# RC church on politics?



## Chocks away (16 Sep 2009)

Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote? Suggesting that it is OK to vote one way or the other. Surely it sounds a little condescending to those that it considers it's subordinates? After all, shouldn't conscience dictate if that was necessary. A few countries in Europe have a church tax, deducted from wages and handed over. Could this possibly have any bearing on their reasoning? After all, in times of dwindling attendances, getting a cut of the average wage would excite most CEOs.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2009)

They are perfectly entitled to say what they want and to frame moral choices for their members within the context of their teachings.

Those who so choose (like me) are entitled to ignore them.


----------



## Chocks away (16 Sep 2009)

And, assuming that there is a higher power, why did the HP not cut out the middle man and get straight to the point? After all, 'tis the middlemen that cause all the grief - misinterpretation, misappropriation, misogyny, misandry (although hardly within it's own ranks) and miscellaneous vices.


----------



## Teatime (16 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote?


 
The RC church has been overstepping the mark for centuries so why stop now...anyone who listens to them would want their head examined.


----------



## liaconn (17 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote? Suggesting that it is OK to vote one way or the other. Surely it sounds a little condescending to those that it considers it's subordinates? After all, shouldn't conscience dictate if that was necessary. A few countries in Europe have a church tax, deducted from wages and handed over. Could this possibly have any bearing on their reasoning? After all, in times of dwindling attendances, getting a cut of the average wage would excite most CEOs.


 
I don't understand your problem. They're telling people, who are interested in the Church's view, what that view is. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore them. Or is the Church not allowed to open their mouth anymore, and their congregations not entitled to hear the RC view on issues?


----------



## Bill Struth (17 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> i don't understand your problem. They're telling people, who are interested in the church's view, what that view is. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore them. Or is the church not allowed to open their mouth anymore, and their congregations not entitled to hear the rc view on issues?


 +1


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I don't understand your problem. They're telling people, who are interested in the Church's view, what that view is. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore them. Or is the Church not allowed to open their mouth anymore, and their congregations not entitled to hear the RC view on issues?


 
I agree.
But I think the OP is making the point that the church has no place airing its views on politics - that is the job of politicians.
Technically speaking one would imagine that a religion should air its views on religious issues only - however the lines can be very blurred between moral/social/religious/political issues.


----------



## liaconn (17 Sep 2009)

I think the OP has it wrong though.  The Church is not airing its views on politics, it is telling those that may be worried that voting for certain things would be against Catholic teaching that, in this instance, they are okay and can vote 'Yes' with a clear conscience.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> I think the OP has it wrong though. The Church is not airing its views on politics, it is telling those that may be worried that voting for certain things would be against Catholic teaching that, in this instance, they are okay and can vote 'Yes' with a clear conscience.


 
Does that mean if they vote NO that they wouldnt have a clear conscience? Or that a No vote would be against Catholic teaching?

If thats the case then people who may have wanted to vote No may feel that they will be sinning against the church unless they do what the church recommends.


----------



## liaconn (17 Sep 2009)

I think the Church has said its okay to vote either way. But yes, some people's primary concern when voting in a referendum is that they're not voting against or for something that's against their religion. Other people take it into account when deciding how to vote but also factor in other things.. 
Other people have no interest in the Church's view or decide, having considered it, that they don't agree, on this occasion, with what the Church are saying and just disregard it.
The bottom line though is that I don't think Chocks Away really has a complaint. The Church are talking to those who are interested in their view, in the same way that Unions, Employers' Groups etc etc will give their stance on the issue. No one is being forced to listen to anyone if they don't want to, but some people genuinely want these groups' views.


----------



## jhegarty (17 Sep 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Does that mean if they vote NO that they wouldnt have a clear conscience? Or that a No vote would be against Catholic teaching?
> 
> If thats the case then people who may have wanted to vote No may feel that they will be sinning against the church unless they do what the church recommends.




No , they have been very clear that a vote either way is not against church teachings.


----------



## so-crates (17 Sep 2009)

By the sounds of it they were being very careful not to appear to be endorsing either side in the political debate. 

Certain elements of the No campaign do appear to be implying that a Yes vote wouldn't be in accordance with the Church's teaching (on the matter of abortion for example). Also the reported placement of No campaign literature in certain church buildings may give them impression of support from the clergy of that parish for a No vote. By implication, especially if not addressed by the hierarchy, the inference could be a Church position on the campaign in favour of a No vote. There have been no similar reported attempts to use the Catholic Church by the Yes campaign so there is no particular case for the Church to comment on with regards to the Yes campaign. If I was being honest it appeared to me that the elements of the No campaign were willing to hijack a potentially influential non-participant in the debate into appearing to back their cause - quite distasteful behaviour.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Sep 2009)

jhegarty said:


> No , they have been very clear that a vote either way is not against church teachings.


 
Well then they are entitled to say what they like.


----------



## huskerdu (17 Sep 2009)

so-crates said:


> By the sounds of it they were being very careful not to appear to be endorsing either side in the political debate.
> 
> Certain elements of the No campaign do appear to be implying that a Yes vote wouldn't be in accordance with the Church's teaching (on the matter of abortion for example). Also the reported placement of No campaign literature in certain church buildings may give them impression of support from the clergy of that parish for a No vote. By implication, especially if not addressed by the hierarchy, the inference could be a Church position on the campaign in favour of a No vote. There have been no similar reported attempts to use the Catholic Church by the Yes campaign so there is no particular case for the Church to comment on with regards to the Yes campaign. If I was being honest it appeared to me that the elements of the No campaign were willing to hijack a potentially influential non-participant in the debate into appearing to back their cause - quite distasteful behaviour.



+1. The only reason that the Catholic hierarchy were cornered into making a comment, was that Coir and other organisations tried to hijack the Catholic vote for the No campaign. THey made exactly the same statement before the first referendum. 

As was said by other posters, the statement was very carefully worded to avoid endorsing either side.


----------



## huskerdu (17 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Does anyone else think that the church is overstepping the mark on the Lisbon vote? Suggesting that it is OK to vote one way or the other. Surely it sounds a little condescending to those that it considers it's subordinates? After all, shouldn't conscience dictate if that was necessary. A few countries in Europe have a church tax, deducted from wages and handed over. Could this possibly have any bearing on their reasoning? After all, in times of dwindling attendances, getting a cut of the average wage would excite most CEOs.



It is ridiculous to suggest that the Catholic church want a state tax or that they think that the EU has any say in this. I am not a Catholic and I dislike intensely the attitute of the Catholic hierarchy in teh country, but I feel a need to defend them here ( horror). 

This happens in Germany and the net effect is that loads of people simply state on their registration papers that they are not Catholic. Therefore the official percentage of Catholics in Germany is those who are willing to pay. If they had this in Ireland, the same would happen, and they would have to stop pretending that 90% of the population are practising Catholic, when mass attendance, andthe attitude to the Catholic churchs position on contraction and divorce shows this to be a sham.


----------



## Chocks away (17 Sep 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I agree.
> But I think the OP is making the point that the church has no place airing its views on politics - that is the job of politicians.


Yes, basically that was my point. But I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.


----------



## huskerdu (17 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Yes, basically that was my point. But I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.



I definitely agree you with you on that, but I think that your original conspiricy theory about the RC church in Ireland and some link a wish for a w church tax and the Lisbon treaty is complete rubbish.


----------



## so-crates (17 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Yes, basically that was my point. But I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.



I think you probably flatter the Catholic hierarchy a little too much there. Why do you assume that they have that much influence over Yuf Defence and their ilk? What exactly can they do to "rein them in"? Do they have direct influence over what Cóir publish? I suspect the answer is, unfortunately, no. I do wish they could though. It would be nice to have some way of clobbering nonsensical arguments on the head. I mean why, for example, is "Politicians love the gravy train" an argument that has any meaning, relevance or merit with regards to the Lisbon Treaty debate? Did Cóir really waste that much money on putting that up as an "argument"?


----------



## Chocks away (17 Sep 2009)

If a shepherd can't control, or at least round up, his flock - he should refrain from using the word 'Shepherd' on his introduction card. The Bishops, by allowing the lunatic fringe to get a foot in - without stamping on their toes - are ultimately weakening their own authority. _He who isn't with me is against me _etc.


----------



## so-crates (17 Sep 2009)

What restraints do you envision the bishops can put on such individuals? What avenues do they have open to them? How would such "lunatic fringe" individuals respond to the imposition of these measures? 

Chocks Away - face up to it. They did the most sensible and politically the most neutral thing. In answer to your original question, they didn't overstep the mark. 

It would seem to me that in your eyes it is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. If they had kept their mouths shut and allowed Cóir et al to pretend to be their mouthpiece you would have believed them to be making a political statement. By explicitly distancing themselves from such organisations and stating categorically that they take no position on it and that it is a political matter for individual catholics to decide you accuse them of interfering.

I can only assume from all of that that your only preference in the matter is that they disappear altogether - hardly an unbiased position to start from in commenting on them.


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

so-crates said:


> What restraints do you envision the bishops can put on such individuals? What avenues do they have open to them? How would such "lunatic fringe" individuals respond to the imposition of these measures?
> 
> Chocks Away - face up to it. They did the most sensible and politically the most neutral thing. In answer to your original question, they didn't overstep the mark.
> 
> ...


 

Well said.


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

Considering the amount of (what turned out to be) bad advice that has eminated from them over the centuries, might it not be about time that they kept stum in some areas?


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away

As has already been said, many times, don't listen to them if you don't want to. But don't try and censor them for those who do.


----------



## so-crates (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Considering the amount of (what turned out to be) bad advice that has eminated from them over the centuries, might it not be about time that they kept stum in some areas?



Who decides what areas? You?

I agree Liaconn time for this to close.


----------



## jhegarty (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Considering the amount of (what turned out to be) bad advice that has eminated from them over the centuries, might it not be about time that they kept stum in some areas?



As we are dragging up the past.

So we should vote 'no' because of what the Germans did twice last century ?


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

jhegarty said:


> As we are dragging up the past.
> 
> So we should vote 'no' because of what the Germans did twice last century ?


In _Hitler's Pope _it was stated that Rome exhorted young Germans to join Hitler's youth movement. They being deemed a better bet than communists.


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> In _Hitler's Pope _it was stated that Rome exhorted young Germans to join Hitler's youth movement. They being deemed a better bet than communists.


 

This thread is starting to go way over the top. I agree that it should be closed.


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

I don't see how giving a true example should cause a thread to be closed. Unless you believe in censorship.


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

It has strayed , in my view, into a pointless rant against the Catholic church.


----------



## so-crates (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Considering the amount of (what turned out to be) bad advice that has eminated from them over the centuries, *might it not be about time that they kept stum in some areas*?





Chocks away said:


> Yes, basically that was my point. Bu*t I also feel that the top brass in the church should have reined in the rightwingers in Coir and Alive mag*. How can two sides of the same organisation have such conflicting ideals? On both sides this is not freedom of speech, it is the manipulation of their position to influence people that kowtow to them. The time has come [IMHO] for the separation of church and state.





Chocks away said:


> I don't see how giving a true example should cause a thread to be closed. Unless you believe in censorship.


Good grief not at all, however it seems from the above that you do believe in and indeed advocate it.


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

Giving advice is a little like censorship, ie different sides of the same coin. If you promote something, then you ignore/castigate the opposite. Like all organisations, the church cannot give impartial advice. The rudimentary tenet of growing a business is by pushing it's agenda either openly or by subterfuge. Of course, if you don't agree that the church is a business .........


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

The Church is there to state the Church's view, they are not the referendum Commission. I don't know what your agenda is but, as has now been said about a million times, *don't listen to them if you don't want to.*


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

ll


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

liaconn said:


> The Church is there to state the Church's view, they are not the referendum Commission. I don't know what your agenda is but, as has now been said about a million times, *don't listen to them if you don't want to.*


You cannot help but listen/read/see. It was on all the news reels on radio and TV and got front page in the papers. And they should have specified that it was OK to vote either way. No?


----------



## truthseeker (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> You cannot help but listen/read/see.


 
Disagree - am atheist, no time for RC, but couldnt have told you what their view was, below my radar.


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> You cannot help but listen/read/see. It was on all the news reels on radio and TV and got front page in the papers. And they should have specified that it was OK to vote either way. No?


 
What on earth are you on about? Either take their view on board if it matters to you, or don't. Or are you saying that anyone whose views you don't like or agree with should not get any airtime or media coverage?


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

Personally I hope the YES vote gets through. But I don't think the church should get involved - trying to sway support either way. That was, and still is, my gripe.


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

So all the practising Catholics in the country, who want to know the Church's view, should not be entitled to hear it?

What was it you said about censorship?


----------



## Chocks away (18 Sep 2009)

Conscience should dictate. After all, that is what it's for. As Hamlet said "Conscience makes cowards of us all".


----------



## liaconn (18 Sep 2009)

Oh right! Well, I'll let you have the last word then.


----------



## jhegarty (18 Sep 2009)

Chocks away said:


> Giving advice is a little like censorship, ie different sides of the same coin.



No , I think you find they are the exact opposite of each other.


----------

