# The Eucharistic Congress in 2012



## The_Banker (24 Jun 2008)

Is anybody here getting as excited as I am with regard to the announcement that The Eucharistic Congress of 2012 will be held in Ireland?
1932 revisited?


----------



## so-crates (24 Jun 2008)

It isn't quite the Olympics 

Do you really want to revisit 1932? Not been there myself but it sounds like it was, in that classic curse, "an interesting time"


----------



## ClubMan (24 Jun 2008)

The_Banker said:


> Is anybody here getting as excited as I am with regard to the announcement that The Eucharistic Congress of 2012 will be held in Ireland?


Me. If your excitement level is zero or negative.


----------



## ninsaga (24 Jun 2008)

aaahhh I can just see the hawkers in O'Connel Street now - having placed the order in China for the plastic relics...

'Get yar roserarie beeads now three for a fiver'


----------



## dewdrop (24 Jun 2008)

It will be an interesting study in the change of attitudes now and 1932. A special Act was passed by the Government banning, inter alia, the sale of liquor between certain hours on a particular day. Hisstorians often mention that this hugh event, so important then to a fledling state trying to get international recognition, had subsequent implications for the general tenor of our Constitution.


----------



## Caveat (24 Jun 2008)

ninsaga said:


> 'Get yar roserarie beeads now three for a fiver'


 
Exactly - just like what currently happens directly outside some churches during a "solemn" rolleyes novena...


----------



## Vanilla (24 Jun 2008)

Caveat said:


> Exactly - just like what currently happens directly outside some churches during a "solemn" rolleyes novena...


 
Don't complain. Saw the stall recently outside a local church and had a squint inside. There was some fabulous gear in there, I picked up an elasticated rosary bead bracelet with cross etc with little white and handpainted beads for a song. ( Okay with an alleluia chorus). And I love it and wear it all the time. And say the rosary....okay well not the last bit.


----------



## DrMoriarty (24 Jun 2008)

And I thought Leonard Cohen, Lou Reed and Tom Waits all coming here in the same year was a big deal.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 Jun 2008)

I suppose the view is that the bad stuff (abuse scandals) is more or less through the pipe and a Pope's visit next year or by 2012 together with the above will "re-brand" the church again.

I'd be somewhat more excited by a Papal visit (though JP II would have been much bigger box office).

I think it'll be more of a special interest event (like a bikers weekend ) rather that a national "obsession" - I doubt it'll raise any more hype than the Ryder Cup - and that was a bit of a yawn in the end.


----------



## MOB (25 Jun 2008)

It's an event for Catholics.  

We have a lot of Catholics, so it will be a big event.  

For non-Catholics it's pretty much going to be a non-event except as regards issues such as crowd control and traffic.  

I support the libertarian view that people should are entitled to freedom of choice (within limits) in practicing their religion.   I don't suppose this will stop a lot of oul' anti-Catholic guff from commentators who have no business commenting on Catholic affairs, which I must say I do find irritating, but it's all gentle enough stuff.


----------



## Pique318 (25 Jun 2008)

MOB said:


> I support the libertarian view that people should are entitled to freedom of choice (within limits) in practicing their religion.   I don't suppose this will stop a lot of oul' anti-Catholic guff from commentators who have no business commenting on Catholic affairs, which I must say I do find irritating, but it's all gentle enough stuff.



Why have they 'no business' commentating on something newsworthy, isn't that their job ? Or is it that they have no business doing so when the commentary is not fawning and 'respectful enough' ?


----------



## csirl (25 Jun 2008)

I think that it will look like something from a Father Ted episode.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> i Think That It Will Look Like Something From A Father Ted Episode.


----------



## PM1234 (25 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> I think that it will look like something from a Father Ted episode.



"Down With This Sort Of Thing"


----------



## MOB (25 Jun 2008)

Pique318 said:


> Why have they 'no business' commentating on something newsworthy, isn't that their job ? Or is it that they have no business doing so when the commentary is not fawning and 'respectful enough' ?



Read my post.  

It's the anti-catholic guff that irritates me.  The Catholic church is by far the most popular target in our media for intellectually lazy, anti-religious pap masquerading as news coverage and critical commentary.  It gets tedious.


----------



## eileen alana (25 Jun 2008)

What is the Eucharistic Congress of 2012 all about, is it an enumenical affair or what?


----------



## eileen alana (25 Jun 2008)

and what has 1932 got to do with it?


----------



## diarmuidc (25 Jun 2008)

MOB said:


> It gets tedious.


[broken link removed]


----------



## Pique318 (26 Jun 2008)

MOB said:


> Read my post.
> 
> It's the anti-catholic guff that irritates me.  The Catholic church is by far the most popular target in our media for intellectually lazy, anti-religious pap masquerading as news coverage and critical commentary.  It gets tedious.



I read you post already, I don't have to do so again.

Besides, who decides if anyone has any business commentating on Catholic Church topics ? Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to post on this topic....maybe you shouldn't...
If there were a load of right-wing biddies going on about how great the church is, I think many many more people would find that objectionable, wouldn't you ?


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2008)

MOB said:


> I support the libertarian view that people should are entitled to freedom of choice (within limits) in practicing their religion.


What limits? The standard _Libertarian _caveat is that people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm the person or property of other non consenting parties (or minors). Obviously the laws of the land may also circumscribe what's allowed in practice.  Do you mean this or something else?


> It's the anti-catholic guff that irritates me. The Catholic church is by far the most popular target in our media for intellectually lazy, anti-religious pap masquerading as news coverage and critical commentary. It gets tedious.


It's certainly not one way traffic. The _Catholic Church _are happy to meddle in public affairs when it suits them. For example fighting tooth and nail to retain control of "national" schools and attempting to influence _Government _policies (e.g. on partnership, social, justice etc. issues) via self appointed bodies such as _CORI _and individuals such as _Father Sean Healy_. If it's OK for them to do this then surely it's OK for "outsiders" to comment on them and what they do?


----------



## Caveat (26 Jun 2008)

Good post ClubMan.

I too would regard myself as a libertarian - but IMO that certainly doesn't exclude me from commenting on what I may see as hypocrisy and/or duplicity or other aspects of church practices if they affect my daily life. An example of which I mentioned above.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2008)

Just to clarify - I was not accusing the _Catholic Church _of hypocrisy or duplicity in my post above. Neither do I expect them (or any other religious, representative or lobby group) NOT to get involved in national issues. But when any group or individual engages in this way then their actions and motivations are surely open to all, and not just members/insiders, to scrutinise and comment on? Specific internal matters (e.g. the _Catholic Church _stating or enforcing its own rules on its members) are another matter and arguably their own business. For example I personally do have strong opinions on _Catholic Church _control of national schools and their attempts to influence Government policy on various matters but I don't really care of they preclude separated or divorced individuals from remarrying in the church or claim that abortion is wrong etc.


----------



## cole (26 Jun 2008)

ClubMan said:


> It's certainly not one way traffic. The _Catholic Church _are happy to meddle in public affairs when it suits them. For example fighting tooth and nail to retain control of "national" schools


 
The Catholic Church built and run most of the national schools.


----------



## MOB (26 Jun 2008)

ClubMan said:


> What limits? The standard _Libertarian _caveat is that people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm the person or property of other non consenting parties (or minors). Obviously the laws of the land may also circumscribe what's allowed in practice.  Do you mean this or something else?
> 
> this.
> 
> ...




This is a logical fallacy.   The Catholic church is just one of many bodies which comments on and has an input into public affairs.  Certainly, there is no good reason for the Church to have any sort of 'special position', nor does it have.   Of course it is perfectly fine to engage with and disagree with the church's position on matters of public policy. That is normal political discussion.   But the Eucharistic Congress is not a public event and it is not a political event.  It is just a gathering of practising Catholics.  If you are not a practising catholic, it really isn't any of your business.

I am not aware of the Catholic Church fighting tooth and nail to retain control of national schools.  So far as I am aware, it is the only owner of schools which is pursuing a policy of divesture.


----------



## csirl (26 Jun 2008)

> The Catholic Church built and run most of the national schools.


 
Sorry, but the State i.e. taxpayers, built and pays the staff in all these national schools. The Catholic Church gets a great deal as it gets free assets at taxpayers expense.


----------



## csirl (26 Jun 2008)

Anyone know if Richard Dawkins will be one of the speakers at the Eucharistic Conference?


----------



## cole (26 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> Sorry, but the State i.e. taxpayers, built and pays the staff in all these national schools. The Catholic Church gets a great deal as it gets free assets at taxpayers expense.


 
Afraid not. The state pays the teachers. The schools were built by the Catholic Church and are/were run by them. Granted the State has built the more modern schools.


----------



## csirl (26 Jun 2008)

> The schools were built by the Catholic Church and are/were run by them


 
Since the foundation of the State, the schools have been built and maintained with taxpayers money through building grants from D/Education. How many schools are pre-1920s and havent needed any maintenance since then? 

In the past, before their numbers declined, the religious also got well paid jobs paid by the taxpayer as Principals, teachers etc. in these schools without having to go through a competitive recruitment process.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jun 2008)

MOB said:


> This is a logical fallacy.   The Catholic church is just one of many bodies which comments on and has an input into public affairs.  Certainly, there is no good reason for the Church to have any sort of 'special position', nor does it have.   Of course it is perfectly fine to engage with and disagree with the church's position on matters of public policy. That is normal political discussion.   But the Eucharistic Congress is not a public event and it is not a political event.  It is just a gathering of practising Catholics.  If you are not a practising catholic, it really isn't any of your business.


There is no logical fallacy and nothing that I said contradicts what you are saying here. 


> I am not aware of the Catholic Church fighting tooth and nail to retain control of national schools.  So far as I am aware, it is the only owner of schools which is pursuing a policy of divesture.


Not according to several recent reports about control schools in parts of _Dublin _at least.


----------



## MrMan (26 Jun 2008)

csirl said:


> Sorry, but the State i.e. taxpayers, built and pays the staff in all these national schools. The Catholic Church gets a great deal as it gets free assets at taxpayers expense.



Not disagreeing with you, but what do you mean free assets?


----------



## MOB (26 Jun 2008)

MOB said:


> If it's OK for them to do this then surely it's OK for "outsiders" to comment on them and what they do?



Clubman, This is what I referred to as the logical fallacy.    Perhaps some examples will make my view clearer.  

It's ok for me to offer advice to clients on their affairs.  This does not make it their business to advise me on my my affairs.   

It's ok for a politician to make public pronouncements on measures which may be needed to reduce family breakdown in society;  This does not mean that the politician's own family life thereby becomes a matter of legitimate public interest.

It's ok for a church to comment on matters of public interest.  This does not mean that the internal conduct of that church becomes a matter of legitimate public interest.

I don't think our positions are actually all that far apart.  I concur completely that "Specific internal matters (e.g. the Catholic Church stating or enforcing its own rules on its members) are another matter and arguably their own business. "   Except I would say "definitely their own business" and I would draw the line between public interest matters and internal church matters in a different place.  For example, I would include Catholic schools in this.   It would of course be wrong (and indefensible) if Catholic schools got higher public funding than (or priority to) other voluntary schools - but all things being equal, the Church should be just as free to run its schools as other voluntary bodies are to run theirs.   There is a structural problem that the church has more schools than it needs, but, as stated, the church has already recognised this.  We are in transition.  Transition is never free of pain.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2008)

I agree completely with ClubMan on this issue.


----------



## Remix (27 Jun 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> I suppose the view is that the bad stuff (abuse scandals) is more or less through the pipe and a Pope's visit next year or by 2012 together with the above will "re-brand" the church again.


 

I read somewhere that on the Pope's visit to the Boston he was visibly shaken when a huge document with the names and stories of abused individuals was opened to him. He would have been aware of the statistics but seeing so many individual stories must have brought the magnitude of the human tragedy home to him.

Boston by some accounts was the epicenter of the abuse scandal in the US and Boston, of course, is an "Irish" city. It would have been a major destination for Irish priests over the years.

Has anybody seen this angle examined? i.e was the export of Irish corruption and perversion a significiant contributing factor to the US scandal?


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2008)

Remix said:


> Has anybody seen this angle examined? i.e was the export of Irish corruption and perversion a significiant contributing factor to the US scandal?


 Yes. There and most disturbingly in the Mount Cashel Boys Home Newfoundland. There is a strong link between Irish clergy and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.


----------



## csirl (27 Jun 2008)

> Not disagreeing with you, but what do you mean free assets?


 
The school buildings and land they are built on. The Catholic Church's name is on the deeds for all those schools built with taxpayers money that are under their patronage.

Whats worse is that some of these assets i.e. spare land, have been sold off to housing developers in recent years thus realising the church a nice profit.

Legally speaking, there is nothing to stop any of these catholic schools from just shutting down, selling the assets and running off with the money (in fact this is happening regularly in some parts of Dublin where numbers are falling and schools being closed).


----------



## Simeon (29 Jun 2008)

The_Banker said:


> Is anybody here getting as excited as I am with regard to the announcement that The Eucharistic Congress of 2012 will be held in Ireland?
> 1932 revisited?


Have been hyperventilating since the news broke. As for that fellow in the black saying that he felt 'humbled'? Can someone shed some light on his grasp of the English language? By the time you are halfway up the hierarchial ladder, I would have thought that humility would not be one of your strong points. Corpus rotundum etc.


----------



## Ash 22 (1 Jul 2008)

Surely this will be a huge event in our country for all practicising Catholics.  A lot of clergy bashing goes on but we must spare a thought for all our good priests both here and all over the world who have done and are doing so much good and it must be so disheartening for them having to listen to all this.


----------



## redstar (1 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> Surely this will be a huge event in our country for all practicising Catholics.  A lot of clergy bashing goes on but we must spare a thought for all our good priests both here and all over the world who have done and are doing so much good and it must be so disheartening for them having to listen to all this.



I have no special regard for priests, mullahs, rabbis, jedi knights etc ... but I also think that good behaviour and deeds should be applauded and encouraged, as well as attacking bad behaviour. There is a tendency to just concentrate on the bad stuff. Probably human nature, I suppose, just like asking why do the news media only seem to report bad news.


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> Surely this will be a huge event in our country for all practicising Catholics.


 
Id be more excited about the possibility of a Rooster Worship Congress - at least roosters exist.


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

> Id be more excited about the possibility of a Rooster Worship Congress - at least roosters exist.



I take it your not a *practising *catholic then?


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> I take it your not a *practising *catholic then?


 
I practised and I practised and I practised, but I could never quite see what it was I was practising for - so I quit.


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

All the more reason for you not to comment on Ash22's declaration that it would be an event to excite practising catholics then.


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> All the more reason for you not to comment on Ash22's declaration that it would be an event to excite practising catholics then.


 
Thank you for telling me on a public forum what I should and should not pass comment on. I hadnt realised you were a moderator.


----------



## Ash 22 (2 Jul 2008)

Mr Man just out of curiousity and getting slightly away from the topic and not knowing your status but lets say if you were to be married in the morning would you marry in the Church? and what happens when it comes to the end of your life would you have a Church funeral?


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

> Thank you for telling me on a public forum what I should and should not pass comment on. I hadnt realised you were a moderator.



No problem


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

> Mr Man just out of curiousity and getting slightly away from the topic and not knowing your status but lets say if you were to be married in the morning would you marry in the Church? and what happens when it comes to the end of your life would you have a Church funeral?



Yes to both.


----------



## redstar (2 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> All the more reason for you not to comment on Ash22's declaration that it would be an event to excite practising catholics then.



So by extension only economists should comment on the state of the economy, only teachers should comment on education, only doctors/nurses should comment on the HSE ?


----------



## Ash 22 (2 Jul 2008)

MrMan sorry I meant that question for Truthseeker, sorry again.  its over to you Truthseeker.


----------



## bullbars (2 Jul 2008)

redstar said:


> So by extension only economists should comment on the state of the economy, only teachers should comment on education, only doctors/nurses should comment on the HSE ?


 
Constructive comments on the topics and mocking are very different. 
So by extension, as you put it, its a free for all to mock anything that I dont understand or have no interest in? Its blatant Catholic Church bashing and nothing more.


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> MrMan sorry I meant that question for Truthseeker, sorry again. its over to you Truthseeker.


 
I am getting married next year in a civil ceremony - no church involvement.

Im not all that concerned with what happens when I die, on a personal level Id be happy to be cremated with no religion involved. However if the people I leave behind draw comfort from doing a church ceremony then I wont really be in a position to dispute it!!! I would imagine anyone who knows me who would be in charge of dealing with my remains would know I wouldnt be interested in a church ceremony for that.


----------



## Ash 22 (2 Jul 2008)

Are you by any chance going to Damascus on your honeymoon?


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> Are you by any chance going to Damascus on your honeymoon?


 
No?


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

bullbars said:


> Constructive comments on the topics and mocking are very different.
> So by extension, as you put it, its a free for all to mock anything that I dont understand or have no interest in? Its blatant Catholic Church bashing and nothing more.


 
Im afraid I find constructive comments on an organisation that promotes an imaginary belief an impossibility. I am as entitled as anyone else to post on a topic, what you see as mocking I see as truth. It has nothing to do with a lack of understanding or a lack of interest.


----------



## redstar (2 Jul 2008)

bullbars said:


> Constructive comments on the topics and mocking are very different.
> So by extension, as you put it, its a free for all to mock anything that I dont understand or have no interest in? Its blatant Catholic Church bashing and nothing more.



The point I am making is aimed at people who take offence and try to limit discussions.
And yes, you can mock anything you like. If people take offence, thats down to their own sensitivities. The best defence to offence is to ignore it.


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

> So by extension only economists should comment on the state of the economy, only teachers should comment on education, only doctors/nurses should comment on the HSE ?


Ash22's comment was stating that cathlolics would be excited by the prospect of the event, truthseeker undermined that by saying:


> Id be more excited about the possibility of a Rooster Worship Congress - at least roosters exist.


There was no need for that comment because ash's comment was obviously directed at catholics.


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

I wasn't trying to limit discussion I do realise that people will mock and sometimes try to offend.



redstar said:


> The point I am making is aimed at people who take offence and try to limit discussions.
> And yes, you can mock anything you like. If people take offence, thats down to their own sensitivities. The best defence to offence is to ignore it.


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> I wasn't trying to limit discussion I do realise that people will mock and sometimes try to offend.


 
Actually I was just being mildly humourous in my original post that started all this off, I notice that on page 1 other posters made similiarly off the cuff remarks but (and not for the first time) MrMan decided to take a swipe at me which then led to all of the rest of it.


----------



## The_Banker (2 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> Surely this will be a huge event in our country for all practicising Catholics. A lot of clergy bashing goes on but we must spare a thought for all our good priests both here and all over the world who have done and are doing so much good and it must be so disheartening for them having to listen to all this.


 
While it is slightly getting away from the Eucharistic Congress I have a problem with your statement above. You say there are "good priests" but where were these priests when abuse was going on in the church?
The present hierarchy in the Catholic Church worldwide were the very ones who moved "bad priests" to different parishes, to different countries without firstly reporting them to the Police of the duristriction and secondly hindered subsequent investigations. That is what the "good priests" did.

With regard to the Eucharistic Congress itself. The Catholic Hierarchy are quite entitled to hold it but I would hope that the government does not get involved in it in any shape or form. Unlike 1932 there is no room (or appetite) for state involvement or tax payers money in this event.

The Pope may visit ahead of this event and he should be greeted just like any other head of state, with courtesy and dignatity but I would hope that the government would voice its displeasure to the head of Vatican City for its cover up of the abuse of Irish citizens.


----------



## Remix (2 Jul 2008)

> Id be more excited about the possibility of a Rooster Worship Congress - at least roosters exist.


 
Very convincing logic there Truthseeker. Although still not as convincing as the central reasoning of new Atheism which goes along the lines:

1. My choc-ice melted on my hand
2. This is a bad thing to happen and it upset me.
3. God--an omniscient, wholly good being--would not allow bad things to happen to me
4. God did not prevent my choc-ice melting on my hand.
5. Ergo, there is no God.


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

> Actually I was just being mildly humourous in my original post that started all this off, I notice that on page 1 other posters made similiarly off the cuff remarks but (and not for the first time) MrMan decided to take a swipe at me which then led to all of the rest of it.


your humourous post was in response to someone who obviously had some belief in religion so I felt it was ill timed at best. It didn't bother me really, just standing up for the underdog.
I have disagreed with you before because we have held different views on some things I don't do it just to disagree with you, I've probably even agreed with you from time to time and now i'm going to have to disagree with you more so it doesn't look like you got to me!


----------



## redstar (2 Jul 2008)

Remix said:


> Very convincing logic there Truthseeker. Although still not as convincing as the central reasoning of new Atheism which goes along the lines:
> 
> 1. My choc-ice melted on my hand
> 2. This is a bad thing to happen and it upset me.
> ...



Or alternatively...

1. My choc-ice melted on my hand
2. This is a bad thing to happen and it upset me.
3. God--an omniscient, wholly good being--would not allow bad things to happen to me
4. I must have been bad so I am being punished.
5. I should pray for forgiveness, and try harder not to offend Him


----------



## Ash 22 (2 Jul 2008)

The Banker, you cannot tarnish every priest, they were not all involved in cover ups. We're only talking of a small minority here. Who I feel sorry for is the priest who is going about his day to day duty. In the light of what happened it cannot be easy for him.


----------



## MrMan (2 Jul 2008)

> The present hierarchy in the Catholic Church worldwide were the very ones who moved "bad priests" to different parishes, to different countries without firstly reporting them to the Police of the duristriction and secondly hindered subsequent investigations. That is what the "good priests" did.



I think by mentioning the hierarchy you have pinpointed the culprits but that still leaves alot of 'good priests' who should not be tarnished with the same brush.


----------



## bullbars (2 Jul 2008)

redstar said:


> The point I am making is aimed at people who take offence and try to limit discussions.
> And yes, you can mock anything you like. If people take offence, thats down to their own sensitivities. The best defence to offence is to ignore it.


 
Mocking isnt discussing.
I take offense when it is obvious ignorance of what the Eucharistic Congress means to a lot of people and is then spun in to a forum for having a go at The Church. 
Anyone can comment on, for example, the economy, but constructive comments mean you are discussing the topic. Anything else and your just having a go at something you know nothing about and are consequently limiting discussion.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2008)

The_Banker said:


> The Pope may visit ahead of this event and he should be greeted just like any other head of state, with courtesy and dignatity but I would hope that the government would voice its displeasure to the head of Vatican City for its cover up of the abuse of Irish citizens.


 Well said


----------



## redstar (2 Jul 2008)

bullbars said:


> Mocking isnt discussing.
> I take offense when it is obvious ignorance of what the Eucharistic Congress means to a lot of people and is then spun in to a forum for having a go at The Church.
> Anyone can comment on, for example, the economy, but constructive comments mean you are discussing the topic. Anything else and your just having a go at something you know nothing about and are consequently limiting discussion.



Fair enough. But I'd like to think anyone who is offended by wry comments/jokes aimed at The Church, which will not damage anybody except their sensitivities, would also be VERY offended at that Church for committing child abuse.

Anyway, I think an organisation like the Catholic Church is well able to take a bit of a joke now and then.


----------



## Green (2 Jul 2008)

The_Banker said:


> The Pope may visit ahead of this event and he should be greeted just like any other head of state, with courtesy and dignatity but I would hope that the *government would voice its displeasure to the head of Vatican City for its cover up of the abuse of Irish citizens.[/*quote]
> 
> Why wait for his visit to the Eucharistic Congress to do this, why not do it now?


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

bullbars said:


> Mocking isnt discussing.
> I take offense when it is obvious ignorance of what the Eucharistic Congress means to a lot of people and is then spun in to a forum for having a go at The Church.
> Anyone can comment on, for example, the economy, but constructive comments mean you are discussing the topic. Anything else and your just having a go at something you know nothing about and are consequently limiting discussion.



The Eucharistic Congress means something to a lot of people. It means nothing to me. Does this mean I am not entitled to air my opinion? Or should I be quiet, because my opinion is construed as by some 'mocking'? From your post above it would seem that if I dont agree with YOUR opinion then I should be quiet because I am limiting discussion - hmmmmmm, strange the way the church can brainwash people into thinking its acceptable to shut down other peoples viewpoints.


----------



## Purple (2 Jul 2008)

truthseeker said:


> The Eucharistic Congress means something to a lot of people. It means nothing to me. Does this mean I am not entitled to air my opinion? Or should I be quiet, because my opinion is construed as by some 'mocking'? From your post above it would seem that if I dont agree with YOUR opinion then I should be quiet because I am limiting discussion - hmmmmmm, strange the way the church can brainwash people into thinking its acceptable to shut down other peoples viewpoints.



Personally I try not to mock or cause offence on AAM just in case I upset anyone.


----------



## truthseeker (2 Jul 2008)

Purple said:


> Personally I try not to mock or cause offence on AAM just in case I upset anyone.



+1

I had no idea a small comment that I thought was funny would be construed as 'mocking' or 'offensive' to anyone - which only strengthens MY view that there is danger in religion - whoops I better be careful, someone out there might think Im being offensive!!!

Seriously though, Im amazed anyone would take the Rooster Worship post to heart!!! Why did no one react to the Father Ted post on page 1 in the same way?

For what its worth to anyone out there who feels offended by my Rooster Worship comment, I did not intend to mock the Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, Jedi Knights, or any other religious organisation. I humbly offer my apology to any of those people who did not see the humour in my comment.


----------



## Ash 22 (2 Jul 2008)

I certainly think a trip to Damascus would'nt do you any harm atall!


----------



## truthseeker (3 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> I certainly think a trip to Damascus would'nt do you any harm atall!


 
I had to google this as I didnt know what you meant, from what I can gather St Paul was going there to annihilate christians and then became converted to Christanity on the road to Damascus.

Now - just to clarify, I never mentioned anywhere that I wanted to annihilate anyone.
Suggesting that I take the road to Damascus would indicate to me that you think I need to be converted.

Is that not just as offensive as me suggesting that a Catholic gives up their faith? (which I did not suggest).


----------



## MrMan (3 Jul 2008)

> Fair enough. But I'd like to think anyone who is offended by wry comments/jokes aimed at The Church, which will not damage anybody except their sensitivities, would also be VERY offended at that Church for committing child abuse



You realise the 'church' didn't commit child abuse, just like the schools, swim instructors etc aren't responsible. It was the individuals who commited the crimes and to simply label the church as the offenders is lazy and obviously meant to rile people. The hierarchy as you already put it have alot to answer for but there is alot more to 'the church' than just them.



> hmmmmmm, strange the way the church can brainwash people into thinking its acceptable to shut down other peoples viewpoints


Or it could simply be peoples viewpoint minus the brainwashing, seems more plausible to me.



> Seriously though, Im amazed anyone would take the Rooster Worship post to heart!!! Why did no one react to the Father Ted post on page 1 in the same way?


Because it seemed more of a put down considering the post the preceded it.



> Is that not just as offensive as me suggesting that a Catholic gives up their faith? (which I did not suggest).



If that was the suggestion then yes you could see it that way (we just agreed).


----------



## Ash 22 (3 Jul 2008)

I certainly don't mean to offend you truthseeker atall and it was the 'conversion' side of things I was thinking of. Maybe the comparison is slightly different, as far as I can gather you were baptised into the Catholic faith but don't practice it now---telling a Catholic give up their religion is not exactly the same.


----------



## Caveat (3 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> as far as I can gather you were baptised into the Catholic faith...


 
What gives you that impression?


----------



## truthseeker (3 Jul 2008)

Ash 22 said:


> I certainly don't mean to offend you truthseeker atall and it was the 'conversion' side of things I was thinking of. Maybe the comparison is slightly different, as far as I can gather you were baptised into the Catholic faith but don't practice it now---telling a Catholic give up their religion is not exactly the same.


 
A 'conversion' implies a switch from one belief system to another. You implied I should 'convert' - this could be construed as offensive to me as it would be if I suggested to a Catholic that they should 'convert' to Atheism.


----------



## Ash 22 (3 Jul 2008)

Caveat said:


> What gives you that impression?


 
Check one of the earlier posts which gives that indication.


----------



## Ash 22 (3 Jul 2008)

Truthseeker don't take any offence as there was none meant.


----------



## Pique318 (3 Jul 2008)

The way I see it, and I don't think I'm alone here is that if you want to believe in an imaginary creature/being/entity and live your live believing that whatever he/she/it/they say is fact and not to be questioned, then fine, off you go.

However, when these same people abuse the position they find themselves in (due to the ignorance of the gen.pop) then we have a problem.

Dictating to (imo) misguided people is one thing, but when the dictating is to heads of state (GWB et al) it's a different story. This inevitably results in massive financial benefits for the organisation. The utter horror of what happened so many children in this country alone with its tiny population was the last straw. Remember, these priests (and yes I know people are fallible blah blah blah) were gods chosen representatives on this planet. What does that say about god? More to the point, what does that say about those who still, after all the lies/cover-ups/etc, STILL believe in the inherent goodness of a makey-uppy dude in a dressing gown who sees all, knows all, and can do all, yet does f.. all to intervene in the evil that (his) men do ?

I would go so far as to say that people who believe all this religious hokum are not just deluded, but demented, and are to be pitied...certainly not to be let into any position of authority over others.

But that's just my opinion 

No offence to anyone in particular meant ! Besides, if god does exist, I'm sure he'll forgive me


----------



## MrMan (3 Jul 2008)

> The way I see it, and I don't think I'm alone here is that if you want to believe in an imaginary creature/being/entity and live your live believing that whatever he/she/it/they say is fact and not to be questioned, then fine, off you go.


Thats nice of you, so we can all believe what we want, well thats a good start anyway.



> However, when these same people abuse the position they find themselves in (due to the ignorance of the gen.pop) then we have a problem


Well I guess you could debate actually who are the ignorant ones.



> The utter horror of what happened so many children in this country alone with its tiny population was the last straw.



If abuse within the clergy hadn't happened would you hold the same views? Would you accept that it was a minority of the clergy that were abusing? 




> Remember, these priests (and yes I know people are fallible blah blah blah) were gods chosen representatives on this planet. What does that say about god? More to the point, what does that say about those who still, after all the lies/cover-ups/etc, STILL believe in the inherent goodness of a makey-uppy dude in a dressing gown who sees all, knows all, and can do all, yet does f.. all to intervene in the evil that (his) men do



Apart from being dismissive of how people interpret their god and what gods role is I don't think you can really sum up peoples views and beliefs through a short paragraph of petty jibes.



> I would go so far as to say that people who believe all this religious hokum are not just deluded, but demented, and are to be pitied...certainly not to be let into any position of authority over others.



That is your opinion, but I don't think your pity is required but its nice that you care.


----------



## Ash 22 (3 Jul 2008)

Pique318   I for one certainly don't consider myself to be either deluded or demented and don't need your pity. Think its you who need the pity. A small number of priests did wrong we all agree not the vast majority of them who are doing great work against the odds.  Priests were not the only profession involved in wrongdoing, but they seem to be the main target when it comes to publicity.


----------



## Brianne (3 Jul 2008)

No , as a practising Catholic, I don't need anyone's pity. Yes , I am disgusted  at the child abuse scandals and more disgusted at those in charge who themselves were not paedophiles and who covered up .
But to be so against the catholic church because of this is akin to labelling all fathers as child abusers ,indeed all men, as the majority of sex abuse of children is done in the home by those whose duty it is to care for them i.e. their fathers.
As this is patently ridiculous and the majority of men are decent human beings, in the same way the majority of the clergy are decent. The set up, and lets not forget, the society of the time, enabled this type of abuse, not just in Ireland, and hopefully openess and questioning of authority with sexual abuse awareness will not facilitate this again.
People are entitled to believe what they want provided it doesn't harm others and some people, mainly ex Catholics will never forgive and maybe can't. 
However, many people believe in the message despite flaws on the part of the messengers and will be interested in the Eucharistic Congress. They will however at times struggle with turning the other cheek as the catholic church seems to get more than its share of vitriol.But then again, nobody said it was easy.One thing I think is that some of the atheists would be quite insulted if catholics told them they pitied them.


----------



## Purple (3 Jul 2008)

Brianne said:


> No , as a practising Catholic, I don't need anyone's pity. Yes , I am disgusted  at the child abuse scandals and more disgusted at those in charge who themselves were not paedophiles and who covered up .
> But to be so against the catholic church because of this is akin to labelling all fathers as child abusers ,indeed all men, as the majority of sex abuse of children is done in the home by those whose duty it is to care for them i.e. their fathers.
> As this is patently ridiculous and the majority of men are decent human beings, in the same way the majority of the clergy are decent. The set up, and lets not forget, the society of the time, enabled this type of abuse, not just in Ireland, and hopefully openess and questioning of authority with sexual abuse awareness will not facilitate this again.
> People are entitled to believe what they want provided it doesn't harm others and some people, mainly ex Catholics will never forgive and maybe can't.
> However, many people believe in the message despite flaws on the part of the messengers and will be interested in the Eucharistic Congress. They will however at times struggle with turning the other cheek as the catholic church seems to get more than its share of vitriol.But then again, nobody said it was easy.One thing I think is that some of the atheists would be quite insulted if catholics told them they pitied them.



Excellent post


----------



## Brianne (4 Jul 2008)

Thank you, Purple!!


----------



## Pique318 (4 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> If abuse within the clergy hadn't happened would you hold the same views? Would you accept that it was a minority of the clergy that were abusing?



Yes and yes. I understand completely that the few bad apples spoiled the barrel for many people BUT this is not my reason for being against religion. My eyes were opened to the fallacy of the 'church' at about age 16 or so when I realised the futility of believing something 'just because'. There is absolutely no reason to believe in Yahweh, Buudah, Mohammed or any of the other gods. Newsflash: They're imaginary!



			
				Brianne said:
			
		

> However, many people believe in the message


Hey I believe in most of the messages that the church comes out with. The thing is, lots of people did so long before the church told them that they should or god would be unhappy. Apart from the commandments that relate to god directly, the rest of them are just 'Guidelines to Being Nice'. To claim that as religous is like trying to patent the act of walking.

Still, like I say, good on you for being happy in your own little belief system. I will not abide the interference of religion on my life however, through the influence the church has on the govt, and would never dare send any children of mine to a church-run school. 
Actually, on that note, how many church-goers/believers etc, send their children to a religious school rather than a non-denominational school ?
Do people think that a 5 year old 'believes' in god ? Why not let them decide when they have all the facts instead of brainwashing a kid by memorising chants without even understanding the words, let alone the overall meaning!? 
That's not fair on the child imo.


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2008)

Brianne said:


> Thank you, Purple!!



You're welcome (from an atheist)


----------



## redstar (4 Jul 2008)

> One thing I think is that some of the atheists would be quite insulted if catholics told them they pitied them.



Being offered pity would be the least of worries - consider the Popes attitude to atheism
as leading to the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice ever known to mankind."

A tad more insulting to all atheists, I would have thought  ?


----------



## MrMan (4 Jul 2008)

> Newsflash: They're imaginary!



Isn't that the beauty of the argument, you can't prove there's no God and i can't prove there is one. your belief is what by the way? No matter what theory people lean towards there plenty of holes in every theory - big bang, evolution, Adam & Eve.



> Do people think that a 5 year old 'believes' in god ? Why not let them decide when they have all the facts instead of brainwashing a kid by memorising chants without even understanding the words, let alone the overall meaning!?
> That's not fair on the child imo.



5 year olds believe in Santa and the tooth fairy so God has a fair chance even with your kids.



> Why not let them decide when they have all the facts instead of brainwashing a kid by memorising chants without even understanding the words, let alone the overall meaning!?



Why not explain the words to them as a good parent? Is it fair to pass on your very obvious disdain towards the church rather than let them make up their own minds?


----------



## MrMan (4 Jul 2008)

Except to atheists the Pope is a man in a dress so I don't think tell take any insult from that.



redstar said:


> Being offered pity would be the least of worries - consider the Popes attitude to atheism
> as leading to the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice ever known to mankind."
> 
> A tad more insulting to all atheists, I would have thought  ?


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2008)

I know; let’s have yet another evolution thread!


----------



## Pique318 (4 Jul 2008)

MrMan said:


> Isn't that the beauty of the argument, you can't prove there's no God and i can't prove there is one. your belief is what by the way? No matter what theory people lean towards there plenty of holes in every theory - big bang, evolution, Adam & Eve.


Science has theories that are based on evidence and hypothesised on.
Religion has a book that tells the truth (ohh no it doesn't, ohh yes it does, etc.etc.) with no proof whatsoever, just 'faith'. Blind faith in a story. 
I know where my faith lies, and it ain't in the bearded guy in the sky, Adam & Eve, walking on water, immaculate conception etc.etc.



MrMan said:


> 5 year olds believe in Santa and the tooth fairy so God has a fair chance even with your kids.


So now you're comparing santa & the tooth fairy to god, finally we're getting somewhere 



MrMan said:


> Why not explain the words to them as a good parent? Is it fair to pass on your very obvious disdain towards the church rather than let them make up their own minds?


 You can't see that my disdain leads me to actually giving them a chance to understand the (using the word very lightly here) 'reasoning' behind religions (all of them) and then deciding which (if any) to choose at a time when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves. 
Not, as is the current status quo, baptising them into Catholicism at a few weeks old, Communion at 5 or 6, 'Confirmation' at 12 and Mass every Sunday. This is not in anyones language comparable to letting them make up their own minds. This is called brainwashing. It's tantamount to child abuse. No baby born is Christain, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. That choice of path can only be made by someone who has matured sufficiently to decide for themselves, based on the EVIDENCE.
Otherwise, we should give the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Orbiting Teapot as much credance as any god.


----------



## MrMan (4 Jul 2008)

> Science has theories that are based on evidence and hypothesised on.



If there was cast iron proof then you could throw away the bible but there isn't. I don't think that most catholics read the bible and consider it a work of fact i think for me anyway, our origins are too clouded in theory and mystery and the faith or belief that I may (however lightly) hold is a positive thing.




> You can't see that my disdain leads me to actually giving them a chance to understand the (using the word very lightly here) 'reasoning' behind religions (all of them) and then deciding which (if any) to choose at a time when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves.
> Not, as is the current status quo, baptising them into Catholicism at a few weeks old, Communion at 5 or 6, 'Confirmation' at 12 and Mass every Sunday. This is not in anyones language comparable to letting them make up their own minds. This is called brainwashing. It's tantamount to child abuse. No baby born is Christain, Jewish, Muslim or whatever. That choice of path can only be made by someone who has matured sufficiently to decide for themselves, based on the EVIDENCE.
> Otherwise, we should give the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Orbiting Teapot as much credance as any god.



Comparing baptism with child abuse is where your argument has really hit a wall, I mean don't be so dramatic. Parents choose baptism, but like many people when that child grows up and decides that he doesn't believe in God then the baptism counts for nothing so its a non issue. You make decisions for your child all the time whether its how you dress them (should they remain naked until they are mature enough to choose what to wear?), you might encourage them to take up hobbies, learn a language, choose subjects etc etc choosing their religion won't brainwash them, just look at yourself you managed to escape the evil clutches of the church at 16.


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2008)

Let's get this back on topic; [broken link removed] proof that God exists (or This post will be deleted if not edited immediately anyway).


----------



## Remix (4 Jul 2008)

> Science has theories that are based on evidence and hypothesised on.


 

The term "science" encompasses a wide spectrum.

There are certain areas where the scientific method and repeatability can be applied and can be trusted as close to 100% as you can reasonably expect.

Other areas are not so clear cut and these can be subject to those oh so human traits of ideology and politics.

Which reminds me, I'd like to propose a "scientific" term for the summer we are having.
Not Global Warming, not Global Cooling, but....... Global Leaking. 

“Un peu de science éloigne de Dieu, mais beaucoup y ramène” 
[A little science distances you from God, but a lot brings you back] ...
Pascal.


----------



## dewdrop (4 Jul 2008)

As this tread is getting very serious i was wondering if the Government has any plans to introduce legislation which did in 1932 which, inter alia, relaxed some driving regulations and banned the opening of pubs during 2 and 6 pm on a certain day.


----------



## The_Banker (7 Jul 2008)

dewdrop said:


> As this tread is getting very serious i was wondering if the Government has any plans to introduce legislation which did in 1932 which, inter alia, relaxed some driving regulations and banned the opening of pubs during 2 and 6 pm on a certain day.


 
I hope not. There is no need for the Government to get involved in this Catholic congress.


----------

