Archbishop in pot calling kettle black shock
- Thread starter ClubMan
- Start date
Catholic rules and teachings are imposed on every patient in hospitals around the country. And in most primary schools.
Hmmmmm.....the article is on breakingnews.ie and probably in the national newspapers but its no ones business to comment on it except catholics? Thats a very strange position to take. So only people directly involved in or affected by a news story are allowed to discuss and comment?
and at birth when the church force parents and infants into church for baptisms? the country is full of al a carte catholics who knock at every turn but run for the priest when they want to get married in Church, bury someone, baptise their darling for a celebration etc etc this thread i suspect has attracted a few too.
i listened to the programme and thought that it was bias to have him on preaching instead of discribing the Knock vigil this week or whatever it was surely that was the presenter who allowed this to happen? what he said was not really what could be considered objectionable IMO to others but then i am catholic myself.
would the message have been so bad if delivered by someone other than a cleric?
"Hmmmmm.....the article is on breakingnews.ie and probably in the national newspapers but its no ones business to comment on it except catholics?
Thats a very strange position to take. So only people directly involved in or affected by a news story are allowed to discuss and comment?"
I have to disagree. Of course they are allowed to comment; It is just strange, and in my view inappropriate, that they would feel the need to comment. Perhaps an analogy will illustrate my point:
1. The horse racing industry is well covered in our national print media. I don't follow horses and have no interest whatever in gambling; Many other people do. I have no objection to the horse racing industry getting newspaper coverage - it does not affect me.
2 If the bloodstock industry wants tax breaks for bookies or government subsidies to racecourses, and there is a debate on the issue, then as a taxpayer I certainly feel entitled to state my views. So there are issues with the racing industry which are of concern to people outside racing, and are fit for universal comment.
3. If the racing authorities decide that they are not going to hold race meetings on Tuesdays, it would be decidedly odd that I - as a person who never goes to such meetings and am not in any way affected - would feel it appropriate to voice any opinion on the matter. If I posted my trenchant views on such an issue, having first explained that I have absolutely no interest in participating in a race meeting on a Tuesday or any other day, you would be perfectly entitled to ask me why on earth I felt the need to comment on something which was clearly none of my business. This is, after all, an issue which is only of concern to those who actually participate in horse racing.
There are issues involving the Catholic Church which are appropriate for debate in a wider arena; The particular sermon mentioned at the outset does not seem to raise any such issue.
So yes, in response to comments on at least some issues (this being one) from non-Catholics, I think it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to ask why they even feel entitled to comment on something which is clearly none of their business.
This is not a dig at, or personal criticism of, any of the contributors - it is clear that many people feel differently on this issue. It may be argued that the Catholic Church in Ireland is today reaping what it sowed, in that anybody and everybody feels entitled to knock the Catholic Church. I think this is simply part of our transition from a society where the Catholic Church had too much power. I think that both Catholics and non-Catholics will ultimately find it more congenial to have a society where most of Catholic teaching is not a matter for public debate, but rather a matter for Catholics only.
Thats a very strange position to take. So only people directly involved in or affected by a news story are allowed to discuss and comment?"
I have to disagree. Of course they are allowed to comment; It is just strange, and in my view inappropriate, that they would feel the need to comment. Perhaps an analogy will illustrate my point:
1. The horse racing industry is well covered in our national print media. I don't follow horses and have no interest whatever in gambling; Many other people do. I have no objection to the horse racing industry getting newspaper coverage - it does not affect me.
2 If the bloodstock industry wants tax breaks for bookies or government subsidies to racecourses, and there is a debate on the issue, then as a taxpayer I certainly feel entitled to state my views. So there are issues with the racing industry which are of concern to people outside racing, and are fit for universal comment.
3. If the racing authorities decide that they are not going to hold race meetings on Tuesdays, it would be decidedly odd that I - as a person who never goes to such meetings and am not in any way affected - would feel it appropriate to voice any opinion on the matter. If I posted my trenchant views on such an issue, having first explained that I have absolutely no interest in participating in a race meeting on a Tuesday or any other day, you would be perfectly entitled to ask me why on earth I felt the need to comment on something which was clearly none of my business. This is, after all, an issue which is only of concern to those who actually participate in horse racing.
There are issues involving the Catholic Church which are appropriate for debate in a wider arena; The particular sermon mentioned at the outset does not seem to raise any such issue.
So yes, in response to comments on at least some issues (this being one) from non-Catholics, I think it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to ask why they even feel entitled to comment on something which is clearly none of their business.
This is not a dig at, or personal criticism of, any of the contributors - it is clear that many people feel differently on this issue. It may be argued that the Catholic Church in Ireland is today reaping what it sowed, in that anybody and everybody feels entitled to knock the Catholic Church. I think this is simply part of our transition from a society where the Catholic Church had too much power. I think that both Catholics and non-Catholics will ultimately find it more congenial to have a society where most of Catholic teaching is not a matter for public debate, but rather a matter for Catholics only.
MOB, if I follow your line of reasoning I can still think of a situation where non-Catholics would feel entitled to comment . . . if they believe in tarot readers and horoscopes. Perhaps they feel threatened by the archbishops comments and are defending their belief systems. 
I guess the fundamental element to faith is the absense of logic, sometimes it is easier for people to not question their own beliefs for they may be left with a void - i'm not saying that is right.
Yes history will throw up many things that seem hideous to us now but were perfectly normal at the time, such a sthe hunger for public executions, but it hardly makes for an argument against today's church does it.
You can go to church and are encouraged to make an offering, but there is no fee or any charge, you don't pay for confession, I don't think tarot readers in general give freebies, but i could be wrong. I do not practice my religion, but i may return to do so in time. i do question many aspects of the church and don't agree with alot of its teachings, but I do have faith - it might be hard to understand my stance, but thats all there is to it.
I agree, but why can't people criticise respectfully?
The catholic church has had to answer many questions and lost alot of members due to the terrible actions of many of its priests and bishops and indeed further up the hierarchy, but i do think the church goes much deeper than the men empowered to deliver its message, I didn't receive any poison into my brain at school so I can't comment on that, but I do feel that the church is the softest target of them all and many people enjoy the bandwagon.
Well that's one thing we seem to agree on!
Yes, I can see the distinction alright but I don't think it is a huge one. I'm sure the church takes as a dim a view of freeloaders as tarot card readers would if they offered a similar payment structure.
Plus, as I mentioned previously, the tarot card readers deliver their product upfront. The church generally doesn't allow you to collect until you die. For specific value-added services - funerals, weddings, those masses they say for people after they die (apologies but the name escapes me) - the payment is mandatory.
Perhaps I'm interpreting his comments incorrectly, but it just sounded to me like he was afraid of the growing competition and decided to focus on the softest target among his competitors.
It seems to me that Catholicism is about compassion and hope. That it is not evidence based - beyond the historical fact that a man named This post will be deleted if not edited immediately suggested, about 2000 years ago, that people might be civil to each other, and was nailed to a cross for his troubles - does not trouble me unduly.
I understand that the entanglements of Church and State in Ireland vexes some people however I feel that their ire should be directed towards the State in this regard. I appreciate that those of no faith sometimes feel compelled to express their view that it's all a bit silly really, however, I do feel that it costs nothing to express such views in a civil if not respectful manner. And of course quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I understand that the entanglements of Church and State in Ireland vexes some people however I feel that their ire should be directed towards the State in this regard. I appreciate that those of no faith sometimes feel compelled to express their view that it's all a bit silly really, however, I do feel that it costs nothing to express such views in a civil if not respectful manner. And of course quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
"For specific value-added services - funerals, weddings, those masses they say for people after they die (apologies but the name escapes me) - the payment is mandatory."
Not in the Catholic Church I went to as a child. Perhaps in some individual parishes, and perhaps more commonly so now than before. But I think that where payments are on some sort of a prescribed scale, most such payments are expected, rather than demanded and I doubt that they are ever insisted upon.
Not in the Catholic Church I went to as a child. Perhaps in some individual parishes, and perhaps more commonly so now than before. But I think that where payments are on some sort of a prescribed scale, most such payments are expected, rather than demanded and I doubt that they are ever insisted upon.
This sort of stuff is a pure rip-off as it can never deliver what it promises (e.g. predicting the future etc.).
Allegedly....(yer honour)
The Catholic Church promises eternal salvation, are you telling me they can deliver? I think with these things people just want to feel reassured. A psychic who only ever delivers bad news probably won't get much repeat business. I imagine (or I would hope at any rate) that even the people paying for psychic services don't believe these people can actually predict the future.
Otherwise, I sure people would be asking about lottery numbers rather than tall dark handsome strangers!
I admire your optimism. See how much luck you'd have if you asked a priest to marry you and told him you didn't plan on paying him. Not that I don't think they should get paid for the service they provide - just that I don't think it is a difference you can really point to between the church and tarot card reading or other jiggery-pokery.
I think I'm enmbroiled in a church defence here except my initial argument was that faith has helped alot of people and I believe more than it has hindered. I do believe some priests have great faith in their ideologies and would only want to do well onto others while some other priests are simply nasty men that can be found in any institution. I don't think that the priests and their latest legacy have anything to do with faith per se, nor the constant interference from the church in modern day matters.
again this is a very simplistic approach to the subject, as church goers don't go simply to save their souls.
again this is a very simplistic approach to the subject, as church goers don't go simply to save their souls.
I'm not sure I understand fully what faith means except as some kind of willing act of suspending disbelief in order to believe what would appear to be impossible. From my understanding of your posts, you have leapt to the defence of faith in general, and ended up in the position of defending the Catholic church specifically which was not your intention. I don't agree that faith serves any great purpose, and see little distinction between faith in a Christian God and faith in palmistry as a means of predicting the future.
Hence, my taking amusement in the peddler of one particular brand of faith warning his devotees against the dangers of another rival brand. I was not in the least surprised to see him pick on the weakest rival - the new age/mystical/occult sphere, and not challenge the stronger rivals of Judaism, Islam and alternative Christian sects.
Yes but surely the object of attending is specifically for that purpose - the other factors, such as it being a social outlet, sense of community etc. are extraneous benefits. I can't imagine there are many church goers who don't believe in the afterlife/heaven and the ability of following a Catholic way of life to get them there.
Incidentally - did anyone hear the debate on the "Last word" on this issue? It featured David Quinn challenging Tom Higgins (CEO of Irish Psychics Live) challenging Higgins to have his claims pass the "Richard Dawkins Test" and demanding he substantiate them with "scientific evidence". Funny stuff.
I am a Catholic, semi-lapsed I suppose you'd call it. Over the last 7 years in my family we have had, among other things, two funerals, a wedding and a christening. On every occasion we asked what contribution to make. On every occasion the priests ( there were three separate priests, Irish and French) were at pains to point out that payment was not obligatory, that if we couldn't afford it we had no need to pay anything.
Ya I caught some of that, and i agree that when you examine christian beliefs it is hard to give a clear argument , because there is no evidence.
Your right about my stance insofar as I believe faith can be good for people, but I should have added not blind faith as in unwillingly to listen to an argument. I suppose I could be accused of blurring the lines between hope and faith because I do believe that in times of despair people do cling to believes that they thought were redundant.
My guess is this is an argument that has too many loopholes to be narrowed down.
Your right about my stance insofar as I believe faith can be good for people, but I should have added not blind faith as in unwillingly to listen to an argument. I suppose I could be accused of blurring the lines between hope and faith because I do believe that in times of despair people do cling to believes that they thought were redundant.
My guess is this is an argument that has too many loopholes to be narrowed down.