Christian Secularists.

strobe · 23-01-2011 1:24am #1

Hey. So I know that a lot of Christians would describe themselves as secularists or would view secularism as a good thing. Many of them that post in this forum. I was just wondering if you would be willing to share with us as to why you are secularists, specifically?

Also, to those Christians here that would not be secularists or that view secularism as a bad thing, I would like to ask why you take this stance.

For those that do not know I am not a Christian, which is why I am not giving my opinion on the topic. {I know it annoys some people when someone asks for views but does not give their own}.

Fanny Cradock · 23-01-2011 1:32am

It might be fruitful if all of us explain what we understand the word secular to mean.

strobe · 23-01-2011 1:50am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It might be fruitful if all of us explain what we understand the word secular to mean.

That is a fair point Fanny. From my angle I am talking about the classical (standardised?) understanding of the word secular. Complete separation of church and state. Wiki definition is: "Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs". That's what I'm running with.

On a tangent I also think it would be pretty interesting to hear what people here think others mean when they speak of secularism. What they mean themselves.

Maybe if people could first state what they understand the word secularism to mean. Then state what they think 'the majority' think secularism means. Then say is they agree or disagree with their and 'the majorities' understanding {if they differ} and then give their reasons for their position.

strobe · 23-01-2011 1:52am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It might be fruitful if all of us explain what we understand the word secular to mean.

You first?

lmaopml · 23-01-2011 1:52am

To me 'Secular' means equal standing and choices governing as regards non 'law breaking' pursuits..

I would be happy if 'secular' meant 'freedom' by 'definition', but I am concerned that 'secular' is increasingly associated with religious oppression as opposed to 'freedom'..

It always meant 'freedom' of expression to me, and I know it's a mixed bag we have between various religious and atheist world views etc. we're a veritable rainbow, but it was never a 'dirty' word..

The best choices are those made freely; always! I fear though that 'secularism' has been 'hyjacked'? No?

PDN · 23-01-2011 7:26am

I would describe myself as a Christian secularist. By that I mean that I support separation of Church and State and want Christians to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. No special privileges, but no special handicaps either (such as the current legislation that bars religious bodies from advertsing on TV and radio).

My reasons for this are grounded in history. Human nature is fundamentally warped so when any ideology (religious or otherwise) holds political power it tends to become corrupted and to interfere with the freedoms of others.
So, the blurring of the Church/State divide is bad for society and bad for the Church.

Also, sometimes religious minorities are nutty heretics, but sometimes they are reforming movements trying to bring the Church back to its roots. In a secular society these minorities either flourish or decline according to their ability to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people - sort of a religious survival of the fittest. In a society where the Church has political power then these minority groups get stomped on. That might suppress some heresies, but it also prevents reform - ensuring that the dominant religion becomes increasingly corrupt.

The opposite of secularism is the kind of theocracies that burned their fellow Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) at the stake 500 years ago, and which find their modern expression today in the likes of the Taliban.

For this reason I would make a clear distinction between Christendom (where the church imposes its values on society) and Christianity (where people seek to follow the teachings of Christ while they live in a society).

booksale · 23-01-2011 1:14pm

society is made with people with different beliefs.

it's not fair to use state power to enforce religious beliefs onto those who dont believe. or vice verse, use state power to eliminate religious opinions and freedom.

the country belongs to the people in the country, it does not belong to any church. let the people (christians, muslims... whatever) make the decisions, not the church.

it's about justice and fairness.

Manach · 23-01-2011 1:30pm

To me secularalism has negative historical meanings. From its origins in the French revolution it meant the attempted destruction of religious morality and the subsitution of that of the Robiespierre's altar of reason .
Now in today's secularism is a way to marginise those holding opposing religious viewpoints from the prevaling social-liberal classes, to move it out-side the public square and into the realms of the private.

Fanny Cradock · 23-01-2011 2:09pm

Manach wrote: »

To me secularalism has negative historical meanings. From its origins in the French revolution it meant the attempted destruction of religious morality and the subsitution of that of the Robiespierre's altar of reason .
Now in today's secularism is a way to marginise those holding opposing religious viewpoints from the prevaling social-liberal classes, to move it out-side the public square and into the realms of the private.

I would actually say that secularism in the West grew out of Christianity, specifically as an antidote to Reformation violence. It has also been argued that the concept of secularisation (proto-secularisation if you will) was evident in Augustine's writings, while others would contest this and say that he was very much one of the progenitors of Christendom.

I understand secularism to be separation of Church and State. In my experience, others (both Christian and atheist) understand secularism to be the removal of religion from the public square - often referred to as "aggressive secularism". No doubt there are other understandings out there. Hence why I asked for clarification from everyone.

All in all, I'm largely for a separation of Church from State affairs. But the Devil, as always, is in the details.

booksale · 23-01-2011 2:48pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But the Devil, as always, is in the details.

True.

El_Duderino 09 · 23-01-2011 4:08pm

PDN wrote: »

I would describe myself as a Christian secularist. By that I mean that I support separation of Church and State and want Christians to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. No special privileges, but no special handicaps either (such as the current legislation that bars religious bodies from advertsing on TV and radio).

My reasons for this are grounded in history. Human nature is fundamentally warped so when any ideology (religious or otherwise) holds political power it tends to become corrupted and to interfere with the freedoms of others.
So, the blurring of the Church/State divide is bad for society and bad for the Church.

Also, sometimes religious minorities are nutty heretics, but sometimes they are reforming movements trying to bring the Church back to its roots. In a secular society these minorities either flourish or decline according to their ability to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people - sort of a religious survival of the fittest. In a society where the Church has political power then these minority groups get stomped on. That might suppress some heresies, but it also prevents reform - ensuring that the dominant religion becomes increasingly corrupt.

The opposite of secularism is the kind of theocracies that burned their fellow Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) at the stake 500 years ago, and which find their modern expression today in the likes of the Taliban.

For this reason I would make a clear distinction between Christendom (where the church imposes its values on society) and Christianity (where people seek to follow the teachings of Christ while they live in a society).

I am all for secularisation. It makes sense in all the right ways once you accept the basic premise that people are free to believe in and follow your religion, and if they dont believe, they are free to choose not to follow your religion.

Take a contentious issue like sexuality as an example. I am not opposed to the government recognising gay civil unions. I would however be opposed to the government forcing a religion to recognise them. i would support a religions right to discriminate on grounds of sexuality to that extent.

religious people are free to choose to not engage in homosexuality and i support that right.

i agree largely with the post quoted above and do not support a ban on religious advertising on TV and radio (although i do not wish to hear it). i had never heard of it actually and was surprised. what else can you not advertise or what is the rational behind disallowing them to advertise. religion and cigarettes cause cancer?

Xizors Palace · 23-01-2011 6:20pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I am all for secularisation. It makes sense in all the right ways once you accept the basic premise that people are free to believe in and follow your religion, and if they dont believe, they are free to choose not to follow your religion.

Take a contentious issue like sexuality as an example. I am not opposed to the government recognising gay civil unions. I would however be opposed to the government forcing a religion to recognise them. i would support a religions right to discriminate on grounds of sexuality to that extent.

religious people are free to choose to not engage in homosexuality and i support that right.

i agree largely with the post quoted above and do not support a ban on religious advertising on TV and radio (although i do not wish to hear it). i had never heard of it actually and was surprised. what else can you not advertise or what is the rational behind disallowing them to advertise. religion and cigarettes cause cancer?

I think we are going to see a battle shortly to have Catholic priests officiate at 'gay weddings' in Ireland and the UK. I think things are going to get very, very nasty. The limp-wristed priests will cave in to the secular pressure whilst the good, strong, holy priests will resist and probably be put in jail or fined or whatever.

El_Duderino 09 · 23-01-2011 8:51pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think we are going to see a battle shortly to have Catholic priests officiate at 'gay weddings' in Ireland and the UK. I think things are going to get very, very nasty. The limp-wristed priests will cave in to the secular pressure whilst the good, strong, holy priests will resist and probably be put in jail or fined or whatever.

Im not sure what you mean by a battle. The Catholics will come under pressure on the grounds that their policy on sexuality is not based on equal treatment for couples outside of one man one woman couples. Our society is increasingly moving towards equality for gay couples so a gap is appearing between society and Catholics in that regard. Personally I would not support any government effort to force Catholics to recognise gay couples commitment to each other. I would have thought there would be no way the government could do that anyway. what might happen is that people will highlight the discriminatory stance the Catholics hold and based on that, they might choose to soften their policy, they might not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nasty". Nasty between Traditional Catholics and modern Catholics? Or Government and Catholics? Or lay people and Catholics?

Im not sure whether by "limp wristed" you mean gay or weak willed.

Like I say i wouldn't think the government could force a private organisation like the Catholics to adopt a policy. Have they ever done so before?

Xizors Palace · 23-01-2011 9:03pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Im not sure what you mean by a battle. The Catholics will come under pressure on the grounds that their policy on sexuality is not based on equal treatment for couples outside of one man one woman couples. Our society is increasingly moving towards equality for gay couples so a gap is appearing between society and Catholics in that regard. Personally I would not support any government effort to force Catholics to recognise gay couples commitment to each other. I would have thought there would be no way the government could do that anyway. what might happen is that people will highlight the discriminatory stance the Catholics hold and based on that, they might choose to soften their policy, they might not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nasty". Nasty between Traditional Catholics and modern Catholics? Or Government and Catholics? Or lay people and Catholics?

Im not sure whether by "limp wristed" you mean gay or weak willed.

Like I say i wouldn't think the government could force a private organisation like the Catholics to adopt a policy. Have they ever done so before?

You can read limp-wristed whichever way you like. I intended a wide interpretation.

There are not 'Traditional' and 'Modern Catholics'. The only kind of Catholic there is the one that is in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The Church's teaching on this matter is quite clear, based on 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, which we have been reminded about in recent Magisterial documents.

Some priests will welcome the opportunity to officiate at gay ceremonies, evn using Catholic Churches to do so. Like I say, it is going to turn very, very nasty. I envision within the next 10 - 15 years the establishment of an Irish National Church, separated from Rome, and a small remnant of the Catholic Church which will be stripped of much of its properties - its churches, schools, and buildings. The Irish National Church will be supported by the state and will receive widespread acclaim for it modern and 'tolerant' approach.

I am sorry to say it, but many priests and bishops will yield, some quite willingly, to the new agenda of 'diversity' and 'equality'. Oh well.

El_Duderino 09 · 23-01-2011 10:38pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You can read limp-wristed whichever way you like. I intended a wide interpretation.

There are not 'Traditional' and 'Modern Catholics'. The only kind of Catholic there is the one that is in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The Church's teaching on this matter is quite clear, based on 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, which we have been reminded about in recent Magisterial documents.

Some priests will welcome the opportunity to officiate at gay ceremonies, evn using Catholic Churches to do so. Like I say, it is going to turn very, very nasty. I envision within the next 10 - 15 years the establishment of an Irish National Church, separated from Rome, and a small remnant of the Catholic Church which will be stripped of much of its properties - its churches, schools, and buildings. The Irish National Church will be supported by the state and will receive widespread acclaim for it modern and 'tolerant' approach.

I am sorry to say it, but many priests and bishops will yield, some quite willingly, to the new agenda of 'diversity' and 'equality'. Oh well.

Ah fair enough, what I meant by modern Catholics is people who call themselves catholic and would probably be more interested in the notion of equality. Schisms have happened before and could happen again. Personally I doubt it will. It is possibly that the Catholic teaching will come to change its stance on gays. It might be prudent to do so rather than let those who might join an alternative church to leave. Gate receipts are down enough in recent times. I imagine they would consider changing their policy if it becomes an obvious point of contention between the society and the Catholics. I mean prudent even if not true to your Sacred Tradition.

Would those priests who are sympathetic to homosexual be allowed to officiate at gay unions? I mean would they be allowed by Rome. I would have thought they would need Rome's say so before letting out the individual churches for gay ceremonies. Or would you see it as a sort of nixer for priests?

I really don't see on what grounds the new government church could strip the Catholics of their assets. Sounds like there would be protection under law for that. needless to say i would not support any government in that. is there any provision in law for any of that (State funded church which steals Catholic Churches assets) or is it completely fantasy?

I dont see a schism happening as being as likely as you make out. I imagine they would sooner change their stance than allow people to set up a rival church. It could be a case that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Beyond that i dont mind how the Catholics change their religion so long as it conforms to Irish law.

Xizors Palace · 23-01-2011 11:10pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah fair enough, what I meant by modern Catholics is people who call themselves catholic and would probably be more interested in the notion of equality. Schisms have happened before and could happen again. Personally I doubt it will. It is possibly that the Catholic teaching will come to change its stance on gays. It might be prudent to do so rather than let those who might join an alternative church to leave. Gate receipts are down enough in recent times. I imagine they would consider changing their policy if it becomes an obvious point of contention between the society and the Catholics. I mean prudent even if not true to your Sacred Tradition.

Would those priests who are sympathetic to homosexual be allowed to officiate at gay unions? I mean would they be allowed by Rome. I would have thought they would need Rome's say so before letting out the individual churches for gay ceremonies. Or would you see it as a sort of nixer for priests?

I really don't see on what grounds the new government church could strip the Catholics of their assets. Sounds like there would be protection under law for that. needless to say i would not support any government in that. is there any provision in law for any of that (State funded church which steals Catholic Churches assets) or is it completely fantasy?

I dont see a schism happening as being as likely as you make out. I imagine they would sooner change their stance than allow people to set up a rival church. It could be a case that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Beyond that i dont mind how the Catholics change their religion so long as it conforms to Irish law.

The Catholic religion won't comply with Irish law, and that is going to be the problem you see. We won't go along with the diktats of the state.

I think the whole bums on seats model hasn't served the Church particularly well. What is the point of having a full Church if most inside do not actually subscribe to the declared faith of that Church? What is the point of that?

If the Catholic Church did what you propose, it would cease to be the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and become the laughing stock of the world, with zero credibility. (Cue smirks and smart remarks from stage left). The Church can no sooner change its constant teaching on homosexuality than it could suddenly declare that the Trinity is not actually the reality of the God-head.

I'd say we'll see some nutter priests who will be very happy to officiate at 'gay weddings'. They'll do it on Church property, no bother. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome will instruct them to cease and desist, but they will just laugh at the CDF and at their Bishop. That's IF the bishop remains faithful. And there is no guarantee of that.

There is precedent for the confiscation of Catholic Church property and congregations. It happened during the Protestant revolt in England when Henry VIII established his own church, executing those who disagreed. Thus we saw that the great Catholic Churches were confiscated and to this day remain in CoE hands.

I expect in Ireland we shall see that some Catholic parishes and diocese will remain faithful to Rome; others won't. Those who are not faithful will take the churches and the state will help them via the courts.

You may think it alarmist, but it is the likely course of events, from what I can see. Look at what the ultra-dissident Association of Catholic Priests is campaigning for in Ireland: gay sex and women priests. Sooner or later (that's if their mostly middle-aged and older priestly members don't die first) the penny will drop and they will realise that Rome isn't, after all, going to sanction their rebellion, then you shall see the nasty business I am talking about.

Your alternative, that the Catholic Church will change its teachings to accord with the modern norms, is laughable, with all due respect.

Read this article by David Quinn on this very subject.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2011 2:19am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The Catholic religion won't comply with Irish law, and that is going to be the problem you see. We won't go along with the diktats of the state.

I think the whole bums on seats model hasn't served the Church particularly well. What is the point of having a full Church if most inside do not actually subscribe to the declared faith of that Church? What is the point of that?

If the Catholic Church did what you propose, it would cease to be the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ and become the laughing stock of the world, with zero credibility. (Cue smirks and smart remarks from stage left). The Church can no sooner change its constant teaching on homosexuality than it could suddenly declare that the Trinity is not actually the reality of the God-head.

I'd say we'll see some nutter priests who will be very happy to officiate at 'gay weddings'. They'll do it on Church property, no bother. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome will instruct them to cease and desist, but they will just laugh at the CDF and at their Bishop. That's IF the bishop remains faithful. And there is no guarantee of that.

There is precedent for the confiscation of Catholic Church property and congregations. It happened during the Protestant revolt in England when Henry VIII established his own church, executing those who disagreed. Thus we saw that the great Catholic Churches were confiscated and to this day remain in CoE hands.

I expect in Ireland we shall see that some Catholic parishes and diocese will remain faithful to Rome; others won't. Those who are not faithful will take the churches and the state will help them via the courts.

You may think it alarmist, but it is the likely course of events, from what I can see. Look at what the ultra-dissident Association of Catholic Priests is campaigning for in Ireland: gay sex and women priests. Sooner or later (that's if their mostly middle-aged and older priestly members don't die first) the penny will drop and they will realise that Rome isn't, after all, going to sanction their rebellion, then you shall see the nasty business I am talking about.

Your alternative, that the Catholic Church will change its teachings to accord with the modern norms, is laughable, with all due respect.

Read this article by David Quinn on this very subject.

which diktats would those be? at present homosexuality is legal, and their civil unions are legal, and Catholics are free to choose not to recognise them so where is the legal problem?

The point of the bums on seats model is to get bums on seats, gate receipts as I said. What beliefs they conform to is not really my concern as long as its legal.

Regarding the Catholics changing teaching. I thought they did that with Vatican 2. Change their discipline rather than doctrines if thats how Catholics like to phrase it when they change their practices.

If priests have gay marriage in churches i couldn't fault them for it. you may as is your right. thats between you, the priests and rome.

Like I said the scenario you outlined in your last post is possible but I didn't think it was ever likely. Do you think citing precedent from the 16th century makes it more plausible? With respect it sounds a bit like persecution phantasy. Alarmist would be a mild way do describe it. Do other Catholics here share your view?

Maybe I should have asked if there is a recent precedent. Its not every day that 16th century royal diktats are cited in Irish law I imagine

Quick question was it a typo when you said the association of catholic priests are campaigning for gay sex? if so is it just the sex the Catholics have a problem with. Would Catholics mind gay people devoting themselves to each other if they abstain from sex?

Goodnight

Zombrex · 24-01-2011 10:28am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I think we are going to see a battle shortly to have Catholic priests officiate at 'gay weddings' in Ireland and the UK. I think things are going to get very, very nasty.

I initially dismissed this as silly but on further reflection I do actually think I can imagine two gay "Catholics" making a song and dance about not being married in the church they want to be married in, an society ignorant of the issue supporting them with an argument along the lines of Why shouldn't they be allowed be married in the church (see, we can agree on something :pac:)

It can easily be imagined because of the number of Catholic-only-in-name heterosexual couples who expect, to the point of demanding, that they be married by their local priest in their local church. Society has come to expect that marriage is a cultural thing and that the RCC should facilitate this.

A Catholic marriage in a Catholic church for so many heterosexual couples is about having it in the church and little to do with the religion. Of all the weddings I've gone to in the last few years the majority have been in a Catholic church with two people who wouldn't know Jesus if he slapped them in the face.

The Catholic church has an issue (I guess some would say their own making though I don't mean this post as giving out about the RCC) that they have tolerated basically shame marriages in their churches for so long that there will be an expectation in society that a gay couple should be allowed marry in the church because society has forgotten that it is actually supposed to be a Catholic wedding, not just a wedding.

If the Catholic church want to head this off I think they need to start refusing heterosexual couples on the grounds of skepticism towards devotion to a Catholic way of life.

It will become easier then to argue that there is no double standard here.

prinz · 24-01-2011 11:33am

Secularism : Separation of church and state, be that the RCC, CoI, Hare Krishnas, any particular denomination. A privileged position so often ends up being abused when it goes unquestioned and unchallenged. Mixing 'state' duties with religious sensibilities so often ends up with a mangled version of both that does neither state nor faith any favours.

On the other hand I feel many people confuse separation of church and state, with separation of religious minded people and state/where the state's best interests may coincide with religious teachings and that's where it all starts getting farcical.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2011 11:45am

Wicknight wrote: »

I initially dismissed this as silly but on further reflection I do actually think I can imagine two gay "Catholics" making a song and dance about not being married in the church they want to be married in, an society ignorant of the issue supporting them with an argument along the lines of Why shouldn't they be allowed be married in the church (see, we can agree on something :pac:)

It can easily be imagined because of the number of Catholic-only-in-name heterosexual couples who expect, to the point of demanding, that they be married by their local priest in their local church. Society has come to expect that marriage is a cultural thing and that the RCC should facilitate this.

A Catholic marriage in a Catholic church for so many heterosexual couples is about having it in the church and little to do with the religion. Of all the weddings I've gone to in the last few years the majority have been in a Catholic church with two people who wouldn't know Jesus if he slapped them in the face.

The Catholic church has an issue (I guess some would say their own making though I don't mean this post as giving out about the RCC) that they have tolerated basically shame marriages in their churches for so long that there will be an expectation in society that a gay couple should be allowed marry in the church because society has forgotten that it is actually supposed to be a Catholic wedding, not just a wedding.

If the Catholic church want to head this off I think they need to start refusing heterosexual couples on the grounds of skepticism towards devotion to a Catholic way of life.

It will become easier then to argue that there is no double standard here.

I completely agree with the last part about refusing marriage to Catholics in name only.

I cant see there being a schism like Xizors Palace described though, particularly the part about it being state funded or controlled.

As for the part about things becoming "very, very nasty". It could become 'nasty' in so far as lay people will start saying to the Catholics 'your discriminatory doctrines and practices regarding gays are, well, discriminatory. You should change your practices to allow equality'. To which the Catholics might reply 'we cant change doctrine even if we wanted equal rights for gays'. That is discussion rather than nastiness I would say.

In the past the Catholics could tell the vast majority of society what to think about issues like the gays, but now they have less power to do so and society is beginning to move away from Catholic ideas about issues like the gays. Thus the gulf between society and the Catholics is becoming more apparent.

I read the David Quinn article and he is probably right. The best thing for Catholics is to become more "fully and authentically Catholic". In the past that went hand in hand with their ability affect legislation directly. In an increasingly secular country they have less ability to do that.

I wonder if becoming more Catholic will just move the Catholics further away from society which is already moving away from them.

Xizors Palace · 24-01-2011 4:30pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The point of the bums on seats model is to get bums on seats, gate receipts as I said. What beliefs they conform to is not really my concern as long as its legal.

Regarding the Catholics changing teaching. I thought they did that with Vatican 2. Change their discipline rather than doctrines if thats how Catholics like to phrase it when they change their practices.

Quick question was it a typo when you said the association of catholic priests are campaigning for gay sex? if so is it just the sex the Catholics have a problem with. Would Catholics mind gay people devoting themselves to each other if they abstain from sex?

Goodnight

So Catholic beliefs must comply with the state's idea of morality? Hardly.

Vatican II is widely, severely misunderstood by most Catholics, and mostly everybody else. It was a pastoral council which sought to present the timeless faith of the Church to the modern world. Unfortunately, the Council coincided with the free love 60s era, and in the turmoil, confusion, and heady excitement following the council, some mad ejits who'd probably smoked too much wacky-backy, wormed their way into positions of authority and influence to they could do their thing. They caused a lot of confusion and suffering, and caused much damage to the Church, but most of them are now, happily, in their 60s and 70s and due to die off any day now. Pope's Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict strove and are striving towards an authentic implementation of the Council, which was a Council of reform, not revolution. There can be no revolution in the Church.

The ultra-dissenting Association of Catholic Priests are campaigning for women priests and gay sex. I suppose most dissent in the Catholic Church does come down to sex. You don't hear people complaining about the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, or about the Incarnation. It usually always comes down to sex. I guess that's understandable, given that sexuality is such a powerful force and the one area where man was most affected in the fall. It is therefore understandable that people, whether it be gay sex or whatever else they want to do in the sexual sphere, they would like the Church to change her teachings so that they could get on with it, you know what I mean?

But then this contrasts with the words of the Lord who told us to deny ourselves, give up our 'oul sins, take up the cross, and follow Him, dying to ourselves so that the life we live is His. Gay sex has nothing whatsoever to do with living a holy lifestyle. I wonder what was lacking in the formation of these priests that they do not understand this?

Wicknight:

There is already a gay priest who has been excommunicated from the Church. He now offers gays 'weddings'. I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. :-(

Archbishop Martin of Dublin has spoken about this many times. He says we need to re-consider our approach to marriage and baptism. He has an issue with this sham behaviour, where people use the church as a nice setting for a social occasion, but haven't the least interest in Jesus and wouldn't recognise Him if, as you say, He slapped them in the face. An example would be co-habiting, contracepting couples who come together in the church for marriage, and then afterwards go back to contracepting and the marriage probably falls apart in 5 years or so. Or a sham baptism, where the poor child is baptised into the Church but has no hope of being brought up in the faith as the parents haven't the slightest interest and mean to deprive the child of any sort of Christian upbringing. It's very sad and a source of personal pain for me. I have a big issue with this and hopefully it will be sorted in the coming years as the Church moves to clarify what is expected and what is required and explains the meaning of all these things.This kind of thing is exactly what the Lord was talking about in Revelations when He spoke of vomiting the lukewarm from his mouth. He wants people on fire, not bums on seats.

Zombrex · 24-01-2011 5:10pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Wicknight:

There is already a gay priest who has been excommunicated from the Church. He now offers gays 'weddings'. I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. :-(

In his private church though, which is fine.

The issue will be if a gay couple demand to be married in a Catholic church and the priest refuses. I'm constantly surprised by the ignorance of "Catholics" in Ireland, so I can easily see a ground swell of populist support for the couple putting pressure on the priest.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Archbishop Martin of Dublin has spoken about this many times. He says we need to re-consider our approach to marriage and baptism. He has an issue with this sham behaviour, where people use the church as a nice setting for a social occasion, but haven't the least interest in Jesus and wouldn't recognise Him if, as you say, He slapped them in the face. An example would be co-habiting, contracepting couples who come together in the church for marriage, and then afterwards go back to contracepting and the marriage probably falls apart in 5 years or so.

Well leaving aside the moralizing about the success rate of non-Catholic marriages, I agree with you that these people have no right to a Catholic church marriage and the Catholic church need to nip this in the bud. Everything you described (except for the 5 year bit) describes nearly all my "Catholic" friends who were married in a Catholic church.

It might sound funny but I think priests while stopping this also need to reach out to the families of those getting married. While often the reason for a church wedding is because the bride likes the church, it is also often because of immense pressure from the family, that a fake Catholic wedding is better than a non-Catholic wedding, in order to save face in the community.

While you may believe a non-Catholic marriage will be unsuccessful you agree I would assume that it is still better to have a non-Catholic marriage some where other than a Catholic church, rather than pretend that it is a Catholic marriage.

Priests should be educating the families that a non-Catholic marriage in a Catholic church is more unacceptable than facilitating this to keep up with the Jones.

At least two of my friends who married in a Catholic church did so under the "grandma" concept, ie it would kill my grandmother/mother if I didn't get married in a Catholic church.

It is that sort of nonsense that priests should also be nipping in the bud. If you aren't a Catholic you aren't a Catholic. Getting married in a Catholic church doesn't make it so to your neighbours, let alone God.

Xizors Palace · 24-01-2011 5:21pm

Wicknight wrote: »

In his private church though, which is fine.

I don't think it is fine. He was asked to vacate parish property and he refused. I am not sure if he is still on parish property or not. He was excommunicated though and remains in that state to this day.

Regarding your other comments, I largely agree. Cultural Catholicism is still alive and well in Ireland, but it is death to the good and health of the Church in Ireland. Because of this phenomenon, priests are unwilling to preach faith and morals because it will upset the patrons. The priests also abuse the Mass so as to please the patrons, because Mass offered according to the Tradition of the Church is 'boring' and 'irrelevant', according to unbelievers. It has to be made into joking entertainment in order to attract and keep people, and to bring in the money which is needed to keep the whole sham going.

Where does that leave the faithful Catholic believer like me? I'll tell you were: yesterday I almost walked out of Sunday Mass because of what went on. But that is for another thread.

prinz · 24-01-2011 5:24pm

Wicknight wrote: »

It is that sort of nonsense that priests should also be nipping in the bud. If you aren't a Catholic you aren't a Catholic. Getting married in a Catholic church doesn't make it so to your neighbours, let alone God.

+1. The same people will be the very ones to complain about having to do the pre-marriage course etc as well.

Xizors Palace · 24-01-2011 5:34pm

prinz wrote: »

+1. The same people will be the very ones to complain about having to do the pre-marriage course etc as well.

But at least when they do the course they won't be told about contraception or any Church teaching. At best, the Church teaching is presented as an unattainable 'ideal'.

Has anyone actually been through the course in the RCC in Ireland? I'd be most interested to hear what went on. I only hear anecdotes about what happens. It's like a masonic club though, so as an outsider I can't find out what actually happens and I am too embarrassed to ask my brother.:o

Zombrex · 24-01-2011 5:45pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I don't think it is fine. He was asked to vacate parish property and he refused. I am not sure if he is still on parish property or not. He was excommunicated though and remains in that state to this day.

Ah yes, apologies, I didn't see that part. Yes the property is owned by the church, not him. He should of course leave. If he wants to build his own chapel thats fine, but he has no right to use RCC property.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Where does that leave the faithful Catholic believer like me? I'll tell you were: yesterday I almost walked out of Sunday Mass because of what went on. But that is for another thread.

I guess it leaves them in an unfamilar yet probably more supportive position of being a minority influence in the society holding true to core principles, no matter how out of favour with the large population.

I guess the odd reformation even once and a while is healthy for the soul

Xizors Palace · 24-01-2011 6:12pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I guess it leaves them in an unfamilar yet probably more supportive position of being a minority influence in the society holding true to core principles, no matter how out of favour with the large population.

I guess the odd reformation even once and a while is healthy for the soul

The important thing to remember wicknight is this: the true, mystical Catholic Church in Ireland is the body of believers who hold fast to the faith of the Church. The institutional Church is supposed to serve the Mystical body of Christ. There is one thing knowing this, and another to leave the Catholic Church and form your own, which is what Luther and others did. In their good intentions they jettisoned the Catholic faith and ended up doing more damage to the Church. The important thing is to remain faithful amidst all the unfaithfulness. Although we are poorly served by the vast majority of bishops and priests, and though most laity are disobedient and ignorant, the actual Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. There is a remnant in Ireland, and it is not insignificant in number.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2011 8:06pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

So Catholic beliefs must comply with the state's idea of morality? Hardly.

Vatican II is widely, severely misunderstood by most Catholics, and mostly everybody else. It was a pastoral council which sought to present the timeless faith of the Church to the modern world. Unfortunately, the Council coincided with the free love 60s era, and in the turmoil, confusion, and heady excitement following the council, some mad ejits who'd probably smoked too much wacky-backy, wormed their way into positions of authority and influence to they could do their thing. They caused a lot of confusion and suffering, and caused much damage to the Church, but most of them are now, happily, in their 60s and 70s and due to die off any day now. Pope's Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict strove and are striving towards an authentic implementation of the Council, which was a Council of reform, not revolution. There can be no revolution in the Church.

The ultra-dissenting Association of Catholic Priests are campaigning for women priests and gay sex. I suppose most dissent in the Catholic Church does come down to sex. You don't hear people complaining about the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, or about the Incarnation. It usually always comes down to sex. I guess that's understandable, given that sexuality is such a powerful force and the one area where man was most affected in the fall. It is therefore understandable that people, whether it be gay sex or whatever else they want to do in the sexual sphere, they would like the Church to change her teachings so that they could get on with it, you know what I mean?

But then this contrasts with the words of the Lord who told us to deny ourselves, give up our 'oul sins, take up the cross, and follow Him, dying to ourselves so that the life we live is His. Gay sex has nothing whatsoever to do with living a holy lifestyle. I wonder what was lacking in the formation of these priests that they do not understand this?

Wicknight:

There is already a gay priest who has been excommunicated from the Church. He now offers gays 'weddings'. I expect we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future. :-(

Archbishop Martin of Dublin has spoken about this many times. He says we need to re-consider our approach to marriage and baptism. He has an issue with this sham behaviour, where people use the church as a nice setting for a social occasion, but haven't the least interest in Jesus and wouldn't recognise Him if, as you say, He slapped them in the face. An example would be co-habiting, contracepting couples who come together in the church for marriage, and then afterwards go back to contracepting and the marriage probably falls apart in 5 years or so. Or a sham baptism, where the poor child is baptised into the Church but has no hope of being brought up in the faith as the parents haven't the slightest interest and mean to deprive the child of any sort of Christian upbringing. It's very sad and a source of personal pain for me. I have a big issue with this and hopefully it will be sorted in the coming years as the Church moves to clarify what is expected and what is required and explains the meaning of all these things.This kind of thing is exactly what the Lord was talking about in Revelations when He spoke of vomiting the lukewarm from his mouth. He wants people on fire, not bums on seats.

Not to say that be beliefs of Catholics must comply with the states view of morality. Just that citizens must comply with state laws. Its not too far out there to suggest that people who act outside of the law can wind up in trouble. Surely we are in agreement that the citizens must comply with state laws. So while the Catholics can have any rules they like, citizens still have to comply with state laws. The state can't tell the Catholic religion what rules to have in their club but it can tell Irish citizens what is acceptable behaviour in Ireland.

I was asking about whether the Catholics have a problem with gay relationships outside of the sex aspect. If a couple are devoted to each other, love each other, support each other emotionally, financially and all the things couples do together except have sex, is that a big problem for the Catholics?

Whatever was lacking in the formation of those priests you refer to, I suggest it was not compassion.

Regarding the last paragraph what do you think would happen if the Catholics stopped having people use the local church for weddings unless they are full on Catholics? It surprises me how many people don't know that marriage is first and foremost a state contract. They can have it in a church, recognised by their religion, and all the fanfare that goes with it but they are just as legally married if they go to the local registry office. If the Catholics brought that to more peoples attention they might end up becoming almost completely irrelevant to the 'catholic in name only' people. I don't imagine you are that worried about those people, but from a pragmatic point of view where is the money to run parishes to come from? Can they afford to send more people away I wonder? What do you think would happen?

Xizors Palace · 24-01-2011 8:31pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not to say that be beliefs of Catholics must comply with the states view of morality. Just that citizens must comply with state laws. Its not too far out there to suggest that people who act outside of the law can wind up in trouble. Surely we are in agreement that the citizens must comply with state laws. So while the Catholics can have any rules they like, citizens still have to comply with state laws. The state can't tell the Catholic religion what rules to have in their club but it can tell Irish citizens what is acceptable behaviour in Ireland.

I was asking about whether the Catholics have a problem with gay relationships outside of the sex aspect. If a couple are devoted to each other, love each other, support each other emotionally, financially and all the things couples do together except have sex, is that a big problem for the Catholics?

Whatever was lacking in the formation of those priests you refer to, I suggest it was not compassion.

Regarding the last paragraph what do you think would happen if the Catholics stopped having people use the local church for weddings unless they are full on Catholics? It surprises me how many people don't know that marriage is first and foremost a state contract. They can have it in a church, recognised by their religion, and all the fanfare that goes with it but they are just as legally married if they go to the local registry office. If the Catholics brought that to more peoples attention they might end up becoming almost completely irrelevant to the 'catholic in name only' people. I don't imagine you are that worried about those people, but from a pragmatic point of view where is the money to run parishes to come from? Can they afford to send more people away I wonder? What do you think would happen?

Catholics are obliged to follow state laws so long as those laws do not conflict with Catholic faith. In that case, the state laws must be disobeyed. Take the example of a doctor who is compelled by law to do abortions. He can't do them as a Catholic, and so he will be sacked. Or Catholic priests who refuse to allow gay 'weddings'' in their church. they will be fined and then jailed. God's laws supercede the laws of men. God's law trumps state law. State law should be in conformity with God's laws. Hence we see how disastrous it was for Ireland to recognise these gay unions recently and not we see in the papers this weekend past gay men getting a woman to make a baby for them.

Re: your question, it would be quite foolish for two gays to live together because there would be the risk of misbehaviour. Like an alcoholic living next door to a pub. No harm in it per se, but is it wise? There is a thing called friendship, that is fine, but then friends don't have sexual relations, that is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman. That's how it used to be, but I guess things have changed and now many things that were once unthinkable and unspeakable are now quite fashionable and increasingly popular from what I hear.

As regards the last question, in the RCC, marriage is a sacrament. In the state, it is a contract essentially. They could have it in a registry office but there is still a stigma surrounding that in Ireland. As regards money, I don't see what the point in having big churches if the faith is not being taught in them. I said it before, we're wasting our time. Better to have a small, flourishing underground church than a big church full of people who don't give a damn and couldn't care less.

We had a priest in my parish. He was a good priest, but the people, at least some of them, didn't like him because he taught the faith in its fullness. He was moved to a very quiet country parish where he wouldn't rock too many boats. We got a trendy priest to replace him.

Read this from Cardinal Ratzinger.

24-01-2011 10:48pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Catholics are obliged to follow state laws so long as those laws do not conflict with Catholic faith. In that case, the state laws must be disobeyed.

Absolutely not, although I don't think that's what you meant. No country anywhere compels people to perform abortions. However, Catholics are given a choice, they can either be doctors or Catholics. The nature of the profession means you can't be both, but it is a choice

Xizors Palace wrote: »

God's laws supercede the laws of men. God's law trumps state law. State law should be in conformity with God's laws.

Which God? Your God? Your neighbour's God? Or the person-down-the-road's God?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Hence we see how disastrous it was for Ireland to recognise these gay unions recently and not we see in the papers this weekend past gay men getting a woman to make a baby for them.

How was it disastrous exactly?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Re: your question, it would be quite foolish for two gays to live together because there would be the risk of misbehaviour.

No, it would be foolish for two gay Catholics to live together. Why would it be foolish for two gay people who don't believe what you believe to be living together?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

As regards the last question, in the RCC, marriage is a sacrament. In the state, it is a contract essentially. They could have it in a registry office but there is still a stigma surrounding that in Ireland. As regards money, I don't see what the point in having big churches if the faith is not being taught in them. I said it before, we're wasting our time. Better to have a small, flourishing underground church than a big church full of people who don't give a damn and couldn't care less.

This, I agree with completely. I think the state should remove the term 'marriage' completely. If two people want to legally join together, call it a civil union. Leave sacraments to the churches

The state has no place instructing churches what they can and can't believe. So long as a religion is not persecuting someone outside it, and everyone in it is there willingly, they should be allowed whatever rules they want. If the state ever tried to bring in a law forcing churches to allow gay marriage, I'd be the first to protest against it

Xizors Palace · 24-01-2011 11:05pm

28064212 wrote: »

Absolutely not, although I don't think that's what you meant. No country anywhere compels people to perform abortions. However, Catholics are given a choice, they can either be doctors or Catholics. The nature of the profession means you can't be both, but it is a choice

If the state ever tried to bring in a law forcing churches to allow gay marriage, I'd be the first to protest against it

The Hippocratic oath supports the pro-life position. But things have become distorted and so we now find doctors who swore to protect life actually killing the innocent unborn.

It is very unfair that pro-life doctors and pharmacists find it increasingly difficult to do their job in an ethical way. It is not right that either profession should be forced to participate in or facilitate abortion, but this is what is happening.

Non-Catholics are free to do whatever they like. We all have free will. Nobody is forced to be a Christian, but those who want to be Christians shouldn't attempt to dictate to the Church what is and is not sin.

strobe · 24-01-2011 11:45pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

It is not right that either profession should be forced to participate in or facilitate abortion, but this is what is happening.

Hi Xizors, could you give some examples of where and how this is happening? Thanks.

Xizors Palace · 25-01-2011 12:19am

strobe wrote: »

Hi Xizors, could you give some examples of where and how this is happening? Thanks.

Patrick McCrystal left his career of pharmacy becuase he couldn't avoid having to hand out abortifacient morning-after pills (MAP), and the abortifacient pill (aka 'the pill') as well.

http://www.hliireland.ie/patrick_mccrystal.html

I also know a young Catholic doctor in Ireland and he says at the minute a Catholic doctor can kind-of get out of involvement, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a Catholic healthcare professional.

prinz · 25-01-2011 9:34am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

But at least when they do the course they won't be told about contraception or any Church teaching. At best, the Church teaching is presented as an unattainable 'ideal'.

It's a bit late at that stage to be bringing up Church teaching. They have to assume anyone there already has a fair idea. They should have anyway.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Has anyone actually been through the course in the RCC in Ireland? I'd be most interested to hear what went on. I only hear anecdotes about what happens. It's like a masonic club though, so as an outsider I can't find out what actually happens and I am too embarrassed to ask my brother.:o

Didn't do it in Ireland but where I did it I had a great time at mine. Was a day of tea and biscuits, prayer and reflection, thanksgiving, counselling, a communication workshop, partner challenges, etc. I doubt it's the same everywhere, ours had to be a mixed bag because we had to get a bilingual instructor, so I think a lot of it was thinking on his feet.

Zombrex · 25-01-2011 10:03am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The Hippocratic oath supports the pro-life position.

It also requires you to swear by Apollo, something no Christian could do. Just saying

El_Duderino 09 · 25-01-2011 11:28am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Catholics are obliged to follow state laws so long as those laws do not conflict with Catholic faith. In that case, the state laws must be disobeyed. Take the example of a doctor who is compelled by law to do abortions. He can't do them as a Catholic, and so he will be sacked. Or Catholic priests who refuse to allow gay 'weddings'' in their church. they will be fined and then jailed. God's laws supercede the laws of men. God's law trumps state law. State law should be in conformity with God's laws. Hence we see how disastrous it was for Ireland to recognise these gay unions recently and not we see in the papers this weekend past gay men getting a woman to make a baby for them.

Re: your question, it would be quite foolish for two gays to live together because there would be the risk of misbehaviour. Like an alcoholic living next door to a pub. No harm in it per se, but is it wise? There is a thing called friendship, that is fine, but then friends don't have sexual relations, that is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman. That's how it used to be, but I guess things have changed and now many things that were once unthinkable and unspeakable are now quite fashionable and increasingly popular from what I hear.

As regards the last question, in the RCC, marriage is a sacrament. In the state, it is a contract essentially. They could have it in a registry office but there is still a stigma surrounding that in Ireland. As regards money, I don't see what the point in having big churches if the faith is not being taught in them. I said it before, we're wasting our time. Better to have a small, flourishing underground church than a big church full of people who don't give a damn and couldn't care less.

We had a priest in my parish. He was a good priest, but the people, at least some of them, didn't like him because he taught the faith in its fullness. He was moved to a very quiet country parish where he wouldn't rock too many boats. We got a trendy priest to replace him.

Read this from Cardinal Ratzinger.

The example you brought up about the doctor, you said he will he forced to perform abortions. not so because he has a choice to resign. Even if he is fired he is still not forced to perform abortions. I see is no evidence that the state would get involved in jailing priests who don't perform gay weddings. Its hard enough to get the state to jail them for raping children (people under the age of consent). They are not obliged to perform gay weddings by law, why on earth would they be jailed?

This part about how about state law should be in conformity with god's law. do you mean 'should' like we should officially get theologians involved in making laws in Ireland? Like stoning people who collect sticks on the Sabbath day?
If so who's god and who's theologians? I'm sure you have noticed that there have been countless gods over the years, they each have rules and they don't necessarily match. What if two of gods laws are contrary to each other? Should 'God told me to do it' become a solid defence under law?

I really would like to hear your views on this issue, this being 'Christian Secularists' thread and all.

Ok so it would be foolish for two gays to live together but to phrase it another way, do the Catholics have an actual problem with gays being gay and being in gay relationships if they don't have gay sex? Is it purely the sex that the Catholics have a problem with?

I have to hand it to you, you really do seem to be a more genuine believer than most people I know. Not sure how your pope would take it if he had to move into a 2bed semi to cut down on costs because gate receipts are down. I would imagine you are in a minority of hard core believers if you think the Catholics should downsize. How would that idea go down with the top brass I wonder? Congratulations you have the minority you seem to want.

PDN · 25-01-2011 12:00pm

The stuff about priests being forced to conduct gay weddings is a load of nonsense that, sadly, seems to have effectively derailed any discussion of Christian secularism.

At present, for example, the State allows divorced people to remarry. The RCC chooses not to conduct marriages for divorcees. The State doesn't try to force Catholic priests to conduct weddings for divorcees, the State doesn't allow the RCC (or any other church) to dictate who can or cannot be legally married. That is how a secular society works.

strobe · 25-01-2011 2:45pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Patrick McCrystal left his career of pharmacy becuase he couldn't avoid having to hand out abortifacient morning-after pills (MAP), and the abortifacient pill (aka 'the pill') as well.

http://www.hliireland.ie/patrick_mccrystal.html

I also know a young Catholic doctor in Ireland and he says at the minute a Catholic doctor can kind-of get out of involvement, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a Catholic healthcare professional.

It's a shame he left his career over this as all the most up to date research strongly suggests that Levonorgestrel's (the morning after pill's) only method of action is to prevent ovulation and therefore is incapable of acting as an abortificient. Although I guess he could still have concerns of the daily pill having potential to act as an abortifacient. Would that matter or as a Catholic would his objection be to dispensing any and all contraception, condoms, pills etc?

One would think that in Ireland he would have more than enough Catholic non contraception using customers to keep in business from the other products he stocks.

Or is there some legislation in place that says a pharmacy has to stock and dispense certain medicines do you know? Or are they free to choose what they dispense? I don't know much about how they are required to operate.

Xizors Palace · 25-01-2011 7:49pm

strobe wrote: »

It's a shame he left his career over this as all the most up to date research strongly suggests that Levonorgestrel's (the morning after pill's) only method of action is to prevent ovulation and therefore is incapable of acting as an abortificient. Although I guess he could still have concerns of the daily pill having potential to act as an abortifacient. Would that matter or as a Catholic would his objection be to dispensing any and all contraception, condoms, pills etc?

One would think that in Ireland he would have more than enough Catholic non contraception using customers to keep in business from the other products he stocks.

Or is there some legislation in place that says a pharmacy has to stock and dispense certain medicines do you know? Or are they free to choose what they dispense? I don't know much about how they are required to operate.

Unless you own your own practice (and even then it is still difficult unless you are a muslim) you can't really avoid giving out abortifacients and contaceptives.

25-01-2011 8:21pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Unless you own your own practice (and even then it is still difficult unless you are a muslim) you can't really avoid giving out abortifacients and contaceptives.

That's a pretty massive 'unless'. So it's actually your employer that decides, and nothing to do with the state. Anyone can choose who they work for.

What's the special provision for Muslims btw?

Xizors Palace · 25-01-2011 8:40pm

28064212 wrote: »

That's a pretty massive 'unless'. So it's actually your employer that decides, and nothing to do with the state. Anyone can choose who they work for.

What's the special provision for Muslims btw?

Well, in reality, it appears that there is a conscience clause for all pharmacists in the UK. That's all well and good on paper, but in reality, a young pharmacy graduate does what he is told IF he wants a career in pharmacy. The right is on paper. In the real world however...

With regard to Muslims, I have to say I am a little envious of the clout the Muslims have. If you offend Christians, they might pray for you if they are good Christians, whereas for Muslims, it's a whole different ballgame, and employers know this. Hence the unwillingness to offend Muslim sensibilities and so their conscientious objection is respected more than a Christian's.

If all Christian pharmacists stood firm, they would be respected, but as it is lukewarmness goes along with the prevailing norm.

Patrick McCrystal is an example of a pharmacist who was forced out of the profession because he wanted to exercise his right to conscientious objection. That was denied him by the powers that be. It is the same for any graduate pharmacist, unless daddy owns a practice and is happy to have a newbie on the scene to cause controversy. I'm not sure however if NI is the same as the UK. I have no idea about Eire.

Read this for background:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/may/08052609

JimiTime · 25-01-2011 8:52pm

PDN wrote: »

The stuff about priests being forced to conduct gay weddings is a load of nonsense that, sadly, seems to have effectively derailed any discussion of Christian secularism.

At present, for example, the State allows divorced people to remarry. The RCC chooses not to conduct marriages for divorcees. The State doesn't try to force Catholic priests to conduct weddings for divorcees, the State doesn't allow the RCC (or any other church) to dictate who can or cannot be legally married. That is how a secular society works.

I would not be so naive tbh. The gay scenario has a lobby behind it, and hitches on the back of human rights etc. Just because divorcee's don't unite etc, does not mean the gay/human rights lobby wont go making things difficult.

25-01-2011 8:57pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Well, in reality, it appears that there is a conscience clause for all pharmacists in the UK. That's all well and good on paper, but in reality, a young pharmacy graduate does what he is told IF he wants a career in pharmacy. The right is on paper. In the real world however...

So all pharmacy owners are pro-abortion? Are you telling me there's no Christian pharmacy owners out there who don't stock the morning-after pill? Why aren't there?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Patrick McCrystal is an example of a pharmacist who was forced out of the profession because he wanted to exercise his right to conscientious objection. That was denied him by the powers that be. It is the same for any graduate pharmacist, unless daddy owns a practice and is happy to have a newbie on the scene to cause controversy. I'm not sure however if NI is the same as the UK. I have no idea about Eire.

He was not forced out of the profession. If he wanted to set up his own pharmacy or work for a pharmacy which allowed him to opt out of prescribing things he didn't believe in, he was perfectly free to do so.

Xizors Palace · 25-01-2011 9:01pm

28064212 wrote: »

So all pharmacy owners are pro-abortion? Are you telling me there's no Christian pharmacy owners out there who don't stock the morning-after pill? Why aren't there?

He was not forced out of the profession. If he wanted to set up his own pharmacy or work for a pharmacy which allowed him to opt out of prescribing things he didn't believe in, he was perfectly free to do so.

Well, most probably are, because it is part of the culture. They are 'sciencey' people - the 'enlightened ones' and even if the are Catholic, I'd bet 9 times out of 10 they will support the culture of death. I know of one pharmacist who attends Mass and receives Holy Communion but describes himself as 'pro-choice'.

He was forced out. He was not in a position to set up his own practise and since nobody was prepared to hire somebody with his convictions, he could not get a job. Circumstances and money meant he couldn't do what you suggest. I'm sure if he could, he would, having read his short bio on the website I linked to a few posts back.

25-01-2011 9:11pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Well, most probably are, because it is part of the culture. They are 'sciencey' people - the 'enlightened ones' and even if the are Catholic, I'd bet 9 times out of 10 they will support the culture of death. I know of one pharmacist who attends Mass and receives Holy Communion but describes himself as 'pro-choice'.

He was forced out. He was not in a position to set up his own practise and since nobody was prepared to hire somebody with his convictions, he could not get a job. Circumstances and money meant he couldn't do what you suggest. I'm sure if he could, he would, having read his short bio on the website I linked to a few posts back.

So what are you suggesting? That the government should force employers to hire people who aren't suitable for the job?

Xizors Palace · 25-01-2011 10:11pm

28064212 wrote: »

So what are you suggesting? That the government should force employers to hire people who aren't suitable for the job?

Conscientious objection clauses (protective laws) do exist. People do have a choice to go to another chemist, but people can't force their immoral standards on others. It's just not right. That's why I am free to refuse to participate in or enable somebody else's moral depravity.

Some companies respect this, e.g. Lloyds Pharmacy in England, but for a graduate pharmacist, ground level politics mean that their rights are on paper but non-existent in reality in most instances.

Zombrex · 26-01-2011 11:20am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Conscientious objection clauses (protective laws) do exist. People do have a choice to go to another chemist, but people can't force their immoral standards on others. It's just not right. That's why I am free to refuse to participate in or enable somebody else's moral depravity.

Some companies respect this, e.g. Lloyds Pharmacy in England, but for a graduate pharmacist, ground level politics mean that their rights are on paper but non-existent in reality in most instances.

Can you clarify, in general terms, what right you are talking about?

26-01-2011 11:25am

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Conscientious objection clauses (protective laws) do exist. People do have a choice to go to another chemist, but people can't force their immoral standards on others. It's just not right. That's why I am free to refuse to participate in or enable somebody else's moral depravity.

Some companies respect this, e.g. Lloyds Pharmacy in England, but for a graduate pharmacist, ground level politics mean that their rights are on paper but non-existent in reality in most instances.

Lots of graduate pharmacists are horrified by the fact that homeopathic "treatments" are offered in pharmacies. If they had the choice, they would remove all homeopathy-related products from the store. Unfortunately, they don't own the store, and the owners want to stock it. Do you think they should be entitled to not serve customers who want to buy those?

Xizors Palace · 26-01-2011 12:18pm

It is a right under UK law to conscientiously object from participation or enablement of depraved practices such as abortion. Google it. I'm not about to. I have a sore throat.

Some scruples about selling herbal remedies, which may or may not actually work, is hardly in the same ballpark as selling drugs which kill unborn children in the womb.

Zombrex · 26-01-2011 12:34pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

It is a right under UK law to conscientiously object from participation or enablement of depraved practices such as abortion. Google it. I'm not about to. I have a sore throat.

Googling just returns links about conscientious objection, which is normally refers to refusing to participate in a war or bare arms.

I can find no use of such a term in UK labour laws. This site seems to detail UK labour relations law and I can't find such a concept in it

http://www.emplaw.co.uk/lawguide

The closest is changes in terms of employment.

If an employer changes the terms of employment the employee has the right to leave employment and claim compensation from the employer for breach of contract. (other options are to agree with the new terms of employment, or to continue to work with the new terms but under protest reserving the right to leave if agreement cannot be reached).

There doesn't seem to be any right to continue to work yet not carry out the terms of the new employment. In all cases if the employee is not happy with the new terms they have to leave. The only upside is that they can get compensation for doing so under the grounds that the employer has breached contract (it is debatable of course if a chemist introducing an new product is breaching contract, but that is a different matter)

So a pharamyst who feels the terms of his employment contract have been breached by the introduction of the requirement to sell the morning after pill has the right to leave and seek compensation.

He doesn't seem (unless I'm missing something) to have the right to continue to work in the position while refusing to carry out the terms of his employment.

Are you sure such a law exists?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Some scruples about selling herbal remedies, which may or may not actually work, is hardly in the same ballpark as selling drugs which kill unborn children in the womb.

You could equally say what is the big deal about abortion a bunch of cells with no nervous system or brain and which most people don't consider a person.

Isn't the whole point that you don't get to decide what should or shouldn't upset someone?

26-01-2011 12:39pm

Xizors Palace wrote: »

It is a right under UK law to conscientiously object from participation or enablement of depraved practices such as abortion. Google it. I'm not about to. I have a sore throat.

Owners have that right. There is no right to conscientiously object to an instruction from your employer. In the Muslim case you posted above, Sainsburys (the owner) allowed their employees to refuse.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Some scruples about selling herbal remedies, which may or may not actually work, is hardly in the same ballpark as selling drugs which kill unborn children in the womb.

Homeopathy is a hugely harmful practice. There are hundreds of cases where it has played a direct role in harming and killing people, and tens of thousands where it has played an indirect role.

I am not looking to for an argument about abortion (and this does not reflect my beliefs), but a pharmacist could just as easily say "some religious belief that a clump of cells is alive is hardly in the same ballpark as a made-up practice which is demonstrably killing people"

Christian Secularists.

Comments