail wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Its a case of emphasis. Yes Rome is doctrinally very powerful but doctrine hardly ever changes. The doctrine has very little to do with organizing church services, paying priests their salaries or other housekeeping their duties. The structure of the church is not identical to any organizations in the secular world but you can find analogies with a franchise or contractors. I appreciate that you are trying to engage by looking at the role of Rome at different levels but you are not even correct. In not all cases does Rome set how to say Mass. Look at Eastern Catholic Rites. Anyway, its largely academic, in regards abuse priests are the responsibility of the local bishop according to Canon Law. It is not legal correct or anyway practical to expect the small administration in Rome to manage priests. Laicization or, as you call by slang defrocking, is not a day to day staff management tool.
so it is just a coincidence that the response of the church to abuse was identical in every country that it occurred. nright.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple.
As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive.
Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.
Great post, it is incredible when you think of the damage the church has done and is doing to the well being of our children. The best they can do is make them ashamed of being human and the removal of "original sin" is the ultimate honour....not available to any of us living mortals.
Kindly ignore the posts of An_Toirpin who is surely a troll. They will warp and twist your post with their serpentine posts.You describe very nicely why we need the church out of our schools.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33372
An_Toirpin wrote: »Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
As long as no non-consenting third party is involved, yes.Is cheating on a spouse ok? It is perfectly legal. Is degrading violent porn ok? It is legal. What about computer generated violent rape porn? It is 100% legal. Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.
If you base your morality on potential events, you start a very slippery slope.This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk. Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.
Their choice. I respectfully and whole-heardly disagree.
What is hell?Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.
Corealtion is not causation.
No problem with teaching religion, as long as it teaches about ALL faiths without promoting any specific. Or does so with a clear alternative curriculum for opting-out families.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
As long as no non-consenting third party is involved, yes.Is cheating on a spouse ok? It is perfectly legal. Is degrading violent porn ok? It is legal. What about computer generated violent rape porn? It is 100% legal. Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.
If you base your morality on potential events, you start a very slippery slope.This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk. Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.
Their choice. I respectfully and whole-heardly disagree.
What is hell?Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.
Corealtion is not causation.
No problem with teaching religion, as long as it teaches about ALL faiths without promoting any specific. Or does so with a clear alternative curriculum for opting-out families.0 -
When they lose the intellectual argument they throw names :Phatrickpatrick wrote: »Your mistake here is confining "abuse" to physical and sexual abuse. When you include emotional and psychological abuse of young people by telling them that they'll burn for all eternity for being sexually attracted to the wrong people, for touching their own bodies in private, for having sexual thoughts (which literally every pubertal teenager has), etc, that's emotional and psychological abuse pure and simple.
As long as the church preaches that people can and should be punished in literally any way for actions which take place entirely between consenting adults and don't involve harm, the church will be an emotionally and psychologically abusive institution from which children should be protected. It's just that simple. The world has almost entirely moved on from the concept of victimless actions being sinful, with the one (and rapidly diminishing) exception of personal drug use. Church doctrine needs to move on as well or it will rightly be regarded going into the future as oppressive.
Targeting the church as an organisation is about more than the abuse scandals, it's about targeting an ideology which makes young people feel ashamed for being human beings with natural desires just like every other mammal on this planet. That ideology has no place in a free society, except where adults freely choose to subscribe to it in the privacy of their homes and entirely within their own person, not pushed or forced upon those around them.
Kindly ignore the posts of An_Toirpin who is surely a troll. They will warp and twist your post with their serpentine posts.You describe very nicely why we need the church out of our schools.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 11760
No.
Or at least protest against the Imam nutters first.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33372
An_Toirpin wrote: »Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.
This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated.
That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though.
I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are:
1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny
2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie.
3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse
4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education.
5) Anyone that doesn't support cults
6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society.
7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies.
8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men.
There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome.
Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?
Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33372
I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are:
1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny
2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie.
3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse
4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education.
5) Anyone that doesn't support cults
6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society.
7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies.
8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men.
There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome.
Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?
Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views.
Or protest at churches where Catholicism is practiced daily. It's not like all this just showed up last week or only happens when their leader visits.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasn't anyone sued the Vatican by now? The role of bishops to the Vatican is like independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.I dont blame you for not understanding how this works. Mostly church bashers are pretty uninformed in their hysteria.
I am a lot younger than you and I have be en told heartbreaking and unsavoury stories of sexual abuse but not a single one is clerical. So I don't buy the notion that abuse is specifically Catholic clerical issue. It is tragically common everywhere and occurs where it is allowed to occur. The sex abuse revelations were a scandal. The others you mention no, especially not symphisiostomy. As for the so called offense that I am causing by being critical, well no one has a right to not be offended.
You are wrong. Hospitals were run by the church and this appalling surgery was
encouraged by the church to prevent women being unable to have more babies.
See
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/catholic-church-did-urge-doctors-to-use-symphysiotomy-operation-1.377151
None so blind as those who won't see.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Symphysiotomy was and still is considered a legimate medical procedure in certain rare circumstances. Prior to safe C sections it was even more so and was teh safest option. It was not with out risks but the cases where it was used were such horrendous labours that there was invitable going to be side effects. Dr Peter Boylan who is no fan of the RCC has been quite emphatic that it was a non scandal.An_Toirpin wrote: »It refers to its pastoral role. If you are correct why hasn't anyone sued the Vatican by now? The role of bishops to the Vatican is like independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees.I dont blame you for not understanding how this works. Mostly church bashers are pretty uninformed in their hysteria.
I am a lot younger than you and I have be en told heartbreaking and unsavoury stories of sexual abuse but not a single one is clerical. So I don't buy the notion that abuse is specifically Catholic clerical issue. It is tragically common everywhere and occurs where it is allowed to occur. The sex abuse revelations were a scandal. The others you mention no, especially not symphisiostomy. As for the so called offense that I am causing by being critical, well no one has a right to not be offended.
You are wrong. Hospitals were run by the church and this appalling surgery was
encouraged by the church to prevent women being unable to have more babies.
See
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/catholic-church-did-urge-doctors-to-use-symphysiotomy-operation-1.377151
None so blind as those who won't see.0 -
No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.
This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated.
That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though.
I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?
Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not.0 -
Who is paying for this trip?0
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 33372
Re hell - fair point, but I was saying a Catholic definition of hell is irrelevant to non Catholics.An_Toirpin wrote: »
No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.
This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated.
That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though.
I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?
Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not.
Re happiness - then we can agree that there's no evidence of any alleged connection between happiness and religion.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33372
-
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are:
1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny
2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie.
3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse
4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education.
5) Anyone that doesn't support cults
6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society.
7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies.
8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men.
There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome.
Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?
Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views.
Or protest at churches where Catholicism is practiced daily. It's not like all this just showed up last week or only happens when their leader visits.
Absoloutely fair points both Catholicism and Islam should be banned from a direct influence in our schools. I would think no religeon should be given custody of any school as it only allows a non proven ideology be thrust upon our children. If people want their kids to grow up in their own blind baseless faith that should be solely their responsibility surely?
Regarding this not being new I disagree the pope is the head of the organisation and has not been here for nearly 40 years. Is it not an apt time for people that are unhappy with that specific religeon and it's influence in our country to make their views known? It is The RCC coming that is why it is targeted to him/them I believe all religeon is wrong but deal with the influential one first with an opportunity that may not come in our lives again!!0 -
Interesting that Australia's prime minister is still waiting on a request for Pope Francis to fire a Catholic archbishop
- found guilty of covering up child sexual abuse, after requesting him to do so days ago.
Even Australia’s National Council of Priests have called on Francis to remove him,
saying 'his tenure as Archbishop of Adelaide has been compromised'.
Now if the PM of a country can't fire one of his citizens (convicted) for covering up abuse, the ANC can't, and the Pope won't do it, who else has the power?
Lightening bolts from yon high?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 33372
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are:
1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny
2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie.
3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse
4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education.
5) Anyone that doesn't support cults
6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society.
7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies.
8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men.
There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome.
Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?
Will anyone protest and Iman for having those same views [and much more extreme] ? If you're willing to protest the Pope than you should be willing to protest Imans for having the same if not more extreme views.
Or protest at churches where Catholicism is practiced daily. It's not like all this just showed up last week or only happens when their leader visits.
Absoloutely fair points both Catholicism and Islam should be banned from a direct influence in our schools. I would think no religeon should be given custody of any school as it only allows a non proven ideology be thrust upon our children. If people want their kids to grow up in their own blind baseless faith that should be solely their responsibility surely?
Regarding this not being new I disagree the pope is the head of the organisation and has not been here for nearly 40 years. Is it not an apt time for people that are unhappy with that specific religeon and it's influence in our country to make their views known? It is The RCC coming that is why it is targeted to him/them I believe all religeon is wrong but deal with the influential one first with an opportunity that may not come in our lives again!!
i presume you meant 'now' is an apt time. Id say it's a bit late, but tomorrow morning would be perfect. Ten or twenty years ago is what you should be asking for.
And if this **** genuinely pisses you off, you'll continue protesting after he's left.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.Is cheating on a spouse ok?
By definition, cheating is not consensual, because you are breaking an emotional promise you made to someone. If it was totally consensual, AKA being in an open relationship, then it's not cheating and there's nothing wrong with it.It is perfectly legal.
There are a lot of things which make a person an asshole and still aren't illegal.Is degrading violent porn ok?
Absolutely, if the actors and actresses involved have consented to it.What about computer generated violent rape porn?
Of course. There's literally no victim involved if it's CGI.Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable
Source? Statistics?because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.
I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk.
And that's fine, if you choose to follow the church and believe in its teaching. What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up.Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.
Bullsh!t. Catholicism literally teaches people that suffering is somehow a good thing because of the moronic concept of "original sin", that we all deserve unhappiness because some douchebag stole an apple a few million years ago. That is literally Catholic doctrine, and that's how the whole toxic embracing of spartanism and deliberate self-restriction / restrain from things which make people happy came about. Hell, if you don't believe in religion, the entire concept of Lent is f*cked up - it's literally based on the idea that self-denial of things which make you happy is something to be encouraged - not self-denial of things which are necessarily bad for you, not self-denial of things which harm others, just self-denial because somehow, not allowing yourself to enjoy your life to the fullest is a good thing.
Again, that's fine if you choose to subscribe to it, but teaching it in school to children and presenting it as "fact" is enormously f*cked up. If they grow up and decide for themselves to do it, that's cool, but no one, no matter what age, should be coerced or bullied into doing these things, or taught that suffering and going through hardship is a good thing somehow. It's not. And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.
I don't have any problem with teaching kids about religion, and I never said that I did. I think that religion is such a big part of human civilisation that people should be taught about it - and all of it. Teaching someone about a belief system is totally distinct from teaching someone that it's a "fact" that one particular belief system is the "right" one. And you can teach people about religion without all the "sexual pleasure is a bad thing and is just an unfortunate side effect of reproduction, so try not to enjoy yourself sexually unless it happens to be within an extremely narrow framework which this organisation 'approves' of".
Here's one for you. Is it moral that a young boy going through puberty be told, by someone in authority or someone whose opinion they respect, that it's a "fact" that touching their genitals in the privacy of their own bedroom is "wrong", despite the fact that nobody is hurt and that it's one of the strongest, most basic urges people experience if they're undergoing normal puberty with normal adolescent hormone levels?
I believe that it is psychological abuse, pure and simple. No different than telling someone that scratching an itch is something they should resist, and just suffer the itching sensation just... "because". F*ck that.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »i presume you meant 'now' is an apt time. Id say it's a bit late, but tomorrow morning would be perfect. Ten or twenty years ago is what you should be asking for.
And if this **** genuinely pisses you off, you'll continue protesting after he's left.
"Is it not an apt time..."....part of a rhetorical question, not sure if I understand what you are saying here but it sounds OK to me?
"continue protesting after he's left"......Absolutely I currently protest and will continue to until the indoctrination of our children is stopped as a matter of state policy (this is changing but too slow and we should complain until it is policy to have no religion in school other than from an educational view, how our society developed, all the mistakes made etc).0 -
Controversy already....
https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html
"Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »Controversy already....
https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html
"Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."
Given they're both utter shyte, the Holy Father was on a loser with the entertainment one way or another!0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »Controversy already....
https://www.breakingnews.ie/showbiz/singing-priest-father-kelly-takes-issue-with-nathan-carter-performing-for-the-pope-in-croke-park-857156.html
"Today singing priest Father Ray Kelly spoke to Joe Duffy about his disappointment on not being asked to sing and his surprise at seeing Nathan Carter being asked to sing."
Isn't jealously a sin?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Isn't jealously a sin?
Envy is one of the big seven, so I'd say the Father has a conversation to come yeah!!!0 -
5 days now, the Aussie PM (2nd highest authority in Australia) has waited for a request to the Pope, to sack a convicted criminal.
All it takes is a 10 second phone call (in the style of the Apprentice's Alan Sugar). Here's the int'l phone code it's (+61), fire away.
0 -
The evidence that western religiooupractisese is associated with well being is overwhelming.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
Re hell - fair point, but I was saying a Catholic definition of hell is irrelevant to non Catholics.An_Toirpin wrote: »
No that definition of hell applies to all Catholics.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Don't get me wrong. I wasn't implying CGI rape porn should be illegal. I wasn't even saying it is morally wrong. Clearly, most ppl would say it is wrong though. I am showing that it is the majority view that not everything between consenting adults is morally justified. Hell is defined by the RCC as a willing separation from God. Correlation is not causation but the high levels of well being reported amongst religious does show that at the population level most Christians and probably Jews and Muslims too are not permanently tormented by moral guilt. I don't know how old you are but certainly, in the 25 years all faiths have been taught in Catholic Schools, with the promotion of each religion available in one of the 14+ types of public school we have in this country.
This may be something you already delt with (so sorry for making you deal with it again!) but can you show this again or link back to where you've already shown it? Sorry to be skeptical, but when I read something like "the majority view" I like to know exactly how this phrase is what is being debated.
That defintion of hell would only apply to lapsed catholics, not universal. Think it's going a bit off-topic though.
I think the problem with well-being is that it was an objective study: what was/is the percentage of athiest people living equally happy and joyous lives?
Quantifying wellbeing and happiness is subjective, ranking it amongst different people is not.
Re happiness - then we can agree that there's no evidence of any alleged connection between happiness and religion.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »An_Toirpin wrote: »Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.Is cheating on a spouse ok?
By definition, cheating is not consensual, because you are breaking an emotional promise you made to someone. If it was totally consensual, AKA being in an open relationship, then it's not cheating and there's nothing wrong with it.It is perfectly legal.
There are a lot of things which make a person an asshole and still aren't illegal.Is degrading violent porn ok?
Absolutely, if the actors and actresses involved have consented to it.What about computer generated violent rape porn?
Of course. There's literally no victim involved if it's CGI.Most people would stay such CGI violent porn is morally questionable
Source? Statistics?because it has the potential to change our interactions with others and our own nature.
I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.This is also the view of the Catholic Church and it is also their view on each of those sexual cases you mention. The Catholic Church teaches that no one has to go to hell and no one should and even that perhaps no one even will go to hell but that hell is that is a real risk.
And that's fine, if you choose to follow the church and believe in its teaching. What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up.Lastly, it also teaches that the Catholic life is a joyous one and if you are unhappy something has gone wrong.
Bullsh!t. Catholicism literally teaches people that suffering is somehow a good thing because of the moronic concept of "original sin", that we all deserve unhappiness because some douchebag stole an apple a few million years ago. That is literally Catholic doctrine, and that's how the whole toxic embracing of spartanism and deliberate self-restriction / restrain from things which make people happy came about. Hell, if you don't believe in religion, the entire concept of Lent is f*cked up - it's literally based on the idea that self-denial of things which make you happy is something to be encouraged - not self-denial of things which are necessarily bad for you, not self-denial of things which harm others, just self-denial because somehow, not allowing yourself to enjoy your life to the fullest is a good thing.
Again, that's fine if you choose to subscribe to it, but teaching it in school to children and presenting it as "fact" is enormously f*cked up. If they grow up and decide for themselves to do it, that's cool, but no one, no matter what age, should be coerced or bullied into doing these things, or taught that suffering and going through hardship is a good thing somehow. It's not. And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.Countless objective studies have verified that at the least religiosity is linked if not a cause of a sense positive well being, so if you think that teaching kids about religion is child abuse you are not thinking it through.
I don't have any problem with teaching kids about religion, and I never said that I did. I think that religion is such a big part of human civilisation that people should be taught about it - and all of it. Teaching someone about a belief system is totally distinct from teaching someone that it's a "fact" that one particular belief system is the "right" one. And you can teach people about religion without all the "sexual pleasure is a bad thing and is just an unfortunate side effect of reproduction, so try not to enjoy yourself sexually unless it happens to be within an extremely narrow framework which this organisation 'approves' of".
Here's one for you. Is it moral that a young boy going through puberty be told, by someone in authority or someone whose opinion they respect, that it's a "fact" that touching their genitals in the privacy of their own bedroom is "wrong", despite the fact that nobody is hurt and that it's one of the strongest, most basic urges people experience if they're undergoing normal puberty with normal adolescent hormone levels?
I believe that it is psychological abuse, pure and simple. No different than telling someone that scratching an itch is something they should resist, and just suffer the itching sensation just... "because". F*ck that.An_Toirpin wrote: »Do you really believe though that what is done between two consenting adults is always morally right?
Absolutely How can it not be? "Wrong" requires somebody to have been harmed or negatively affected in some way, against their will.
Cheating on a spouse is by defintion is done between two consenting adults. To say it is not because of the third party is double speak. You are entitled to your absolutist view that everything done between two adults is ok but it is frankly bananas. If raping CGI people is morally ok, is a computer game based on the premise of committing hate crimes morally sound?
Nope. You are mispresenting me. I didnt argue for copy cat behaviour actually.I respectfully disagree. Most people are capable of separating fact from fiction. This is the "violent video games breed criminals" argument all over again.What is not ok is to inflict these beliefs on those who have not chosen them, particularly impressionable children. That is, in my view, utterly evil and f*cked up
That is an insane point of view tbf. Bringing up a child to believe that they are purposeless balls of meat flying in space is debased and totally debailiating to their development.
You don't understand the concept at all. To claim the doctrine teaches we deserve unhappiness is absurd.We might not both believe in the traditional concept of sin but it is objectively true we are inherently flawed and predispotiioned to cause human suffering. Religious faith are a personal decision to undertake but the concept of original sin is profoundly relevent to all modern audiences of all faiths and none.And humans are not born as undeserving "sinners" who have a black mark against their souls. The very concept is utterly poisonous, particularly for kids.0 -
Advertisement
-
'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html
This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???0 -
Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html
This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.
That’s right :rolleyes: in fact they couldn’t do much more really, a commendable effort.0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.
If the pope was to take this opportunity to speak directly to the people of Ireland, to apologise for the past, to accept the evil that the CC had brought to this island and that they will ensure that those hurt will be looked after and that this outrage can never happen again.
To take this opportunity to promise to open up any records, both within the vatican itself and also within the CC, so that the full truth can come out, and that those effected can be heard.
He if takes the opportunity to be honest, to be open, to look for real forgiveness, and to say that any member of the CC that either took part of covered up will no longer be welcome in the organisation or indeed offered no protection.
Then we can start talking about them looking like they changed.
Oh, and promise to stop treating women as second class citizens and openly discriminating based on gender, then, then we might be into a new era.0 -
Mr Pope (or a representative thereof) is said to likely not have time for that (meeting and addressing victims) as reported here:
https://www.rte.ie/news/the-pope-in-ireland/2018/0802/982627-pope-francis-ireland-visit0 -
Is he bringing his woman?0
-
-
An_Toirpin wrote: »
Considering that no one responsible is in power now in Ireland or Rome and considering that those in power have done a huge amount to right the wrongs (even though you can't really undue any as grave as child abuse) no one should have doubts about going to the Papal mass. The correct analogy would be holding Theresa May accountable for abuses of power of Prime Minsiter James Callaghan. It does not compute.'A year after the 1979 papal visit I was raped by a priest' - why abuse survivors are gathering during Pope Francis' visit this month
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/a-year-after-the-1979-papal-visit-i-was-raped-by-a-priest-why-abuse-survivors-are-gathering-during-pope-francis-visit-this-month-37179560.html
This is an interesting article in the indo. Perhaps this is an event worth attending unlike the other dubious meeting in the park. If you read what happened to him and other survivors along with the churches assistance to this paedophile (and many otehrs) how can anyone with any sense still attend the park???
Are you insane, All the guys in power are in their 70s and 80s and got there by being sycophantic ass kissers that toe the line no matter what. Society is splitting 3 ways. 1) The deluded that believe the evil and poisoned CC should be followed no matter what. Excuses can easily be derived at no matter how stupid....oh and they righted their wrongs, LAUGHABLE . 2) Probably the biggest group could not give a sh*t and 3) Those that are looking for real change.
The first and third group will never agree. Anyway enjoy kissing the papal "ring" in the park.0 -
Oh yes guys (girls not allowed...lesser humans)..completely normal yes!!0
-
0
-
Advertisement
Advertisement