# Parishioners asked to fund pay-offs for paedophiles victims



## dereko1969 (3 Mar 2010)

Can anyone tell me why the Diocese of Ferns isn't selling off the vast amount of property it owns *first* before asking parishioners to pay for the sins of the priests?

[broken link removed]

[broken link removed]

It just seems to be another own goal just as Dermot Martin seemed to be helping the healing process.


----------



## VOR (3 Mar 2010)

The church and the banks have an awful lot in common IMO. They both capitalise the profits & socialise the losses.

From where the Church is sitting this is not an own goal. This is tactical. The priests and bishops do not want to give up their comfortable life and houses. They have no interest in paying for what they did. Instead they would like the poor sods who turn up every week to pay for it. 

And that would be the poor sods who have lost jobs, had pay cuts or their pension cut to shreds. It is grossly insulting and ultimately an indictment of the crass attitude of this group of social parasites. Oh, I'm still talking about the church and not the banksters.


----------



## Caveat (3 Mar 2010)

+ 1 well said VOR.


----------



## elefantfresh (3 Mar 2010)

+ another one

I just don't get it - the cheek of them to even propose the idea. Until people stop handing over money to the Church, I don't see it changing though.


----------



## Chocks away (3 Mar 2010)

+1 VOR bigtime. The people DO have a choice. Stop giving all kinds of donations to these social leeches. I read the article this morning and it seemed surreal. Sinead on Newstalk was bang on. These mysterious dysfunctionals - both male and female - should be put in stocks, the vatican's wealth distributed to good causes, the land banks and buildings given to the communities from whence they were wrestled, tax concessions ended and anyone who feels that God is calling them should be mentally assessed.


----------



## Firefly (3 Mar 2010)

12m..I'm sure the Vatican could stump it.


----------



## Teatime (3 Mar 2010)

+1 VOR and Chocks Away


----------



## truthseeker (3 Mar 2010)

If a church can get people to attend, donate money, hold to their belief system, while simultaneously using that attendance for an element of control in peoples lives (like rules governing peoples sex lives), use the money for their own business ends, and have all these people believing in an imaginary entity - then is it any surprise that when members of that church do terrible things like abuse children, that they chance their arm to get the parish of the very people they abused to pay up?

Im not too sure why people are surprised here. Churches are about power. Not about helping people.


----------



## The_Banker (3 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> If a church can get people to attend, donate money, hold to their belief system, while simultaneously using that attendance for an element of control in peoples lives (like rules governing peoples sex lives), use the money for their own business ends, and have all these people believing in an imaginary entity - then is it any surprise that when members of that church do terrible things like abuse children, that they chance their arm to get the parish of the very people they abused to pay up?
> 
> Im not too sure why people are surprised here. *Churches are about power*. Not about helping people.


 

That is the line that sums up the situation.


----------



## carpedeum (3 Mar 2010)

VOR said:


> The church and the banks have an awful lot in common IMO. They both capitalise the profits & socialise the losses.



VOR, great summation. Brilliantly put in a couple of sentances.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (3 Mar 2010)

Just listened to Sinead O Connor on netcast. She said some disturbing things about an encyclical, threatening victims with excommunication for talking about the abuse. Worth a listen but be prepared for a shock.


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Just listened to Sinead O Connor on netcast. She said some disturbing things about an encyclical, threatening victims with excommunication for talking about the abuse. Worth a listen but be prepared for a shock.



Can you post a link?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (3 Mar 2010)

=

Anything for you dear


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> =
> 
> Anything for you dear



Thanks, just don't tell my wife


----------



## ajapale (3 Mar 2010)

I object to parishoners being asked to pay for lawyers who advised the bishops to fight the charges "tooth and nail".


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2010)

I just had a listen. She spoke very well.

Now I'm thinking that she was right that night long ago on Saturday Night Live when she tore up a photo of the Pope. That was in 92 or 93... she was on the ball nearly 20 years ago.


----------



## Lex Foutish (3 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> 12m..I'm sure the Vatican could stump it.


 
One piece of art from within the Sistine Chapel should cover that comfortably, Firefly! 

I heard someone on radio this morning saying that such donations by anyone stupid enough to pay them could be termed a rape tax. I'm absolutely sickened by the Catholic Church and its behaviour (and misbehaviour).

Great post by VOR. To add to it, many believe that the celibacy rule has nothing to do with the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, etc. It's more to do with preventing women being able to divorce their priest husbands and looking for their share of everything in the marriage. Imagine parish property, the Parish House, etc. having to be sold, and the wife getting half of the proceeds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Women!!!!!


----------



## Lex Foutish (3 Mar 2010)

ajapale said:


> I object to parishoners being asked to pay for lawyers who advised the bishops to fight the charges "tooth and nail".


 
You've hit that nail bang on the head, AJ!


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

Lex Foutish said:


> many believe that the celibacy rule has nothing to do with the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, etc. It's more to do with preventing women being able to divorce their priest husbands and looking for their share of everything in the marriage. Imagine parish property, the Parish House, etc. having to be sold, and the wife getting half of the proceeds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Women!!!!!



Catholic celibacy dates back to the early 4th century (sometime around 300). There was a council of somewhere at which it was stated that only unmarried men should become priests or deacons. This was not always the case and by the 10th century there were many married priests. The argument is that as the Church became more powerful and monasteries became more powerful the chance of an abbot setting himself up as a Duke and leaving the whole thing to his son became a big worry for the Church (individual monasteries in England covered massive areas, taking in villages and hamlets as well as farms and orchards. These were the last place in Britain to own slaves).


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

I really don't have a problem with the celebacy rule at all. All priests joining up today are adults and are aware of this term & condition! 

I think we're all agreed the whole thing stinks, but most (guess) will still get married in a church, send our kids to mass on Sunday and have them baptised, make their communion & confirmation..


----------



## truthseeker (4 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> I really don't have a problem with the celebacy rule at all. All priests joining up today are adults and are aware of this term & condition!


 
Dont you think that living an unnatural live of celibacy (unnatural in terms of the human animal we are), may lead to frustration and psychological problems? Are people with psychological problems really the ones you want telling you how to live your life from the pulpit?


----------



## Shawady (4 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Just listened to Sinead O Connor on netcast. She said some disturbing things about an encyclical, threatening victims with excommunication for talking about the abuse. Worth a listen but be prepared for a shock.


 
She has letter in this morning's Indo about it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/l...diately-to-burn-down-the-vatican-2087994.html


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Dont you think that living an unnatural live of celibacy (unnatural in terms of the human animal we are), may lead to frustration and psychological problems? Are people with psychological problems really the ones you want telling you how to live your life from the pulpit?


 
I see your point, but there are many IMO good priests who live a life of celibacy and there are many people outside of the church who also lead a life of celibacy. 

The point I was making is that people sign up for priesthood are aware of this. Whilst I don't have a problem per se with this rule, I do think it's silly and should be reformed, if only to attract more people into priesthood.


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> She has letter in this morning's Indo about it.
> 
> http://www.independent.ie/opinion/l...diately-to-burn-down-the-vatican-2087994.html


 
To be honest, I've never really taken to S O'C. This letter however is excellent and I agree with everything she says. My favourite line and worthy IMO of being printed in large letters and hung over every church door is:

A true Christian is someone who, in any given situation, is supposed to ask themselves “What would This post will be deleted if not edited immediately do” and try to do that.


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> ...threatening victims with excommunication ...


 
I'm sorry - what?! I'd say parishioners are shaking in their shoes.

Excommunication was a regular 'punishment' ... er ... let me see ... in the 17th century!

Ah the good old contemporary church.

+1 to AJ's summation too.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

Bishop Brennan said that he did not want to burden others (the Vatican) with “this burden” as it is “our” responsibility. Who, exactly” is “our” in this context? If the Vatican, which obstructed justice and facilitated the rape of children for over half a century, is not parts of the problem then who is? Is Mr. Brennan trying to say that the victims of abuse and their families are part of his “our” while the hierarchy of the organization that perpetrated the abuse is not by virtue of its geographic location?

It beggars belief.


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> If the Vatican, which obstructed justice and facilitated the rape of children for over half a century, is not parts of the problem then who is?


 
The recent trip by clergy to the Vatican was a PR stunt. If the Vatican stump up this money, then as you point out, villages/communities/contries from all over the world will next in line.

Which isn't a bad thing...sounds like the church needs to be rebuilt before we can start to "believe" in it again.


----------



## VOR (4 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Bishop Brennan said that he did not want to burden others (the Vatican) with “this burden” as it is “our” responsibility. Who, exactly” is “our” in this context?


 
Scarily he means all Catholics. He claims he is "asking for help to fulfil a *God-given responsibility*". That almost made me sick.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/its-the-responsibility-of-the-diocese-x2013-not-people-2087592.html


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

Look like they might sell some of their assets (NOT!)

It may very well be that a decision will be taken to dispose of one of the diocesan assets – but that will only occur after the conclusion of consultation over the coming months, *and perhaps years *– with churchgoers.


Rev JOHN CARROLL,
Diocesan Communications
Officer,
Ferns Diocese,
Summerhill, Co Wexford.

As if churchgoers will be consulted if the church wants to sell an asset. PLeeease.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

I have posted here before that I believe the actions of the Vatican in instructing Irish citizens to give primacy to the laws of a foreign power (Cannon Law) over Irish law and so obstruct the investigation of criminal acts and/or fail to report criminal acts amounts to sedition. Therefore I am of the opinion that the papal nuncio should be expelled, our ambassador to the Holy See (the Vatican) should be withdrawn and diplomatic relations with this hostile foreign power should be broken.

How dare they show such contempt for the sovereignty of this state.    

As for donations to the “Rape Tax” that Mr Brennan is proposing; if devout Catholics see fit then they should do so but only after every single asset of the Roman catholic Church in Ireland has been sold and the proceeds spent.


----------



## Chocks away (4 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> I really don't have a problem with the celebacy rule at all. All priests joining up today are adults and are aware of this term & condition! ............


I understand your stance Firefly. But, lets say, if someone started a life-long trend of people going around with their eyes shut or packing cotton wool in both ears or bunging plugs up their nostrils etc - for the greater honour and glory of God, don't you think that it would warrant a visit to the shrink? How do we know what pleases someone that we are not really sure exists (in the way that has been portrayed). Kneeling down, singing instead of praying, saying rosaries, talking to the various saints, novenas that never fail (if you blow the candle out and promise publication!) and such mumbo jumbo. If it turns people on fine but they shouldn't allow themselves to get ripped off by the cute hoors that see an opening (the Church). The pure see in a pure way, thus allowing themselves to be putty in the hands of these con artists.


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> I have posted here before that I believe the actions of the Vatican in instructing Irish citizens to give primacy to the laws of a foreign power (Cannon Law) over Irish law and so obstruct the investigation of criminal acts and/or fail to report criminal acts amounts to sedition. Therefore I am of the opinion that the papal nuncio should be expelled, our ambassador to the Holy See (the Vatican) should be withdrawn and diplomatic relations with this hostile foreign power should be broken.
> 
> How dare they show such contempt for the sovereignty of this state.
> 
> As for donations to the “Rape Tax” that Mr Brennan is proposing; if devout Catholics see fit then they should do so but only after every single asset of the Roman catholic Church in Ireland has been sold and the proceeds spent.


 
+1, fully agree.


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

Chocks away said:


> I understand your stance Firefly. But, lets say, if someone started a life-long trend of people going around with their eyes shut or packing cotton wool in both ears or bunging plugs up their nostrils etc - for the greater honour and glory of God, don't you think that it would warrant a visit to the shrink? How do we know what pleases someone that we are not really sure exists (in the way that has been portrayed). Kneeling down, singing instead of praying, saying rosaries, talking to the various saints, novenas that never fail (if you blow the candle out and promise publication!) and such mumbo jumbo. If it turns people on fine but they shouldn't allow themselves to get ripped off by the cute hoors that see an opening (the Church). The pure see in a pure way, thus allowing themselves to be putty in the hands of these con artists.


 
I can see where you are coming from but I don't think you're comparing like for like...
One is an inner belief system which is (meant to be) practiced by all members of the 2nd largest global religion (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../20080701121225!World_religions_pie_chart.png) where the only action required is inaction.

As for the other...I've never seen anyone exhibit the traits you mention. 

As for the mumbo jumbo - a lot of people actually believe this, or parts of it. I don't by the way. 

I think that the issue of paedophilia in the Catholic Church is a result of an abuse of power, rather than an enforcement of celibacy.


----------



## Chocks away (4 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> I can see where you are coming from but I don't think you're comparing like for like...
> One is an inner belief system which is (meant to be) practiced by all members of the 2nd largest global religion (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../20080701121225!World_religions_pie_chart.png) where the only action required is inaction.
> 
> As for the other...I've never seen anyone exhibit the traits you mention.
> ...


Firefly, I was just, in a roundabout way, comparing unnatural acts ie, plugs in nostrils, cotton wool in ears and not opening ones eyes with another unnatural act - celibacy. 
Mumbo jumbo? People believing in it? Some people believe in Voodoo, fairies, National Inquirer, and although it's their right to, doesn't make it any more credible.
A men only, non marrying cult is, of course, a haven for all types of perverts. Especially same sex paedophiles.
Was not having a go at your post, just went off on a little sidestreet.


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2010)

Chocks away said:


> Firefly, I was just, in a roundabout way, comparing unnatural acts ie, plugs in nostrils, cotton wool in ears and not opening ones eyes with another unnatural act - celibacy.
> 
> _See your point_
> 
> ...


----------



## MrMan (4 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Dont you think that living an unnatural live of celibacy (unnatural in terms of the human animal we are), may lead to frustration and psychological problems? Are people with psychological problems really the ones you want telling you how to live your life from the pulpit?



Its a bit of a stretch to go from 'don't you think it may lead to frustration and phychological problems' to then state that they do have such problems. Maybe a bit of balance is required, but I won't hold my breath on this thread.


----------



## MrMan (4 Mar 2010)

Chocks away said:


> Firefly, I was just, in a roundabout way, comparing unnatural acts ie, plugs in nostrils, cotton wool in ears and not opening ones eyes with another unnatural act - celibacy.
> Mumbo jumbo? People believing in it? Some people believe in Voodoo, fairies, National Inquirer, and although it's their right to, doesn't make it any more credible.
> A men only, non marrying cult is, of course, a haven for all types of perverts. Especially same sex paedophiles.
> Was not having a go at your post, just went off on a little sidestreet.




What makes celibacy unnatural? Are you saying that it is a natural thing for our species to reproduce? In your line about beliefs you throw believing in fairies, national enquirer and believing in God as much the same thing, but surely not believing in God should be included in this group.
It amuses me that people who say that they do not believe in God are so continually vociferous when deriding others for holding a differing opinion.


----------



## Sunny (4 Mar 2010)

I have never seen a proven link between celibacy and paedophilia. Its a stretch. Just because I might go a long period without sex does not make me want to abuse children or rape women. 
These were damaged sick people that were protected by the organisation that they worked for. They would have probably done the same evil things no matter where they were.


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> It amuses me that people who say that they do not believe in God are so continually vociferous when deriding others for holding a differing opinion.


 
Have to agree on that one. I'm agnostic. I just accept that many people do believe, many don't and many haven't given it much thought.

I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone else does or doesn't believe as it doesn't affect me and I don't condone derision of e.g. christians and their beliefs in a general sense, however, what I do have a HUGE problem with is christians quoting or hinting at aspects of their faith and telling me that I am wrong or how I should be living my life etc 

Or, much worse, supposed christians defending and covering up cowardly despicable acts and doing so behind the smokescreen of their religion.


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

Sunny said:


> I have never seen a proven link between celibacy and paedophilia. Its a stretch. Just because I might go a long period without sex does not make me want to abuse children or rape women.


 
I don't think so either but, and just an observation at this stage, there are millions of protestant clergymen in the world too, many of whom are of course married. I rarely hear of this kind of thing in the various protestant churches though.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

caveat said:


> have to agree on that one. I'm agnostic. I just accept that many people do believe, many don't and many haven't given it much thought.
> 
> I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone else does or doesn't believe as it doesn't affect me and i don't condone derision of e.g. Christians and their beliefs in a general sense, however, what i do have a huge problem with is christians quoting or hinting at aspects of their faith and telling me that i am wrong or how i should be living my life etc
> 
> or, much worse, supposed christians defending and covering up cowardly despicable acts and doing so behind the smokescreen of their religion.



+1


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> I don't think so either but, and just an observation at this stage, there are millions of protestant clergymen in the world too, many of whom are of course married. I rarely hear of this kind of thing in the various protestant churches though.


I think that might have as much to do with the way Protestant Churches are organised. The Clergyman/woman is appointed by the parish and they are responsible for financing him/her. The whole structure is devolved and the parishioners are much more involved, and have much more say, in how things are run. The whole thing is far less autocratic so there’s not the same culture of deference and no monolithic organisation to hide behind.


----------



## Bronte (4 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> Its a bit of a stretch to go from 'don't you think it may lead to frustration and phychological problems' to then state that they do have such problems. Maybe a bit of balance is required, but I won't hold my breath on this thread.


 
How's this for balance, let's take an imaginary Organisation made up solely of men, they make the rules for both men and women, their sole aim in life is money and power. To do this they decide that all women must reproduce as much as possible, certainly every time they have sex the aim must be to procreate, they go to the poor countries of the world and instead of helping the poverty and lowering child mortality rates they dictate that the women who cannot afford to have children must continue to procrate with no access to condoms or the pill or sterilisation or abortion. Everyone in the modern world gets around this by going to another country for abortions and Amniocentises tests. In this organisation women are second class citizens and basically can only be virgin or harlot.

The men are trained together at a young age. Young men and older male mentor's together. The older one's initiate the younger ones into paedophilia etc to prepetrate the cycle and to keep everybody in line because who knows where the bodies are buried. That's how paedophilia rings operate. If any of the outside world objects (to paedophilia or any other normal world CRIME) the organisation uses all it's power and might to silence them. Examples would be a teacher losing a job, or being on a teachers barred list, having your children ostracised at school, being offered recompense (BRIBE) to not go to court, being kept uneducated (IGNORANT) so that you cannot see evil for what it is. The organisation has vast resources and spies everywhere. The spies are called the devout and get a direct route to Nirvana and some celebrated Organisation medal along the way to keep them on the right track. They get the fast track to Nirvana should they leave riches to the organisation. Every second will in Ireland leaves something to either a person in the Organisation or the organisation itself. They infiltrate every corner of society. They have the controlling influence in some countries over schooling and health STILL. The Organisation has different layers so that no one can figure out who exactly reports to who and it means no one can ever pin down the main Organisation as the seat of all the EVIL.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (4 Mar 2010)

There seems to be a preponderance of this kind of activity between adult males and victimised young boys. After all most of the crimes have been reported so. Would the term "predatory homosexual" be more apt? In the other cases "predatory heterosexual"?


----------



## Bronte (4 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> There seems to be a preponderance of this kind of activity between adult males and victimised young boys. After all most of the crimes have been reported so. Would the term "predatory homosexual" be more apt? In the other cases "predatory heterosexual"?


 
A consenting older male adult and a consenting young male adult is homosexuality which is not a crime and is perfectly normal.  

An older male raping a boy or girl is a paedophile, it is a henious and despicable crime and is abnormal.  The only reason there weren't more girls in the Ireland model is they didn't have access to girls.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (4 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> A consenting older male adult and a consenting young male adult is homosexuality which is not a crime and is perfectly normal. .............


 A victimised young boy is IMO not a consenting young male.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> There seems to be a preponderance of this kind of activity between adult males and victimised young boys. After all most of the crimes have been reported so. Would the term "predatory homosexual" be more apt? In the other cases "predatory heterosexual"?



Men who rape boys are not homosexual. Paedophilia is a perversion of heterosexuality as the attraction is to a pre-pubescent effeminate form.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (4 Mar 2010)

Hadn't thought of it that way Purple. But it figures.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> What makes celibacy unnatural? Are you saying that it is a natural thing for our species to reproduce?


 
What has non celibacy to do with reproduction? As animals we have sexual urges. Reproduction has nothing to do with it.

Although evolution would tend to agree that it is natural for our species to reporduce - otherwise how do we continue to evolve?


----------



## Bronte (4 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> A victimised young boy is IMO not a consenting young male.


 
You're putting words in my remark.  I said young male as distinct from a boy.  A 20 year old man and a 40 year old man is not the same as a 10 year old boy and a 30 year old man.  A 20 year old female may consent to go with a 40 year old man and a 10 year old girl may not consent to go with a 30 year old man.  The difference is paedophilia.  

A homosexual man can rape a homosexual man same as a hetrosexual man can rape a hetrosexual male or female of whatever age.  

Sometimes, and I don't mean you Beaky, people try to muddy the debate on the Church abuse with throwing in that old chestnet homophobia.  Let's be clear most of the Church abuse was paedophilia.  

- Anyone - how can I find a post from long ago about the Church influence on schools in Ireland, at least a year ago where a poster (with D as the first initial) was arguing against Church involvement and most argued the other way.


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> I think that might have as much to do with the way Protestant Churches are organised. The Clergyman/woman is appointed by the parish and they are responsible for financing him/her. The whole structure is devolved and the parishioners are much more involved, and have much more say, in how things are run. The whole thing is far less autocratic so there’s not the same culture of deference and no monolithic organisation to hide behind.


 
Yes, makes sense.


----------



## Shawady (4 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Men who rape boys are not homosexual. Paedophilia is a perversion of heterosexuality as the attraction is to a pre-pubescent effeminate form.


 
Interesting point Purple but I was always under the impression that some paedophiles tend to abuse just boys and not girls. Maybe it is an access issue as a previous posters suggested.

I am not suggesting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia BTW.


----------



## MrMan (4 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> How's this for balance, let's take an imaginary Organisation made up solely of men, they make the rules for both men and women, their sole aim in life is money and power. To do this they decide that all women must reproduce as much as possible, certainly every time they have sex the aim must be to procreate, they go to the poor countries of the world and instead of helping the poverty and lowering child mortality rates they dictate that the women who cannot afford to have children must continue to procrate with no access to condoms or the pill or sterilisation or abortion. Everyone in the modern world gets around this by going to another country for abortions and Amniocentises tests. In this organisation women are second class citizens and basically can only be virgin or harlot.
> 
> The men are trained together at a young age. Young men and older male mentor's together. The older one's initiate the younger ones into paedophilia etc to prepetrate the cycle and to keep everybody in line because who knows where the bodies are buried. That's how paedophilia rings operate. If any of the outside world objects (to paedophilia or any other normal world CRIME) the organisation uses all it's power and might to silence them. Examples would be a teacher losing a job, or being on a teachers barred list, having your children ostracised at school, being offered recompense (BRIBE) to not go to court, being kept uneducated (IGNORANT) so that you cannot see evil for what it is. The organisation has vast resources and spies everywhere. The spies are called the devout and get a direct route to Nirvana and some celebrated Organisation medal along the way to keep them on the right track. They get the fast track to Nirvana should they leave riches to the organisation. Every second will in Ireland leaves something to either a person in the Organisation or the organisation itself. They infiltrate every corner of society. They have the controlling influence in some countries over schooling and health STILL. The Organisation has different layers so that no one can figure out who exactly reports to who and it means no one can ever pin down the main Organisation as the seat of all the EVIL.



To answer your question I'd give you an F- for balance. For balance you would need to include fact throughout your rant.


----------



## MrMan (4 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> What has non celibacy to do with reproduction? As animals we have sexual urges. Reproduction has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Although evolution would tend to agree that it is natural for our species to reporduce - otherwise how do we continue to evolve?



i was trying to come up with a possible reason that posters think that celibacy is unnatural, I have yet to be given one.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> i was trying to come up with a possible reason that posters think that celibacy is unnatural, I have yet to be given one.


 
Dont you think if it were natural we wouldnt be here talking about it at all as the species would have died out?


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

The sensation associated with the act of procreation and the result of it appears to be instinctive. i.e. it is human nature.

To deny such urges is arguably unnatural. By extension, e.g. homosexuality could be argued as being 'unnatural' - in a literal sense. It's unfortunate as this the often used emotive and derogatory term favoured by the christian right, but it doesn't mean that it isn't technically accurate in some respects.

I have absolutely no problem with gay people by the way, just making a technical point.

Lots of things we do as human beings are natural/instinctive in a negative way obviously too (e.g. violence) and lots of things we do as human beings are 'unnatural' but we still do them - whether they are relatively inconsequential and mundane or highly unusual.


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> - Anyone - how can I find a post from long ago about the Church influence on schools in Ireland, at least a year ago where a poster (with D as the first initial) was arguing against Church involvement and most argued the other way.


 
Should be easy enough but need more info.

Did you post in the thread? Do you know who started it?


----------



## The_Banker (4 Mar 2010)

To lighten the mood....

Interesting article with tongue firmly in cheek

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=945


----------



## truthseeker (4 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> The sensation associated with the act of procreation and the result of it appears to be instinctive. i.e. it is human nature.
> 
> To deny such urges is arguably unnatural. By extension, e.g. homosexuality could be argued as being 'unnatural' - in a literal sense. It's unfortunate as this the often used emotive and derogatory term favoured by the christian right, but it doesn't mean that it isn't technically accurate in some respects.
> 
> ...


 
Tbh - I was more thinking in terms of sexual urges, semen production and ejaculation of such. Whether or not it happens through sex(hetero or homo), masturbation or wet dreams - its a physically natural thing to happen and to deny it must surely lead to terrible mental frustration? Im not a doctor, but Id imagine it cant be good for you to deny basic animal urges like this? Arguably different for women, who I would imagine would be far more likely to practice celibacy without the same frustration levels- but physically they are not producing something that the body ejaculates.

Anyway this is alll way off topic. I genuinely dont think anyone could take seriously the notion that the parishioners in this case would really pay up - why would they?


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Tbh - I was more thinking in terms of sexual urges, semen production and ejaculation of such.



So was I but was just being a bit more circumspect about it.


----------



## MrMan (4 Mar 2010)

truthseeker said:


> Dont you think if it were natural we wouldnt be here talking about it at all as the species would have died out?




hetero, homo, celibate only one of these contributes to the reproduction of the species, therefore by your statement the other two are unnatural.


----------



## JoeB (4 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> I couldn't give a monkeys what anyone else does or doesn't believe as it doesn't affect me and I don't condone derision of e.g. christians and their beliefs in a general sense, however, what I do have a HUGE problem with is christians quoting or hinting at aspects of their faith and telling me that I am wrong or how I should be living my life etc




I reckon you'd feel differently if you'd just been blown up by a suicide bomber as he believes he will be rewarded in heaven with 76 virgins, or whatever it is he believes..

Also if your daughter was about to be stoned to death in Iran for exposing some skin...

Or what if a nephew of yours was about to die because his parents thought that God has commanded no blood transfusions.. and so they refused life saving treatment.

Or maybe your best friend was about to be sacrificed to a sun god?

The point is that faith based beliefs should be exposed wherever they are found, as the world will continue to be a dangerous place, until everyone agrees that faith based belief, without evidence, is silly and potentially dangerous for everyone...


----------



## Caveat (4 Mar 2010)

My post made reference to aspects of religion that don't impinge on my life - your examples would. As I said, I would have a huge problem with that.

There is a difference between what people simply believe and how they live their lives as a result of that belief.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

So basically we agree that religion is fine, just don't make it a way of life


----------



## Teatime (4 Mar 2010)

JoeBallantin said:


> The point is that faith based beliefs should be exposed wherever they are found, as the world will continue to be a dangerous place, until everyone agrees that faith based belief, without evidence, is silly and potentially dangerous for everyone...


 
I agree. Will it happen I wonder? Will the world abandon these organised religions and faith based beliefs as time goes by? What will replace the need for these beliefs? I suppose it will take time but its more likely now than ever before with global communications.


----------



## Mpsox (4 Mar 2010)

Personnaly speaking, as a practising Catholic of 40 years I was appalled by the request for parishioners to cough up. I know the Church is asset rich and cash poor and a lot of the assets are largely unsellable but they could raise the funds via other means if they put their mind to it. I was talking to an old schoolfriend of mine who is a curate in Cork and he said he'd be too embarrassed to stand up and make the request. Like a lot of priests, he's not happy with the lack of leadership and cover ups that occured. Frankly, if the basket passes my way for this collection, it'll get nothing from me and I don't know anyone who will contribute.

Lots of comments on here about religon, each to their own as far as I am concerned, I'm not going to get into a religous discussion, although I do find it interesting that people who condemn Christians for expressing their views are often quite quick themselves to let others know their own views on religon. Personaly, in this crazy world we live in, I enjoy sitting down for an hour once a week in church in peace and quiet.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2010)

Teatime said:


> I agree. Will it happen I wonder? Will the world abandon these organised religions and faith based beliefs as time goes by? What will replace the need for these beliefs? I suppose it will take time but its more likely now than ever before with global communications.


There is an inverse relationship between the cohesiveness of a society and the freedom of the individual within that society. It was true in ancient Greece between Athens and Sparta, it was true in Rome and it is true now. 
As our society become richer and more secular and the individual becomes paramount society becomes less cohesive. This will eventually lead to it breaking down. Therefore eventually the cycle will repeat itself and somewhere along the line we’ll end up poor and oppressed again.

That’s my home-spun philosophy anyway.


----------



## JoeB (4 Mar 2010)

Well, I think that some countries, possibly the likes of Sweden and Norway, have low rates of religious belief, yet it doesn't seem to harm them..

I further believe that if donations to 'your' religion were compulsory then religious membership would plummet in Ireland..I reckon at least 80% or more of people would be happy to be listed as 'athiest / agnostic' if it saved them 10% of their wages.. as is done in Germany I believe.   ('tithe' is it?, derived from 'ten', i.e 10%..)


----------



## Capt. Beaky (4 Mar 2010)

So right you are JB. In my days there a Kirkensteuer was deducted from PAYE. But this was avoided if you declared athiest. All the guys I worked with suddenly became non believers. I've read that the government have brought in a charge for leaving one of the main churches and becoming a non believer now. Around €40. People used to call it a God tax and I guess they'll call the leaving one a Devil tax


----------



## Bronte (5 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> To answer your question I'd give you an F- for balance. For balance you would need to include fact throughout your rant.


 
Then why don't you balance it. Where did I make an error on the way the Organisation is run.

I forgot to mention the gulags. Institutions where the poor and abandoned children were taken in under the guise of taking them in off the street for their own good and disciplining the wayward petty criminal ones. Not to mention those taken illegally off their parents because courts/society deemed the parents inadequate. In these 'gulags' the children were set to work toiling the fields and doing the laundry of the rich. The rich paid the Organisation for the laundry etc and were glad the Organisation dealt with the downtrodden orphens, for it gladened their hears to see good being done, for they did not like to acknowledge that the slums existed in certain cities and they didn't want to sort it out so they let the orgainasation do it in their place and they pretended these gulags didn't exist. Even to this day certain people in certain cities deny that such slums or evil instituions ever existed. The government was also in on the act and paid the institution handsomely for the slave labour, but they said it was for the education of the children, many of whom were fit only for manual labour when finished in the gulags. And what did the institution do with the money, why they bought land and property and shares and assets and sent plenty off it to a land far away so their prince could become more powerful and protect them with his power and might. Which indeed he did. All the way to March 2010. Meanwhile the Organisation at home lived happy lives, well fed and clothed till the end of their days and it was generally agreed they were a great bunch of the most good men and in this case the women were allowed in as any source of getting money is generally a good thing so to run certain gulats the women were allowed a tiny bit of power but not too much mind. To this day we can see the strong remains of the gulags, the vast properties, the land, the palaces the large houses single men live in, the cars, the lifestyle, the money in the bank, the money bequeathed and yet to be bequeathed and still they claim poverty for such is the way the Organisation is run and will continue to be run. And to this day we can also see another legacy of theirs the broken men and women they left behind, those that are in our decrepid psychiatic hospitals that are not fit for purpose, the wino on the street corner, the lunatic down the road. The man who burnt himself to death a few years ago, the man who walked into the sea, the woman who overdosed and cannot speak of that which we do not speak about.

Where MrMan am I not balanced.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (5 Mar 2010)

Very interesting post Bronte!


----------



## Purple (5 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Then why don't you balance it. Where did I make an error on the way the Organisation is run.
> 
> I forgot to mention the gulags. Institutions where the poor and abandoned children were taken in under the guise of taking them in off the street for their own good and disciplining the wayward petty criminal ones. Not to mention those taken illegally off their parents because courts/society deemed the parents inadequate.


 It is worth noting that society in general took a very dim view of the poor and poor or destitute children in particular. There was also a huge amount of anti-male sexism which took the view that men could not raise their own children so if women died young, as they often did, whole families were taken away from their fathers. It is easy to blame the Catholic Church for this but that would allow society in general to avoid its culpability. To what extent society was a reflection of the Church or the Church a reflection of society is a more complex debate but blaming the RC Church for the evils of society in general is just deflected guilt and allows us to avoid the necessary broader introspection that it required.



Bronte said:


> In these 'gulags' the children were set to work toiling the fields and doing the laundry of the rich. The rich paid the Organisation for the laundry etc and were glad the Organisation dealt with the downtrodden orphens, for it gladened their hears to see good being done, for they did not like to acknowledge that the slums existed in certain cities and they didn't want to sort it out so they let the orgainasation do it in their place and they pretended these gulags didn't exist. Even to this day certain people in certain cities deny that such slums or evil instituions ever existed.


 Church run laundries did laundry for anyone who was willing to pay for it. Again, you are exempting broader society from culpability but everyone knew what was going on; poor, rich, high and low.



Bronte said:


> The government was also in on the act and paid the institution handsomely for the slave labour, but they said it was for the education of the children, many of whom were fit only for manual labour when finished in the gulags. And what did the institution do with the money, why they bought land and property and shares and assets and sent plenty off it to a land far away so their prince could become more powerful and protect them with his power and might. Which indeed he did. All the way to March 2010.


 The state (that’s all of us by the way) outsourced its responsibility to care for “all of the children of this land” to people who were untrained and utterly unsuitable for the task. That same state then never bothered to check up on what was going on. The funding was just as inadequate for the task as the people carrying it out. In this case the guild rests with the state.  



Bronte said:


> Meanwhile the Organisation at home lived happy lives, well fed and clothed till the end of their days and it was generally agreed they were a great bunch of the most good men and in this case the women were allowed in as any source of getting money is generally a good thing so to run certain gulats the women were allowed a tiny bit of power but not too much mind. To this day we can see the strong remains of the gulags, the vast properties, the land, the palaces the large houses single men live in, the cars, the lifestyle, the money in the bank, the money bequeathed and yet to be bequeathed and still they claim poverty for such is the way the Organisation is run and will continue to be run.


 The RC Church always sides with the establishment, in every country.



Bronte said:


> And to this day we can also see another legacy of theirs the broken men and women they left behind, those that are in our decrepid psychiatic hospitals that are not fit for purpose, the wino on the street corner, the lunatic down the road. The man who burnt himself to death a few years ago, the man who walked into the sea, the woman who overdosed and cannot speak of that which we do not speak about.


 I agree with you there but the primary responsibility still rests, and rested, with the state.


----------



## Bronte (5 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> Should be easy enough but need more info.
> 
> Did you post in the thread? Do you know who started it?


 
Thanks Caveat, I'm absolutely useless at finding things on AAM.  I posted in it and it was mainly an argument against one poster who objected to the fact that they could only send their child to a Roman Catholic run school and other posters told her to basically drive miles to find another school and had no sympathy for the posters plight.  They just didn't get that in Ireland people don't have much choice when it comes to who is in charge of the education of their children.  It has a bearing on this thread and I want to have a look at it to see what people said at that time.


----------



## Caveat (5 Mar 2010)

Try search, then advanced search and put e.g 'Roman catholic school' in the toolbar and see what you get.

It might be this one:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=112495


----------



## Bronte (5 Mar 2010)

Yes Purple you are right.  That's an interesting reply.  I'll have to think about it over the weekend.

I do agree that the people in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland couldn't have done what they did if everyone wasn't in on it and those that were part of it's organisation were just ordinary Irish people themselves.  Does that then not mean that basically we are all evil and don't care about anyone else?  Why did everybody turn a blind eye to what was going on.  I've often wondered about that.  And what to do about it now.  Because I don't believe that things have changed much, there are still bad things happening.  A young mother just out of care commiting suicide and getting platitudes from Ministers and more reports.  The word report makes me want to scream. It means nothing has changed.


----------



## Caveat (5 Mar 2010)

On a related point, will there maybe be a renewed interest in protestantism?

I'm being serious. Apparently the COI is the fastest growing church in the country. Not sure if the growing numbers are as a result of 'defectors' from the RC church, latecomers to christianity just picking a church, or maybe even recent immigrants (e.g. Lithuanians, but I get the impression they are largely not church goers) or maybe it's a bit of all three.

The conditions are certainly right for another mini reformation as such - criminality, abuse of power/wealth and corruption in the RC church - which was why people 'protested' in the first place after all. I realise many would argue that relatively speaking, these conditions haven't really changed much in the last few hundred years - and I also realise that despite everything, the RC faith and tradition is not something simply to be abandoned by many people.

Just curious if any disillusioned practicing or semi practicing catholics have ever considered 'the move to the other side' ?


----------



## Purple (5 Mar 2010)

I don’t agree that nothing has changed. We have freed ourselves from generations of unquestioning subservience to the Church and, to a lesser extent, the state. People are generally more educated and informed about their rights and, most importantly, those who make accusations of abuse are taken seriously. 
In generations gone by if a priest was raping a child the parents of that child went to a parish priest and asked if he wouldn’t mind asking his curate to stop. If I found that one off my sons was being raped by a priest he would be found emasculated and nailed to the front door of the church. The days of such deference from the people are gone. The days of deference from the police are also gone. This, in my view, is a good thing.

The institutions of the state are still not perfect but they are not constrained by a monolithic theocracy which puts its own interests ahead of the most vulnerable of children. The states services will change, adapt and improve. Things are and will get better.


----------



## Shawady (5 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> Just curious if any disillusioned practicing or semi practicing catholics have ever considered 'the move to the other side' ?


 
Interesting you should ask that question.
Our eldest is starting school in September and will probably be in a COI school, purely because it has a good reputation. They have said that because we are RC they can make provisions that our child can make their communion and conformation with the local RC school.
I don't know if I would go as far as to 'move to the other side', but it has made we question why I should let him make his communion and conformation at all, as we are not practising RC.


----------



## MrMan (5 Mar 2010)

For a start you state that it is an imaginary organisation made for the sole purpose of making money and power, a statement that really doesn't leave room for balance. As regards deciding that all women should pro-create, this is the churchs stance and it is an ignorant one that is pretty much ignored across the board so doesn't really impact on peoples lives, but it is a true statement.
You say they go to the poor countries and instead of helping poverty and lowering child mortality rates, they dictate that women must continue to procreate. To my knowledge they do help with the poor and have done before it became fashionable, they are usually helping peolple who are not Catholic so their stance on contraception impacts little.

As for your paedo theory, I find it hard to believe that you can be initiated into it and that it is part of the churchs system.

Bronte, you obviously are not a fan of the RC but for all of the horrible acts that have been carried out by its members and facilitated by its powers, there are two sides. It needs to be pulled down to size and realise that it is not a law making power, but it also needs respect for ther good it does.


----------



## Bronte (5 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> To my knowledge they do help with the poor and have done before it became fashionable, they are usually helping peolple who are not Catholic so their stance on contraception impacts little.
> 
> .


 
Why do you think they go to 3rd world countries and it is not to help the poor.  

Of course I'm not a fan of the RC church, they hate one half of the human population.


----------



## Caveat (5 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> I don't know if I would go as far as to 'move to the other side', but it has made we question why I should let him make his communion and conformation at all, as we are not practising RC.


 
Can be a difficult one and it has come up before. 

Not sure what will happen at the school as those kids will be preparing for confirmation after 11 years of age too.


----------



## VOR (5 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> To my knowledge they do help with the poor and have done before it became fashionable, they are usually helping peolple who are not Catholic so their stance on contraception impacts little.


 
I have struggled with this exact question before. If you are a believer you will most likely say that the Church is there to help the poor. Others, of a cynical and distrusting disposition, will say that they are there to conquer new territory, extract what they can financially and build up the power of the Church.

I am convinced that many oversees missionaries go forth in kindness and love. They are there to do God's work and help the disadvantaged. I have no doubt about that. In their personal capacity they are doing great work.

However, I wonder about the Church as a whole. Issues regarding contraception have destroyed parts of Africa. Firstly with over-population and secondly through the spread of AIDS. 
Also, there is always that lingering doubt in my mind that the Church is there to conquer and seize power as best it can. 
That might sound harsh and cruel but Peter didn't go to Rome because it was full of sinners or poor people. He had enough of them on his own door. The same could be said of Ireland for the past 200 years.


----------



## MrMan (5 Mar 2010)

VOR said:


> I have struggled with this exact question before. If you are a believer you will most likely say that the Church is there to help the poor. Others, of a cynical and distrusting disposition, will say that they are there to conquer new territory, extract what they can financially and build up the power of the Church.
> 
> I am convinced that many oversees missionaries go forth in kindness and love. They are there to do God's work and help the disadvantaged. I have no doubt about that. In their personal capacity they are doing great work.
> 
> ...



The Aids issue though isn't cut and dried. If people are having extra marital sex then religion would be a strange reason not to wear a condom. It would come down to resources and education. Leaving the RC culpable for the Aids epidemic in Africa is well wide of the mark.


----------



## MrMan (5 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Why do you think they go to 3rd world countries and it is not to help the poor.
> 
> Of course I'm not a fan of the RC church, they hate one half of the human population.



Because they do want to spread their teachings, and such teachings do include love thy neighbour, so I believe plenty of good is carried out. 
Would the 3rd world be better off without any input from religious orders?

I can't agree on your last line as it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Purple (5 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> The Aids issue though isn't cut and dried. If people are having extra marital sex then religion would be a strange reason not to wear a condom. It would come down to resources and education. Leaving the RC culpable for the Aids epidemic in Africa is well wide of the mark.



Given that many of the countries in Africa with the highest AIDS infection are not Christian and many African Christians are not Catholic it is nonsense to blame them for the epidemic. I disagree with their stance on contraception but it is no different to the stance of any other major religion in the region.
Over-population is a symptom of poverty, subsistence economies and the lack or a social welfare. It has little to do with religious teaching.


----------



## VOR (5 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> it is nonsense to blame them for the epidemic


 
I certainly would not _blame them_ only or any other church as that would be utterly daft. However the teachings and the Church's stance has not helped. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids


----------



## Purple (5 Mar 2010)

The first modern European explorer of the interior of sub-Saharan Africa was David Livingston. He was primarily a Christian missionary and generally acknowledged as a great humanitarian who only had the best interests of the native population at heart. If those that followed were anywhere near as Christian then the great destabilisation that followed between 1860 and 1910 would not have been so utterly destructive.  
Unfortunately evil men like King Leopold the Second of Belgium and Sir Henry Morton Stanley and imperialists like Bismarck and Cecil Rhodes took up the running. It was protestant missionaries that attempted to stop Rhodes overturn guarantees given by the British government to protect the native population during the Boer expansion into Northern South Africa  and it was protestant missionaries that funded Edward Dean Morrell and Rodger Casement when they were attempting to expose the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people by Leopold in the Congo. 
Christianity has been good to Africa, colonialism has not. Catholic missionaries have been part of the former.


----------



## VOR (5 Mar 2010)

Very true. And that's why I said to MrMan that I have struggled with it. I can see how Christian missionaries of all denominations have helped Africa. But there's always that little piece in the back of my mind that wonders...


----------



## MrMan (5 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Given that many of the countries in Africa with the highest AIDS infection are not Christian and many African Christians are not Catholic it is nonsense to blame them for the epidemic. I disagree with their stance on contraception but it is no different to the stance of any other major religion in the region.
> Over-population is a symptom of poverty, subsistence economies and the lack or a social welfare. It has little to do with religious teaching.


I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, but that is what i was trying to say, you just said it better.


----------



## MANTO (5 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Given that many of the countries in Africa with the highest AIDS infection are not Christian and many African Christians are not Catholic it is nonsense to blame them for the epidemic. I disagree with their stance on contraception but it is no different to the stance of any other major religion in the region.
> Over-population is a symptom of poverty, subsistence economies and the lack or a social welfare. It has little to do with religious teaching.


 
+1

It is also a well known fact that over-population is due to cultural reasons / necessity. The people are so desperate they have children as a form of security to take of them as they get older, and a lot of the time sicker.


----------



## VOR (5 Mar 2010)

So is any one surprised by the most recent revelation from Rome:
[broken link removed]


----------



## Caveat (5 Mar 2010)

VOR said:


> So is any one surprised by the most recent revelation from Rome:
> [broken link removed]


 
It gets better and better.



Caveat said:


> On a related point, will there maybe be a renewed interest in protestantism?
> 
> I'm being serious. Apparently the COI is the fastest growing church in the country. Not sure if the growing numbers are as a result of 'defectors' from the RC church, latecomers to christianity just picking a church, or maybe even recent immigrants (e.g. Lithuanians, but I get the impression they are largely not church goers) or maybe it's a bit of all three.
> 
> ...


 
So, any takers?


----------



## VOR (5 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> So, any takers?


 
For the pimping or the protestantism?


----------



## Yachtie (5 Mar 2010)

Firefly said:


> I think we're all agreed the whole thing stinks, but most (guess) will still get married in a church, send our kids to mass on Sunday and have them baptised, make their communion & confirmation..


 
This is the bit that bugs me the most. I was born and raised RC but I dont believe in God and have no interest in the church and its teachings. For those reasons, wild horses wouldn't have dragged me into church to get married and there is absolutely no way that my son will be christened or attending mass on Sundays (even if that kills my mother in law). 

There have been many discussions about this in our house (especially since there is a child involved) but religion is one thing I am not willing to compromise on. Can anyone explain to me why so many people are giving out about the church and religion yet just as many (and the same) keep engaging with it?


----------



## Caveat (5 Mar 2010)

Yachtie said:


> Can anyone explain to me why so many people are giving out about the church and religion yet just as many (and the same) keep engaging with it?



I hinted at it in response to Shawady and I'm guessing the main reason is:



> (even if that kills my mother in law).



..and things like that.


----------



## becky (5 Mar 2010)

I'm very good friends with a couple who don't go to mass.  They get no pressure from either set of grandparent, one set doesn't go to mass either.  They do however do the communion, confirmations etc.  A few weeks later the father will rant about the church, how the priest use to lash them at school etc.  

As a couple they are dead on and I did wonder why they would bother with this.  In the end I concluded it was so the child didn't feel left out in school.


----------



## JoeB (5 Mar 2010)

and of course the sense of exclusion.. if your child is the only one not doing a communion it may cause him or her to be bullied etc..  or to feel different somehow. This would be a silly reason to allow your child to be communed, or confirmed in my view.

Another reason is that people simply don't think about it... they go with the flow.

People's partners may not want to rock the boat.


People's future partner may have been dreaming since she was a little girl or her wedding... and that might cause difficulties.. I'm a non-believer but may get married in a church anyway,.. unless I have to state that I intend to bring my kids up Catholic.. I'll either have to lie about that, or not go through with the wedding in a church.. I'll probably just lie about it, as what's the penalty anyway?


----------



## Pique318 (6 Mar 2010)

Yachtie said:


> This is the bit that bugs me the most. I was born and raised RC but I dont believe in God and have no interest in the church and its teachings. For those reasons, wild horses wouldn't have dragged me into church to get married and there is absolutely no way that my son will be christened or attending mass on Sundays (even if that kills my mother in law).



I agree completely.

I was married in a civil ceremony and to keep the mammies happy, I agreed to having a 'blessing' in an RC church.
We went to see the boss of the local monastery and were told that we were 'no better than the savages in Africa' if we didn't get married in an RC church and have any future sprogs christened.

I was so close to decking him, it wasn't even funny !


----------



## Caveat (6 Mar 2010)

Pique318 said:


> We went to see the boss of the local monastery and were told that we were 'no better than the savages in Africa' if we didn't get married in an RC church and have any future sprogs christened.





Seriously? did he actually say those words?


----------



## becky (6 Mar 2010)

JoeBallantin said:


> and of course the sense of exclusion.. if your child is the only one not doing a communion it may cause him or her to be bullied etc.. or to feel different somehow. This would be a silly reason to allow your child to be communed, or confirmed in my view.


 
I wouldn't agree here. I think parents have enough to be worried about tbh. I was confirmed and communed (like that word) and came out the other side so to speak. I don't pratice now but do bring my mother to mass when she asks. I remember mine and my siblings communion and confirmation days with effection. My brother confirmation was the first time we had supermacs burgers and chips and we looked forward to it for weeks beforehand. 

If my parents had very these strong views and didn't allow me, it would have been over my head at the age of 7 to 12.

That leads to the question why send them to a catholic school but that's another issue altogether.


----------



## Pique318 (6 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> Seriously? did he actually say those words?


Yep...We couldn't believe it either ! The auld git was straight out of the Old Testament...fire and brimstone, ya know ? (He was old enough to have actually have been involved too!  )

Went to a local chirch afterwards and the priest was more interested in what would make the mammies happy and chatting to me about rugby (I was wearing an All Blacks t-shirt at the time) than my interest in the church.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2010)

Pique318 said:


> We went to see the boss of the local monastery and were told that we were 'no better than the savages in Africa' if we didn't get married in an RC church and have any future sprogs christened.



What a nice guy.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (6 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> It gets better and better.
> 
> 
> 
> So, any takers?


Mrs Beaky and I have often discussed the merits of Quakerism and have come to the conclusion that if we do decide to practice anything, it will be that. Happy enough at the moment being nothing. Both born as Catholics but I stopped going to church in 1966 (a kinda daring at the time, and she, in the early 70s.


----------



## Black Sheep (6 Mar 2010)

Back to the original topic re funding.
I understand the funding was requested to help the victims re-build their lives. Does anyone actually believe that. Surely like anyone else, he who breaks the law pays the price.
Perhaps had the church not spent so much time and effort on legals denying their actions there might be money in the kitty to rehabilitate their victims.


----------



## shammy feen (7 Mar 2010)

Back to the topic,

Asking lay people to stump up the cash makes me think of the Father Ted episode:

"Kicking Bishop Brennan up the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language"


----------



## Bronte (15 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> To what extent society was a reflection of the Church or the Church a reflection of society is a more complex debate but blaming the RC Church for the evils of society in general is just deflected guilt and allows us to avoid the necessary broader introspection that it required.
> 
> .


 
There  is one crucial difference, the Church is supposed to be the moral leader and to know what is right as did it's founder. 

The Church practices Evil and continues to do so.  They do not know right from wrong.


----------



## Bronte (15 Mar 2010)

In relation to the institution's hatred of women I forget to mention that any member of the organisation who wanted to be with a women were barred from the organisation, you could rape and abuse children and be taken care of but to be with a woman was the greatest sin of all. 

When one sees the treatment of Eamon Casey and others one should reflect on that as verus the treatment of paedophiles. It is interesting that one clergy member has thought fit to point out that if one is a paedophile than the level of culpability in committing the crime is less and so the punishment should be less. 

Now we see that Brady has been hiding cases by getting victims in the past to sign sworn documents that they will never tell their story.  So much for transparency and honesty in dealing with the sins of the past.  I think the Garda Commissioner should ask the Church for all it's files where people have signed documents to hide a crime and who had no legal representation when they signed them.


----------



## Latrade (15 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> I think the Garda Commissioner should ask the Church for all it's files where people have signed documents to hide a crime and who had no legal representation when they signed them.


 
Why ask?

The Gardai raided Anglo and they recently raided Wicklow CC (regarding the Bray Firefighter fatalities), so what's wrong with the Dawn Raid and a big pole to bash the door in?


----------



## johnd (15 Mar 2010)

[QUOTE=Bronte;
When one sees the treatment of Eamon Casey and others one should reflect on that as verus the treatment of paedophiles. 

How was Eamonn Casey treated by the church? The question seems to imply that he was treated badly but there is no evidence of this. In fact the opposite is the case. He is still a Bishop, entitled to wear the fancy robes and mitre. It was his own decision to resigh and it was accepted with deep regret. He was an appalling hypocrite for over eighteen years while preaching morals at everyone else. He was a showman who loved the attention and he is no loss to anyone.  Defending this man is no comfort to those damaged by 
paedophiles, one has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## The_Banker (15 Mar 2010)

Anyone else think Cardinal Brady is a "dead man walking"... He will give plenty of reasons and bluster about why he shouldn't resign but ultimately he will resign (and rightly so).
With the recent revelation regarding Ratsinger and now the Primate of All Ireland any apoligist for the crimes of the Catholic church surely cannot defend them now.
I was never in any doubt that this went all the way to the top and surely others can see this now?
Time to get these dinosaurs, out of our schools and out of our lives.


----------



## dereko1969 (15 Mar 2010)

They just don't get it do they? Cardinal Brady's is basically saying "it wasn't my job to report Brendan Smyth to the Gardaí so why should I resign".
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0315/abuse.html

Their only obedience seems to be to Canon Law and as has been pointed out here by somone (I can't remember who) they are like a fifth column with allegiance to Rome and Canon Law above all else. How the Cardinal can insist it isn't a resigning matter is beyond belief (pun intended).

Added to this the Pope assisting in moving/hiding a paedophile, why would anyone remain a member of this Church?


----------



## Pique318 (15 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> It is interesting that one clergy member has thought fit to point out that if one is a paedophile than the level of culpability in committing the crime is less and so the punishment should be less.



 Who said that ?
(Am I correct in understanding that they said that a paedophile wasn't as bad as someone who had a consenting adult partner ? If so then the mind boggles even more than usual !)


----------



## carpedeum (15 Mar 2010)

dereko1969 said:


> They just don't get it do they? Cardinal Brady's is basically saying "it wasn't my job to report Brendan Smyth to the Gardaí so why should I resign".
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0315/abuse.html
> 
> Their only obedience seems to be to Canon Law and as has been pointed out here by somone (I can't remember who) they are like a fifth column with allegiance to Rome and Canon Law above all else. How the Cardinal can insist it isn't a resigning matter is beyond belief (pun intended).
> ...



Totally agree. Imagine the outcry if the Muslims living in Ireland decided to implement their own law (Sharia law?) and decided to live by that law over the law of the land! It is time we stood up once and for all to the Church. As regards the position of the Pope, the concept of his infallability and being the representative on Earth of some extra terrestial God has been proven once and for all to be utter rubbish.

I come from a generation where religion was caned and beaten into us as schoolchildren in the sixties and seventies and where the lives of our parents were being continuously interfered with by priests, bishops and popes. To think that a bishop, with warped views, even formulated the Irish Constitution with DeValera and the Church still tried to control my sexuality when I became an adult in the late seventies by enforcing in law through our corrupt politicians the prevention of sale of contraceptives while they were covering up and perpetrating the continuous abuse of innocent children! It all seems so ridiculous now. Thank God we have reared a generation of educated and self- confident youn people who can exorcise society of their dominance,


----------



## Shawady (15 Mar 2010)

dereko1969 said:


> They just don't get it do they? Cardinal Brady's is basically saying "it wasn't my job to report Brendan Smyth to the Gardaí so why should I resign".
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0315/abuse.html


 

The phrase "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing ", has never been more appropriate in my opinion.


----------



## Latrade (15 Mar 2010)

dereko1969 said:


> They just don't get it do they? Cardinal Brady's is basically saying "it wasn't my job to report Brendan Smyth to the Gardaí so why should I resign".
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0315/abuse.html


 
Didn't he say previously that he would resign if it was shown that anything he did contributed to the abuse of children? Surely getting people to sign these agreements in order to cover up Brendan Smyth's abuse allowing him to go on and commit more abuse is about as close as you can get to his original resignation criteria.

Sometimes Godwins law prevents the rational mind from drawing obvious parallels, but seriously, the following orders defence just can't work here.


----------



## VOR (15 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> Sometimes Godwins law prevents the rational mind from drawing obvious parallels...


 
Does Godwins law apply to Father Ted???

Ted: "I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do. Whereas priests......More drink!"


----------



## Bronte (16 Mar 2010)

Shawady said:


> The phrase "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing ", has never been more appropriate in my opinion.


 
You should ask the people who go to church every week, those who agree with the way the Church is in control of our Irish schools and hospitals about that, as they continuously support and finance their evil organisation and the cover up of the evil it did. 

Let's look to the leader of the Irish people Brian Cowen as he can't plainly say, 'Brady was wrong, and by not reporting Smith to the authorities for his wicked wicked criminal actions he was culpable in the continuing rape of children and therefore he should resign,'  even more so because he portrayes himself by his religion as a man who knew right from wrong and was a well educated man at that. Coward, the Taoiseach is a coward. It is utterly indefensibly. My how the powerful are in thrall to the Church. Still.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2010)

bronte said:


> coward, the taoiseach is a coward.  It is utterly indefensibly.


+1


----------



## gunnerfitzy (16 Mar 2010)

My prediction: Brady will not resign. The churches leaders do not bow to the opinion of us mortals. What should be done is that every church-goer who believes Brady should resign should stop going to mass until he does. But that won't happen. Because we are a nation of cowards. We have a hugely incompetent government still in power after bring the country to its knees. What did we do about it? Nothing. And we will do nothing about this too.


----------



## MrMan (16 Mar 2010)

gunnerfitzy said:


> My prediction: Brady will not resign. The churches leaders do not bow to the opinion of us mortals. What should be done is that every church-goer who believes Brady should resign should stop going to mass until he does. But that won't happen. Because we are a nation of cowards. We have a hugely incompetent government still in power after bring the country to its knees. What did we do about it? Nothing. And we will do nothing about this too.


 

Organise something so, or stand on your own to show the way. Don't assume that others are cowards because they do not share your views.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (16 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> Organise something so, or stand on your own to show the way. Don't assume that others are cowards because they do not share your views.



I did something about it along time ago when I decided to stop following the catholic church because of the way it fostered and covered up child abuse. The church only listens to two things - footfall and subsequently money. If it gets less and less of these then it may listen.

You misrepresent me by saying that I think that other are cowards because they do not share my view. What I am saying is that as a nation we huff and puff about issues but never really do anything about it. Brian Cowan was called a coward in a previous post. My point is that if he is typical of the Irish mentality are we not all cowards?


----------



## Caveat (16 Mar 2010)

MrMan said:


> Organise something so, or stand on your own to show the way. Don't assume that others are cowards because they do not share your views.


 
Can I ask then what do you think MrMan - what is your view?

I think it's fair to say that you defend the catholic church a fair bit - against what in fairness are often unjustified attacks - but in light of what is going on now, the abuse, the unaccountability, the cover ups, the arrogance, the lack of criminal proceedings,  what do you feel as (I assume) a practicing catholic?


----------



## Bronte (19 Mar 2010)

......... and the organisation held ecclesastical courts wherein the bishops said bring in the little children, as Christ himself had done, 'bring in the little children to me', but he meant it for he was a good man and he knew right from wrong, and would never harm little children, for they are truly the innocent ones, so the bishops brought in the little children and put the fear of God in them, they relied on their man made law, a different branch of law to that which the country had, two legal systems running side by side and the organisation would answer to no law but the organisation's law, even though by the laws of the land what the paedophiles had done was most evil but by the organisation's law it was an irrelevance and they took their orders direct from their leader in Rome who had most cunningly devised a system of control of the people, of which Machivelli himself would have been proud. Rome through the centuries had by the Sixties formulated a most cunning policy of containment of the paedophiles of their crimes, they would move the evil one's around to do their evil everywhere they went, but they would force the injured children to go on their knees and sign amazing documents to force them to never speak a word of the evil that had befallen them and thus the organisation simply washed their hands of it and continued as before even unto this day.

And the nation was hoodwinked again and didn't ask to see the documents the children had signed, they continue to believe that it's just two children who signed a document, they didn't care to ask how many children had signed such documents or gone through such courts. And none could see that those who profess good were really most evil in forcing young innocent most gravely injured children to sign such a document as can only have been written by ------------------- (reader decide) himself. 

And now it's the season of full confirmation into the organisation and when the most beautiful children are brought forward to the bishops, parents should reflect well on the organisation they are commiting their young innocent children to. When they see the powerful man welcoming their children into the organisation they should look at that man and what he stands for and think about that.


----------



## MrMan (19 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> Can I ask then what do you think MrMan - what is your view?
> 
> I think it's fair to say that you defend the catholic church a fair bit - against what in fairness are often unjustified attacks - but in light of what is going on now, the abuse, the unaccountability, the cover ups, the arrogance, the lack of criminal proceedings, what do you feel as (I assume) a practicing catholic?


 
The abuse and fall out from it are the result of criminals perpetrating vile crimes and a failed sense of where exactly the RC stands in todays society. There has always been a barely concealed zest for power in terms of wealth and influence in the RC, which has been the case for centuries. These are facts that are basically accepted by all and ignored by most aswell. 
What it boils down to with me is personal experience and that has led me to meet many intelligent, friendly and caring priests. I haven't had any bad experiences, yet if I had never met a priest I would presume that they were part of a rapist clan that have no other motives other than to search and destroy the innocents by reading through posts on this site alone.
I believe that there is a place for faith in peoples lives and I also believe that the church has done plenty of good throughout the world and should continue to do so after a serious revision of its place in society. I don't regularly attend mass and pray on occassion although I do believe in God. It's a divisive subject and that is a failing for the church in itself, as it should be a subject people either want to embrace or ignore and not detest.


----------



## Caveat (20 Mar 2010)

Fair enough, well said.


----------

