# Why do we still have "The Angelus" on RTE?



## DaveD

Not sure if this has been asked before can anyone tell me why RTE still broadcasts the Angelus every day? I thought religious "advertising" was banned, but aside from that in these days of equality why does no other religion get similar free advertising, even in proportion to its numbers.

Should the national broadcaster not be obliged to show no preference for one religious group over another?


----------



## Purple

It was introduced on RTE radio in 1954 during the Marion year, for the year.
It just never went away.


----------



## ubiquitous

The way things are going at the moment, its quite likely to become more, rather than less, popular in the future.


----------



## demoivre

ubiquitous said:


> The way things are going at the moment, its quite likely to become more, rather than less, popular in the future.



The death knell before Doom and Gloom Lee comes on ?


----------



## Purple

demoivre said:


> the Death Knell Before Doom And Gloom Lee Comes On ?



Lol


----------



## truthseeker

Never understood it, footage of people who appear to be filled with inner joy looking off into the distance, breaking off from whatever they are working at, accompanied by a death knell.

Another reason not to watch RTE imo.


----------



## Graham_07

truthseeker said:


> footage of people who appear to be filled with inner joy looking off into the distance, breaking off from whatever they are working at, accompanied by a death knell.


 
Sounds awfully like what happpens as the October tax deadline approaches  !


----------



## Sunny

What harm does it do? I know my Grandparents and alot of people from that generation seem to get something from it so let them off. I am sure we can even things up for the other religions if they are offended. 

Maybe instead of the Late Late, we could have Pat Kenny reading from the Koran or something.


----------



## Caveat

truthseeker said:


> Never understood it, footage of people who appear to be filled with inner joy looking off into the distance, breaking off from whatever they are working at, accompanied by a death knell.


 
If you think this is bad, you probably don't remember the previous version.

At least the current version is more a general opportunity for reflection or something rather than blatantly religious.


----------



## ClubMan

Sunny said:


> What harm does it do?


As a _TV _license payer I personally object to such sectarianism on the part of the state broadcaster.



Caveat said:


> At least the current version is more a general opportunity for reflection or something rather than blatantly religious.


People can reflect of their own accord. I'd prefer to see the news a minute earlier.


----------



## ubiquitous

ClubMan said:


> As a _TV _license payer I personally object to such sectarianism on the part of the state broadcaster.



Sectarianism?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sectarian


> sec·tar·i·an  (sk-târ-n)
> adj.
> 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect.
> 2. Adhering or confined to the dogmatic limits of a sect or denomination; partisan.
> 3. Narrow-minded; parochial.
> n.
> 1. A member of a sect.
> 2. One characterized by bigoted adherence to a factional viewpoint.



Oddly enough, I don't recall any of the other religious "sects or denominations" in Ireland ever objecting to RTE's broadcasting of the Angelus on this basis?


----------



## Sunny

ClubMan said:


> As a _TV _license payer I personally object to such sectarianism on the part of the state broadcaster.
> 
> 
> People can reflect of their own accord. I'd prefer to see the news a minute earlier.


 
Whats sectarian about ringing of a bell?


----------



## Cahir

truthseeker said:


> Never understood it, footage of people who appear to be filled with inner joy looking off into the distance, breaking off from whatever they are working at, accompanied by a death knell.
> 
> Another reason not to watch RTE imo.



They look like they've just farted and are having a sniff.  

Hate the bongs myself so usually end up missing the first bit of the news.


----------



## elefantfresh

I don't see the problem personally - I don't see any harm in taking a minute out of todays life to chill and if I stumble accross RTE at 6pm, its not going to kill me. Its certainly very inoffensive. Not sure about the previous one what with our global population in the present. This one is quite generic and like Sunny said, let them off - its no big deal.


----------



## Sherman

Sunny said:


> What harm does it do? I know my Grandparents and alot of people from that generation seem to get something from it so let them off. I am sure we can even things up for the other religions if they are offended.
> 
> Maybe instead of the Late Late, we could have Pat Kenny reading from the Koran or something.


 
I resent my licence fee being used to promote _any_ religion.


----------



## MrMan

ClubMan said:


> As a _TV _license payer I personally object to such sectarianism on the part of the state broadcaster.


 Well i guess you should complain to them and they may take your views on board but I would assume your views to be in the minority as to this subject. I don't see how it is sectarian.


----------



## MrMan

Sherman said:


> I resent my licence fee being used to promote _any_ religion.




how is it promoting a religion, it is providing a service to the already initiated and it is quite generic.


----------



## DavyJones

Sherman said:


> I resent my licence fee being used to promote _any_ religion.




I'd rather they spent it on a one minute peice everyday than that crap fair city/late late show and the rest of the stuff that they say is entertainment. How much are we paying for that rubbish.


----------



## Sunny

Sherman said:


> I resent my licence fee being used to promote _any_ religion.


 
How is it promoting a religion? Its not exactly a Harvey Norman ad


----------



## ubiquitous

DavyJones said:


> I'd rather they spent it on a one minute peice everyday than that crap fair city/late late show and the rest of the stuff that they say is entertainment. How much are we paying for that rubbish.



Bring back Closedown, that's what I say


----------



## TarfHead

To those of you who are able to be at home at 18:00 in the evening, hush your whining and pick up the remote  ?

That's what I would do if I were not stuck in traffic or standing on a crowded DART.


----------



## DeeFox

I'm not religious at all but I have no objection to the Angelus - a lot of older get something from it.  It's one minute out of a long day and the idea of a moment of calm before the news of stock crashing, etc. is nice.  And although I haven't actually seen it in a long time, I don't remember it as being in your face Catholic - more of a moment of quite reflection.


----------



## Ash 22

Personally I think it is nice that RTE have continued to have The Angelus on and hopefully they will continue to do so. Its only one minute out of each day. Nobody is compelling anybody to view it. In America you have "IN God we Trust" on their national currency. Are people cribbing?


----------



## rabbit

Ash 22 said:


> Nobody is compelling anybody to view it. In America you have "IN God we Trust" on their national currency. Are people cribbing?


I have never noticed that written on American currency.  However, I have been to other countries too and could not tell you whats written in small print on their currencies either.  Who cares ?   At least "In God we Trust" is a bit more wider embracing / less sectarian than the Angelus, as most if not all religions ( in the west at least ) seem to believe in some God / supreme being.   The Angelus is another matter.    People turn on their TV primarily for two things , entertainment and acquisition of knowledge or news.    Most people I know turn to another station when they hear those boring bells on tv or the radio , for that matter.  Only a station of "the state" and underwritten by state finances would have them.


----------



## truthseeker

I dont need the national broadcaster reminding me to reflect - Im quite capable of reflecting myself if needs be without being told.

For those who say its not blatantly religious - the definition of The Angelus (according to Wikipedia) is:
The *Angelus* (Latin for _Angel_) is a Christian devotion in memory of the Incarnation.

To me this is blatantly religious

Im with Sunny on this, bring on Pat Kenny reading from the Koran.


----------



## Caveat

BTW, I should add that I do object to this thing being on. 

My earlier point was just that it's not nearly as blatant as it once was. 
I think it's a sad old relic from the days (thankfully almost gone) when the word of a priest was more important than the word of law and being harassed for religious contributions was regarded as normal.


----------



## Ash 22

If any other religion want to have their minute on the TV it would'nt bother me. I would'nt have a problem watching it.


----------



## jhegarty

exactly , I think it should be left on , and 1 minute a day offered to the other major religions...


----------



## TarfHead

FWIW

The TV listings supplied on the RTE website make no reference to The Angelus.

17:30 The Bill
18:01 RTE News: Six One


----------



## ubiquitous

rabbit said:


> Only a station of "the state" and underwritten by state finances would have them.



The privately-owned local radio station in my area also carries the Angelus. They are part of a group that operates several local stations, all of which I expect have a similar policy.


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> I think it's a sad old relic from the days (thankfully almost gone) when the word of a priest was more important than the word of law and being harassed for religious contributions was regarded as normal.



Nowadays its just the environmentalists whose word is more important than anything else, and the "charities" who harass us for contributions. Plus ca change...


----------



## z105

> To those of you who are able to be at home at 18:00 in the evening, hush your whining and pick up the remote  ?



And if you are unable to be home by 18.00 you can always get the bongs at Midday on RTE Radio 1  - are they still going?


----------



## Towger

If you think we are bad with the Angelus, in the Philippines they have a decade of the rosary at 12:00 and 18:00. Not just on the radio and TV, but also in large department stores etc. Everyone stops shopping and stands there quietly waiting for it to end. Which reminds me where has GDE gone to these days?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

6.01 news invariably opens with two dudes chatting away to each other or fiddling with their laptops. Clearly they haven't been reflecting.


----------



## elefantfresh

> 6.01 news invariably opens with two dudes chatting away to each other or fiddling with their laptops. Clearly they haven't been reflecting



But sometimes its Sharon, so thats ok.


----------



## Pique318

sunny said:


> how Is It Promoting A Religion? Its Not Exactly A Harvey Norman Ad


Go This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, Go !


----------



## Pique318

elefantfresh said:


> But sometimes its Sharon, so thats ok.


Fiddling with her lap-top ?


----------



## MrMan

Why do people get so hung up on 1 minutes programming, it is not offensive and there is no words spoken so therefore no preaching involved. Is it just the default mode in peoples brains to attack anything that the catholic church is involved with?


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Why do people get so hung up on 1 minutes programming, it is not offensive and there is no words spoken so therefore no preaching involved. Is it just the default mode in peoples brains to attack anything that the catholic church is involved with?


 
I find the entire concept of religion offensive and patronising.
Words are unnecessary, the meme is transmitted by the death knell.


----------



## Sunny

truthseeker said:


> I find the entire concept of religion offensive and patronising.
> Words are unnecessary, the meme is transmitted by the death knell.


 
And I find Pat Kenny offensive and patronising but some people like him and they pay their licence fee too so if they want to waste their time watching him, then fair enough. Unless your tv is forced to automatically switch onto to RTE at 6pm every evening and stay there, I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## truthseeker

Sunny said:


> And I find Pat Kenny offensive and patronising but some people like him and they pay their licence fee too so if they want to waste their time watching him, then fair enough. Unless your tv is forced to automatically switch onto to RTE at 6pm every evening and stay there, I don't see what the problem is.


 

But Pat Kennys underlying agenda is not to control the masses through fear and to control the fertility of women (at least I hope not), nor does he attempt to indoctrinate people into believing in an imaginary entity under threat of everlasting damnation if they dont and promise of everlasting paradise if they do - without question though - very important not to question religion.

I dont believe Pat Kenny is dangerous in the manner that religion is.


----------



## Upstihaggity

Sunny said:


> And I find Pat Kenny offensive and patronising but some people like him and they pay their licence fee too so if they want to waste their time watching him, then fair enough. Unless your tv is forced to automatically switch onto to RTE at 6pm every evening and stay there, I don't see what the problem is.


 

Well said! Couldn't agree more - that's what a remote is for!

Saying that at Oxegen last summer the took the complete mickey out of the angelus bongs and had a film of random people at the gig imitating the wistful look into the distance and it really made me laugh!!


----------



## Caveat

MrMan said:


> ...that the catholic church is involved with?


 
That's the issue for me - why is it involved? 
I object to interference/influence from the catholic church in my daily life. That also applies to the pubs being closed on good friday, congregation members becoming self appointed traffic wardens during 'solemn' rolleyes novenas etc etc.


----------



## Sunny

Pique318 said:


> Go This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, Go !


 
Or in the case of the Angelus, "Go Mary, Go. She won't be beaten on price"...


----------



## Sunny

truthseeker said:


> But Pat Kennys underlying agenda is not to control the masses through fear and to control the fertility of women (at least I hope not), nor does he attempt to indoctrinate people into believing in an imaginary entity under threat of everlasting damnation if they dont and promise of everlasting paradise if they do - without question though - very important not to question religion.
> 
> I dont believe Pat Kenny is dangerous in the manner that religion is.


 
You get all that from the ringing of a bell????


----------



## Towger

truthseeker said:


> But Pat Kennys underlying agenda is not to control the masses through fear... I dont believe Pat Kenny is dangerous in the manner that religion is.


 
Do you include "Joe Duffy" in that grouping, when he was doing his best to start a run on the banks?


----------



## Teabag

Ash 22 said:


> If any other religion want to have their minute on the TV it would'nt bother me. I would'nt have a problem watching it.



Maybe we should have a minute showing the 10 practices below:

http://listverse.com/bizarre/10-weird-religious-practices/

I am particularly interested in #8 but with more thistles...

.......we could have a minute of Tom Cruise laughing.


----------



## LDFerguson

elefantfresh said:


> But sometimes its Sharon, so thats ok.


 
So sometimes you get two dudes fiddling with Sharon?  Why wasn't I told?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> But Pat Kennys underlying agenda is not to control the masses through fear and to control the fertility of women (at least I hope not), nor does he attempt to indoctrinate people into believing in an imaginary entity under threat of everlasting damnation if they dont and promise of everlasting paradise if they do - without question though - very important not to question religion.
> 
> I dont believe Pat Kenny is dangerous in the manner that religion is.



I have a degree of faith and do not feel in fear of the church nor do I wish to control womens fertility, and I have my own grasp on what I believe in regards the afterlife, there is no hard and fast rules, we are not in the dark ages so making the church and church goers sound like an evil cult makes no sense and adds nothing. Maybe you could open your mind to how people feel about the church or simply ignore it altogether.


----------



## Upstihaggity

ldferguson said:


> so Sometimes You Get Two Dudes Fiddling With Sharon? Why Wasn't I Told?


 
:d


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> That's the issue for me - why is it involved?
> I object to interference/influence from the catholic church in my daily life. That also applies to the pubs being closed on good friday, congregation members becoming self appointed traffic wardens during 'solemn' rolleyes novenas etc etc.



I would say its involved as it is appealing to the major religious community that is based in Ireland and as it is only providing one minute in the day so it is much easier to have it than not to have it. I still cant see how it is offensive.


----------



## rabbit

MrMan said:


> Why do people get so hung up on 1 minutes programming, it is not offensive and there is no words spoken so therefore no preaching involved.


 
Its the same old death knell banging day in day out though, same as on the radio, at prime time. If people want to hear that, why do they not buy a CD of it and listen to it again and again, instead of forcing it on other people, the majority of the population who continue what they are doing and ignore it ?  I think if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was here, he would wonder what it was all about , and would perhaps prefer sell the valuable advertising time and give the money to some charity in the world.


----------



## iggy

Sunny said:


> What harm does it do? I know my Grandparents and alot of people from that generation seem to get something from it so let them off. I am sure we can even things up for the other religions if they are offended.
> 
> Maybe instead of the Late Late, we could have Pat Kenny reading from the Koran or something.


 posted by "Sunny" ....or "Sunni"?..watch out lads  I think we`ve got a live one!!


----------



## DavyJones

rabbit said:


> Its the same old death knell banging day in day out though, same as on the radio, at prime time. If people want to hear that, why do they not buy a CD of it and listen to it again and again, instead of forcing it on other people, the majority of the population who continue what they are doing and ignore it ?  I think if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was here, he would wonder what it was all about , and would perhaps prefer sell the valuable advertising time and give the money to some charity in the world.



The same could be said for woefull Gerry Ryan and Pat Kenny on the radio. Change the recordgive someone else a chance. I'd rather listen to a bell chime than those two any day. so guess what? I don't listen to them just like people aren't forced to listen to 60 seconds of a bell ringing twice a day.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> ...attempt to indoctrinate people into believing in an imaginary entity under threat of everlasting damnation if they dont and promise of everlasting paradise if they do - without question though - very important not to question religion.



Remind me again, what century are we living in


----------



## Ash 22

Maybe all of you who do not have an interest in The Angelus might just try taking that one minute ro reflect on how your day has been. 

The majority of peope in this country are Catholics and down the years The Angelus has had an important place in everyday life. The Church bells chime at 12 and at 6. It was recited in school at 12 and possibly still is in several schools. There was that very popular painting seen in many a home of the 2 people pausing in the field. Why should the tradition be dropped? You who do not believe have an option whereas we who do believe would not have an option if it were not on our screens. 

When you think of how many times at an add break we see the same sometimes ridiculuous adds over and over again each night and you crib of just one minute each day before 6 o'cock.


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> congregation members becoming self appointed traffic wardens during 'solemn' rolleyes novenas etc etc.



Maybe then we should also ban all music festivals, sports events etc etc all in the name of free-flowing traffic


----------



## ney001

truthseeker said:


> But Pat Kennys underlying agenda is not to control the masses through fear and to control the fertility of women (at least I hope not), nor does he attempt to indoctrinate people into believing in an imaginary entity under threat of everlasting damnation if they dont and promise of everlasting paradise if they do - without question though - very important not to question religion.
> 
> I dont believe Pat Kenny is dangerous in the manner that religion is.



jeeze I hope you go to bed before 'prayer at bedtime' you'd really have nightmares then!


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> I have a degree of faith and do not feel in fear of the church nor do I wish to control womens fertility, and I have my own grasp on what I believe in regards the afterlife, there is no hard and fast rules, we are not in the dark ages so making the church and church goers sound like an evil cult makes no sense and adds nothing. Maybe you could open your mind to how people feel about the church or simply ignore it altogether.


 
I dont think youre trying to control womens fertility MrMan, but organised religion does. 
As far as Im concerned the church (and any church or religion) IS a cult. 
When does a cult become a religion? I dont see any difference between the two.

Interesting that its ok to advise an atheist to 'open their mind' or ignore the church altogether - but an atheist advising a religious person to 'open their mind' is construed as very naughty.


----------



## Caveat

ubiquitous said:


> Maybe then we should also ban all music festivals, sports events etc etc all in the name of free-flowing traffic


 
Why - do these events also involve unsanctioned, untrained, nonprofessional busybodies who disregard the rules of the road and give preference to members of their congregation regardless of prevailing traffic conditions, whilst simultaneously encouraging attendees to illegally park and create obstructions?


----------



## Sunny

truthseeker said:


> I dont think youre trying to control womens fertility MrMan, but organised religion does.
> As far as Im concerned the church (and any church or religion) IS a cult.
> When does a cult become a religion? I dont see any difference between the two.
> 
> Interesting that its ok to advise an atheist to 'open their mind' or ignore the church altogether - but an atheist advising a religious person to 'open their mind' is construed as very naughty.


 
I am not religious but at the same time I struggle to see how anyone can be offended by a bell ringing a few times and a few pictures of ordinary people in different poses including one of a farmer with his hand on his cow's This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language. What harm is it doing? Are all the little kiddies going to run away to become priests and nuns? Are all the muslims going to convert? Maybe that is the solution to the problems in the middle east...Instead of invading countries or fighting zealots in the desert, we can bombard them with the angelus 24 hours a day. Before you know it, we will all be one happy Christian family. Apart from the Atheists though. Suppose we could just burn them at the stake!!!! Actually maybe I have been brainwashed by those darn bells....


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> Why - do these events also involve unsanctioned, untrained, nonprofessional busybodies who disregard the rules of the road and give preference to members of their congregation regardless of prevailing traffic conditions, whilst simultaneously encouraging attendees to illegally park and create obstructions?



You obviously haven't been in Ballinasloe this week


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> Interesting that its ok to advise an atheist to 'open their mind' or ignore the church altogether - but an atheist advising a religious person to 'open their mind' is construed as very naughty.



Tolerance is a two-way street. And its interesting to note the numbers of people who are brave enough to criticise and caricature the religious practices of certain faiths but not brave enough to do the same of others.


----------



## Teabag

ubiquitous said:


> Tolerance is a two-way street. And its interesting to note the numbers of people who are brave enough to criticise and caricature the religious practices of certain faiths but not brave enough to do the same of others.



What does that mean ? Atheists believe that all organised religions are a nonsense, no ?


----------



## ubiquitous

Teabag said:


> What does that mean ? Atheists believe that all organised religions are a nonsense, no ?



Did I mention atheists?

What I mean is, there are plenty of people who make a virtue of "bravely" criticising and/or caricaturing certain religions (eg, the Christian Churches) but who are too scared to make even mild criticism of certain other religions for fear of "direct action" from aggrieved members of such faiths. 

This is why for example you see the Catholic Church policy on contraception being blamed for "spreading AIDS in Africa" despite the fact that the vast majority of Africans are not Catholics but are members of another religion that takes a far more hardline approach to contraception and "sexual morality" matters in general than the Catholic Church ever did.


----------



## DavyJones

poor Atheists, an eternity doomed, burning in the fires of hell is what they have to look forward to.


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> I dont think youre trying to control womens fertility MrMan, but organised religion does.
> As far as Im concerned the church (and any church or religion) IS a cult.
> When does a cult become a religion? I dont see any difference between the two.
> 
> Interesting that its ok to advise an atheist to 'open their mind' or ignore the church altogether - but an atheist advising a religious person to 'open their mind' is construed as very naughty.




My thinking would be that a cult is a hardcore following that does not 'allow' its members to operate outside the guidelines, a church as is obvious in Ireland has many followers who are not fanatical when it comes to their religion but can still call on faith in a time of need. 

As regards opening your mind I have no problem in being asked to do so, of course I question the different elements of teachings from when I was brought up and I do enjoy listening to alternitive ideas when it comes to creationism, evolution etc, but if you are asking me to open my mind it should not be in a manner of ' why do you believe in a god when the tooth fairy is more plausible' because that is slightly offensive. An argument can be held on religion without the obligitory thrash talking.


----------



## Superman

truthseeker said:


> As far as Im concerned the church (and any church or religion) IS a cult.
> When does a cult become a religion? I dont see any difference between the two.


The politically correct term is "New Religious Movement":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement


----------



## Alba Longa

The Catholic church is a tradition that goes way back in Ireland and not all people want to forget their traditions.  I think we ought to face the fact that despite the mistakes the church made, it brought a lot of civilization to Ireland.  The middle ages were terrible for the catholic world, but so is what is happening in the world today.


----------



## z103

> poor Atheists, an eternity doomed, burning in the fires of hell is what they have to look forward to.


Unless, of course they are correct.
I'm a theist, but the last thing I would want is an afterlife. One life is more than enough!

WRT RTÉ/Angelus, well licence fee is optional. I choose not to support RTÉ. I would be more worried about tax payers' money being used to (unsuccessfully) prop up banks.


----------



## Towger

The answer to all your arguing that is that it is a very cheap one minute programing output. Record set of bells every 10 years or so, play tape until it is knackered, repeat from step 1.


----------



## GeneralZod

I never liked it. The bell is cracked and sounds awful. At least they've toned down the religious artwork that used to be broadcast with it.

It has one advantage too. It gives about 90 seconds to flick over to the BBC and get the headlines. In times of crisis one turns to the BBC.


----------



## MOB

The Church\State divide in Ireland is rather muddled.  

I would have no particular issue with the Angelus being removed from RTE.  But I also think that it does no harm to be there.  And I also think that we are all worse off as a society by not having a day where people shut up shop and rest.  Sunday used to be that day.  It is a shame that our willingness and desire to reduce the influence of the Church was used to rob us of such a good idea.

Such is our muddled thinking that we allow the Angelus, but ban the Catholic Church from advertising on our airwaves.  To be fair, we ban all religions from such advertising.  Apparently the free market is not free to those who want to preach their belief in god.  

I think it would be better that Catholics be allowed to have their own privately funded TV and radio stations.   There is enough spectrum available, and they are a large enough market to support this.  But I think we probably banned that too.   

Soccer fans could have their own dedicated channel.  Ditto the bookies and horseracing fans.  But Catholics?  Good [insert your own definition of afterlife]s no.


----------



## MandaC

You have to admit, it was a bit odd when they changed it from the holy picture though.

All these people going about their business and suddenly, bong,  bong, it was like they were being hypnotised, turning skywards like something out of an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

I suppose all things being equal and comparing one monosylabic drone to another, there is as much entertainment value in one minute of the Angelus as there is in three hours of Pat Kenny, at a fraction of the cost.

Given that the Angelus made an appearance for one year during the Marion Year and just never went away, could Pat Kenny not just make a disappearance to save a few bob during the current credit crunch for a year and perhaps not come back.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> My thinking would be that a cult is a hardcore following that does not 'allow' its members to operate outside the guidelines, a church as is obvious in Ireland has many followers who are not fanatical when it comes to their religion but can still call on faith in a time of need.


 
The only reason the church does not 'allow' its members to to operate outside the guidelines is because it would have less members if it did - keeping the membership numbers up is very important (more money for the coffers in Rome). But surely there is punishment coming on the day of reckoning for those who operate outside the guidelines? For example, is it not a sin to use contraception? To be homosexual? To have sex outside of marriage? If followers are just picking and choosing the bits the want to live by then is it not hypocritical?



MrMan said:


> As regards opening your mind I have no problem in being asked to do so, of course I question the different elements of teachings from when I was brought up and I do enjoy listening to alternitive ideas when it comes to creationism, evolution etc, but if you are asking me to open my mind it should not be in a manner of ' why do you believe in a god when the tooth fairy is more plausible' because that is slightly offensive. An argument can be held on religion without the obligitory thrash talking.


 
I dont understand what is offensive in comparing a god to any other imaginary entity. As much scientific evidence exists to support the existence of the tooth fairy as does to support the existence of a god. I am sorry if you find that offensive. Unfortunately it is the truth. If the truth offends it is because the mind examining it is not open to fact.

If science could prove the existence of a god, in a manner that could be repeated, experiment after experiment then Id be the first to jump on the god bandwagon. But it cannot. 

Plus there is the common sense notion that there are a large number of different religions around the world. They cant all be right can they? The only reason a large number of people are Catholic is that they were born of Catholic parents. They were indoctrinated before they had any understanding of the world around them or knew what they were signing up for by being baptised/make communion/confirmed. Its a matter of chance what religion you are.

I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).
But that is a totally seperate issue to belief in the existance of a god. And it is intended to be an unquestioning belief. Its very easy to stand by the argument for a god if no one is allowed to question it.
Questioning it and making valid comparisions is classed as 'offensive' - so this prevents open discussion because the religious member can always use the 'you are causing offence' as a fall back position. 

The Angelus reminds me of George Orwells 1984, it is a Big Brother type propaganda machine - IMO.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> The only reason the church does not 'allow' its members to to operate outside the guidelines is because it would have less members if it did - keeping the membership numbers up is very important (more money for the coffers in Rome).


You're contradicting yourself by saying on one hand that the church "controls the masses through fear" and on the other by admitting that they actually don't do that (but they would love to, if they could afford it). Not very convincing 


truthseeker said:


> But surely there is punishment coming on the day of reckoning for those who operate outside the guidelines? For example, is it not a sin to use contraception? To be homosexual? To have sex outside of marriage? If followers are just picking and choosing the bits the want to live by then is it not hypocritical?


The vast majority of catholics do not believe on this "punishment coming on the day of reckoning" rubbish. You will get a few loonies in every bandwagon. This not mean that everyone is a loony.



truthseeker said:


> I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).



The Catholic Church does not forbid homosexuality.

I would be interested if you can quote me a rule of the Catholic Church that states that sex should only be for procreation.

Now, please illuminate us on your views of Islam


----------



## DavyJones

ubiquitous said:


> I would be interested if you can quote me a rule of the Catholic Church that states that sex should only be for procreation.




*Catholic Church Rule Book*

*Rule 1*

Sex Shall not be for fun and only used to create a life in likeness of the Lord.


----------



## TarfHead

truthseeker said:


> I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).


 
So, send in a letter of resignation, hand back your Holy Communion & Confirmation money & recuse yourself from further discussions ?


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> The only reason the church does not 'allow' its members to to operate outside the guidelines is because it would have less members if it did - keeping the membership numbers up is very important (more money for the coffers in Rome). But surely there is punishment coming on the day of reckoning for those who operate outside the guidelines? For example, is it not a sin to use contraception? To be homosexual? To have sex outside of marriage? If followers are just picking and choosing the bits the want to live by then is it not hypocritical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping the numbers up doesn't automatically increase the coffers as people not going to mass will not be contributing to the collection, as regarding picking and choosing what you see as right or wrong I don't see a problem with that. The catholic church does have its rules but alot of followers would feel that the overall message is to have faith in a greater good and a belief that we should live our lives as best we can. The bible was written by men and is open to interpretation so I believe in God but I don't agree with all elements of the catholic church. My view isn't hypocritical its typical if anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont understand what is offensive in comparing a god to any other imaginary entity. As much scientific evidence exists to support the existence of the tooth fairy as does to support the existence of a god. I am sorry if you find that offensive. Unfortunately it is the truth. If the truth offends it is because the mind examining it is not open to fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am having a conversation with an overweight person and I say 'you are incredibly fat, if your not careful your excessive gorging on food will kill you soon' I will be telling the truth and I would imagine the other person and any other person that heard me say it would find it offensive. Its not just being open minded its called having common courtesy, being tactful or even simply being respectful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If science could prove the existence of a god, in a manner that could be repeated, experiment after experiment then Id be the first to jump on the god bandwagon. But it cannot.
> 
> Plus there is the common sense notion that there are a large number of different religions around the world. They cant all be right can they? The only reason a large number of people are Catholic is that they were born of Catholic parents. They were indoctrinated before they had any understanding of the world around them or knew what they were signing up for by being baptised/make communion/confirmed. Its a matter of chance what religion you are.
> 
> I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).
> But that is a totally seperate issue to belief in the existance of a god. And it is intended to be an unquestioning belief. Its very easy to stand by the argument for a god if no one is allowed to question it.
> Questioning it and making valid comparisions is classed as 'offensive' - so this prevents open discussion because the religious member can always use the 'you are causing offence' as a fall back position.
> 
> The Angelus reminds me of George Orwells 1984, it is a Big Brother type propaganda machine - IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right about how people start out in a religion, but things have moved on. Your views against religion in general don't quite suit todays mindset. Most western religions do allow questioning of faith, you often hear of priests questioning their faith and its not a closed shop, its not a case of them and us. I understand the scientific misgivings and why people such as yourself cant get your head around why seemingly sane people belief that there is a God when there is no proof but everyone takes out of it what they need so wheres the harm in todays world?
Click to expand...


----------



## Caveat

TarfHead said:


> So, send in a letter of resignation,


 
May never have been a member of the catholic church?



> hand back your Holy Communion & Confirmation money


 
 May never have received any?



> & recuse yourself from further discussions?


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> You're contradicting yourself by saying on one hand that the church "controls the masses through fear" and on the other by admitting that they actually don't do that (but they would love to, if they could afford it). Not very convincing


 
The church is not the only influence on peoples lives, people also behave according to cultural influences. The churches position is to control the masses by fear. Culture and society influences (can) go against that, the best compromise for the church is to allow some laxity - otherwise they would lose membership - I dont see any contradiction? They control the members they DO have, and rely on indoctrination from being born into the faith to gain more members.



ubiquitous said:


> The vast majority of catholics do not believe on this "punishment coming on the day of reckoning" rubbish. You will get a few loonies in every bandwagon. This not mean that everyone is a loony.


 
Why not? How is it rubbish (to a catholic) if the church says it is so? 
I dont understand this pick and mix stance - youre either a catholic or you arent?



ubiquitous said:


> The Catholic Church does not forbid homosexuality.


from:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

_"Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. *The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law*."_ 



ubiquitous said:


> I would be interested if you can quote me a rule of the Catholic Church that states that sex should only be for procreation.


from: [broken link removed]

_"Since, therefore, the conjugal act is designed primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purposely sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."_
_Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii_ 


I was never an insider in Islam so am not qualified to speak on its teachings. I was, however, indoctrinated into Catholism at an age before I could speak and then when I became old enough to question it I realised I did not agree with any of it.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Keeping the numbers up doesn't automatically increase the coffers as people not going to mass will not be contributing to the collection, as regarding picking and choosing what you see as right or wrong I don't see a problem with that. The catholic church does have its rules but alot of followers would feel that the overall message is to have faith in a greater good and a belief that we should live our lives as best we can. The bible was written by men and is open to interpretation so I believe in God but I don't agree with all elements of the catholic church. My view isn't hypocritical its typical if anything.


 
But dont the people who dont go to mass still have to pay the church for things like baptisms, weddings, funerals etc?



MrMan said:


> If I am having a conversation with an overweight person and I say 'you are incredibly fat, if your not careful your excessive gorging on food will kill you soon' I will be telling the truth and I would imagine the other person and any other person that heard me say it would find it offensive. Its not just being open minded its called having common courtesy, being tactful or even simply being respectful.


 
Absolutely excellent and well presented point. However, if you are willing to engage in a discussion about your belief system you must expect that you will feel offended because you wont like what you hear.
(if a fat person said 'lets discuss fatness' they would have to expect that they would not like what they heard).



MrMan said:


> You are right about how people start out in a religion, but things have moved on. Your views against religion in general don't quite suit todays mindset. Most western religions do allow questioning of faith, you often hear of priests questioning their faith and its not a closed shop, its not a case of them and us. I understand the scientific misgivings and why people such as yourself cant get your head around why seemingly sane people belief that there is a God when there is no proof but everyone takes out of it what they need so wheres the harm in todays world?


 
I think the harm is in spreading a belief for which there is no proof. Like the Flat Earthers - even after the proof is in place that the earth is not flat they STILL persist in trying to spread a falsehood.


----------



## Sunny

Its still just ringing bells for one minute......


----------



## MrMan

> Why not? How is it rubbish (to a catholic) if the church says it is so?
> I dont understand this pick and mix stance - youre either a catholic or you arent?



Thats the point, you can believe in what you like and you should question things.



> The church is not the only influence on peoples lives, people also behave according to cultural influences. The churches position is to control the masses by fear. Culture and society influences (can) go against that, the best compromise for the church is to allow some laxity - otherwise they would lose membership - I dont see any contradiction? They control the members they DO have, and rely on indoctrination from being born into the faith to gain more members.



Where does it say that the churches position is to control by fear? is it in the annual report? They dont control members, for instance I am a Catholic but I dont consult the bible or seek guidance in my daily life, there is no influence or interference in my life.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> The church is not the only influence on peoples lives, people also behave according to cultural influences. The churches position is to control the masses by fear. Culture and society influences (can) go against that, the best compromise for the church is to allow some laxity - otherwise they would lose membership - I dont see any contradiction? They control the members they DO have, and rely on indoctrination from being born into the faith to gain more members.


Sorry, that does not explain the contradiction I highlighted. "Control through fear" and "allow some laxity" are mutually contradictory terms.


truthseeker said:


> Why not? How is it rubbish (to a catholic) if the church says it is so?
> I dont understand this pick and mix stance - youre either a catholic or you arent?


Other posters have addresses this point much better than I can.



> from:
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
> 
> _"Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. *The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law*."_


The article you quote does not refer to homosexuality, except in its headlines. The Church forbids homosexual acts. It does not condemn homosexuals, unlike some other religions and secular movements.


> from: [broken link removed]
> 
> _"Since, therefore, the conjugal act is designed primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purposely sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."_
> _Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii_


Piux XI died in 1939. You might as well be quoting Padraig Pearse as a source on modern Ireland. Are you beyond understanding that the the Catholic Church, and all movements of whatever ilk, evolve over time?


> I was never an insider in Islam so am not qualified to speak on its teachings. I was, however, indoctrinated into Catholism at an age before I could speak and then when I became old enough to question it I realised I did not agree with any of it.


So, one cannot criticise say, the Moonies, unless one has been a member of the Moonies?


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> I think the harm is in spreading a belief for which there is no proof.



Global warming?


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> However, if you are willing to engage in a discussion about your belief system you must expect that you will feel offended because you wont like what you hear.
> (if a fat person said 'lets discuss fatness' they would have to expect that they would not like what they heard).



I think it should be possible in civilised society for, say, cigarette smokers to engage with others in debate and discussions about lung cancer without being insulted for their habits.


----------



## MrMan

> But dont the people who dont go to mass still have to pay the church for things like baptisms, weddings, funerals etc?



yes but if they expect to have ceremonys in such buildings they should expect that the buildings need to be run, so payment is not out of the ordinary and generally minimal.





> Absolutely excellent and well presented point. However, if you are willing to engage in a discussion about your belief system you must expect that you will feel offended because you wont like what you hear.
> (if a fat person said 'lets discuss fatness' they would have to expect that they would not like what they heard).


Not sure if your first line is sarcastic but I'm taking it as a compliment, and to your reply - touché!



> I think the harm is in spreading a belief for which there is no proof. Like the Flat Earthers - even after the proof is in place that the earth is not flat they STILL persist in trying to spread a falsehood



I guess the belief system will remain until scientists can prove there is no God, but even then I think that people will still need a degree of faith or at least hold onto it.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Not sure if your first line is sarcastic but I'm taking it as a compliment, and to your reply - touché!


 
It was intended as a compliment and not as sarcasm. It was a valid point you made.



MrMan said:


> I guess the belief system will remain until scientists can prove there is no God, but even then I think that people will still need a degree of faith or at least hold onto it.


 
I agree - people will still hold onto it no matter what science says - which is harmful IMO.


----------



## truthseeker

MrMan said:


> Where does it say that the churches position is to control by fear? is it in the annual report? They dont control members, for instance I am a Catholic but I dont consult the bible or seek guidance in my daily life, there is no influence or interference in my life.


 
It doesnt say it anywhere - that is my opinion of organised religion.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Sorry, that does not explain the contradiction I highlighted. "Control through fear" and "allow some laxity" are mutually contradictory terms.


 
Not at all - I never said it was a totalitarian movement.



ubiquitous said:


> The article you quote does not refer to homosexuality, except in its headlines. The Church forbids homosexual acts. It does not condemn homosexuals, unlike some other religions and secular movements.


 
If it forbids homosexual acts then how is it possible to be homosexual without going against the churches teachings?



ubiquitous said:


> Piux XI died in 1939. You might as well be quoting Padraig Pearse as a source on modern Ireland. Are you beyond understanding that the the Catholic Church, and all movements of whatever ilk, evolve over time?


 
You stated you would be interested if I could find you something that proved my point. I found something - you never placed conditions on what I found until you didnt like what I showed you.




ubiquitous said:


> So, one cannot criticise say, the Moonies, unless one has been a member of the Moonies?


 
One can. You asked about Islam, I told you I wasnt qualified to speak on its teachings - I am not. If I researched the subject Id speak on it. Ditto for Moonies. My broad view is that any organised religion that holds unprovable belief systems is wrong. But I cant comment on individual cases without more education on those cases.


----------



## Caveat

MrMan, Re: influence/interference in my daily life, I would say the issue of pubs not opening on good friday and abortion are two examples.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> Not at all - I never said it was a totalitarian movement.


 But you did say it "controlled through fear" (which is as good a definition of totalitarianism as I can imagine) but you then said it "allows some laxity", which as I said seems to be contradictory.


truthseeker said:


> If it forbids homosexual acts then how is it possible to be homosexual without going against the churches teachings?



This distinction has been addressed ad nauseam by many senior Church figures in recent times. You should find plenty of explanations on the web if you look. 


truthseeker said:


> You stated you would be interested if I could find you something that proved my point. I found something - you never placed conditions on what I found until you didnt like what I showed you.



No, I just thought that the source you found was irrelevant and outdated.


truthseeker said:


> One can. You asked about Islam, I told you I wasnt qualified to speak on its teachings - I am not. If I researched the subject Id speak on it. Ditto for Moonies.


With respect, I think that sounds like a cop out. Have you no opinion whatsoever on, for example, female circumcision or honour killings?


----------



## Sunny

Caveat said:


> MrMan, Re: influence/interference in my daily life, I would say the issue of pubs not opening on good friday and abortion are two examples.


 

How does abortion affect your daily life? 

Why are you blaming the Church for pubs not opening on Good Friday in this day and age? E-mail your local TD and try and get the law changed. As someone who has worked in pubs, I think it is great idea. It was always one of the very few days that I knew I would have off.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> But you did say it "controlled through fear" (which is as good a definition of totalitarianism as I can imagine) but you then said it "allows some laxity", which as I said seems to be contradictory.


 
If you dont understand the point Im making then I dont have a way to make it any clearer.



ubiquitous said:


> This distinction has been addressed ad nauseam by many senior Church figures in recent times. You should find plenty of explanations on the web if you look.


 
Great - could you post a link?



ubiquitous said:


> No, I just thought that the source you found was irrelevant and outdated.


 
There are more recent quotes available but its really the same story dressed in different clothing throughout time.



ubiquitous said:


> With respect, I think that sounds like a cop out. Have you no opinion whatsoever on, for example, female circumcision or honour killings?


 
Fine - you are entitled to your opinion. It seems you choose deliberately inflammatory subjects, I am against body modification in all forms for children and I believe killing another human being is morally wrong no matter what the reason - but these are things that I would disagree with no matter whether it was religion or culture behind it.


----------



## TarfHead

Caveat said:


> May never have been a member of the catholic church?
> 
> May never have received any?


 
IMHO, if you're inside the tent, you free to p*$$ out. If you're outside, trying to p*$$ in .. down with that sort of thing !


----------



## Caveat

Sunny said:


> How does abortion affect your daily life?


 
How? Because I live in a country where the legal issues regarding abortion are as a result of the influence of the church.



> Why are you blaming the Church for pubs not opening on Good Friday in this day and age?


 
Because again, it is their influence that has resulted in this.


----------



## MrMan

Caveat said:


> MrMan, Re: influence/interference in my daily life, I would say the issue of pubs not opening on good friday and abortion are two examples.



They don't interfere with my daily life but I understand your point.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> Great - could you post a link?


 




truthseeker said:


> There are more recent quotes available but its really the same story dressed in different clothing throughout time.


 
Great - could you post a link?  


> It seems you choose deliberately inflammatory subjects,.


Of course one man's "God & the tooth fairy" argument is another's "deliberately inflammatory subject"


----------



## Sunny

Caveat said:


> How? Because I live in a country where the legal issues regarding abortion are as a result of the influence of the church.
> 
> 
> 
> Because again, it is their influence that has resulted in this.


 
I think you are giving too much credit to the power of the Church.

Anyway, are you just going to ignore the good things the Church does on a daily basis?

Can't believe I am actually defending the Catholic Church....


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Of course one man's "God & the tooth fairy" argument is another's "deliberately inflammatory subject"


 
Are you saying that female circumcision is comparable to the idea of the tooth fairy


----------



## truthseeker

That link does not seperate out the act of homsexual sex Vs a person being a homosexual nor does it discuss whether or not homosexuality is condemned by the church - but I would imagine a document banning homosexuals from joining the priesthood would in fact give support to the point I made about the church being against homosexuality!


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> Are you saying that female circumcision is comparable to the idea of the tooth fairy



No, I'm merely puzzled that you seem to take exception to others raising what you see as  "deliberately inflammatory subjects" while you yourself are quite happy to make fairly wild accusations and generalisations about the Church, and religion in general.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Great - could you post a link


 
From:
[broken link removed]
*Modern history of Catholic teaching*

*1930*

The modern attitude of the Catholic Church to contraception was laid down in the 1930s when Pope Pius XI issued _Casti Connubii_ (which translates as 'Of Chaste Marriage').
This document said that artificial birth control was a violation of the "law of God and nature" and that those who used it committed "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
*1951*

In 1951 Pope Pius XII said that it was acceptable to use the rhythm method if a couple had a good reason to limit the size of their family.
*1958*

In 1958 Pius XII stated that it was legitimate for women to take the birth control pill for medical reasons other than contraception. He said that the contraceptive side effect would not be wrong because of the 'doctrine of double effect'.
*1968*

In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued _Humanae Vitae_, which banned all artificial methods of birth control. His uncompromising position on birth control led to protests around the Catholic world and Roman Catholic hierarchies in some countries openly modified the policy.
The document surprised many Catholics, who had hoped for a relaxation of the traditional attitude after Vatican II, and it rejected the views of the commission appointed to consider birth control, which had recommended that the ban on contraception be ended.
*Pope John Paul II*

Pope John Paul II thought birth control was profoundly important; while still Cardinal Wojtyla he wrote that the issue of contraception was a "struggle for the value and meaning of humanity itself" (1978).
When he became Pope he confirmed the Church's position, "the natural regulation of fertility is morally correct; contraception is not morally correct."


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> No, I'm merely puzzled that you seem to take exception to others raising what you see as "deliberately inflammatory subjects" while you don't seem to have any problem with making fairly wild accusations and generalisations about the Church, and religion in general.


 
Where did I take exception? I merely commented on the nature of the subjects you choose. I never indicated I found them offensive?

How is it a wild accusation to compare one imaginary entity to another?


----------



## Caveat

Sunny said:


> Anyway, are you just going to ignore the good things the Church does on a daily basis?


 
No - I'm not attacking the church per se.  

I'm not a believer as it happens but I don't believe it's my place to criticize the beliefs of others and I don't think I have done so, and yes, the catholic church does of course do good work - as do other churches in the country.

As I've said, I just object to their influence, in this state, on my personal daily life - examples above - and in terms of the OP, I believe The Angelus to be another (albeit minor) example of this.

Practicing catholics are free to conduct their lives with as much or as little concern for the views/teachings of the church as they like.  Everyone else should have a choice IMO.


----------



## Teabag

truthseeker said:


> I dont understand what is offensive in comparing a god to any other imaginary entity. As much scientific evidence exists to support the existence of the tooth fairy as does to support the existence of a god. I am sorry if you find that offensive. Unfortunately it is the truth. If the truth offends it is because the mind examining it is not open to fact.
> 
> If science could prove the existence of a god, in a manner that could be repeated, experiment after experiment then Id be the first to jump on the god bandwagon. But it cannot.
> 
> Plus there is the common sense notion that there are a large number of different religions around the world. They cant all be right can they? The only reason a large number of people are Catholic is that they were born of Catholic parents. They were indoctrinated before they had any understanding of the world around them or knew what they were signing up for by being baptised/make communion/confirmed. Its a matter of chance what religion you are.
> 
> I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).
> But that is a totally seperate issue to belief in the existance of a god. And it is intended to be an unquestioning belief. Its very easy to stand by the argument for a god if no one is allowed to question it.
> Questioning it and making valid comparisions is classed as 'offensive' - so this prevents open discussion because the religious member can always use the 'you are causing offence' as a fall back position.



Very well put Truthseeker. I agree with you 100%. May I subscribe to your newsletter ?

Did you hear about the agnostic, insomiac, dyxlexic guy ?

He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> I would imagine a document banning homosexuals from joining the priesthood would in fact give support to the point I made about the church being against homosexuality!



..only if it is ultimately accepted by the Church, which is by no means certain, given the opposition of Dr. Martin & others. Incidentally, I would have thought that the existence of differing viewpoints within the Church in relation to this document would have undermined the allegation that the Church is a monolithic, dictatorial organisation that rules and controls by fear.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> From:
> [broken link removed]
> *Modern history of Catholic teaching*
> 
> *1930*
> 
> The modern attitude of the Catholic Church to contraception was laid down in the 1930s when Pope Pius XI issued _Casti Connubii_ (which translates as 'Of Chaste Marriage').
> This document said that artificial birth control was a violation of the "law of God and nature" and that those who used it committed "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
> *1951*
> 
> In 1951 Pope Pius XII said that it was acceptable to use the rhythm method if a couple had a good reason to limit the size of their family.
> *1958*
> 
> In 1958 Pius XII stated that it was legitimate for women to take the birth control pill for medical reasons other than contraception. He said that the contraceptive side effect would not be wrong because of the 'doctrine of double effect'.
> *1968*
> 
> In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued _Humanae Vitae_, which banned all artificial methods of birth control. His uncompromising position on birth control led to protests around the Catholic world and Roman Catholic hierarchies in some countries openly modified the policy.
> The document surprised many Catholics, who had hoped for a relaxation of the traditional attitude after Vatican II, and it rejected the views of the commission appointed to consider birth control, which had recommended that the ban on contraception be ended.
> *Pope John Paul II*
> 
> Pope John Paul II thought birth control was profoundly important; while still Cardinal Wojtyla he wrote that the issue of contraception was a "struggle for the value and meaning of humanity itself" (1978).
> When he became Pope he confirmed the Church's position, "the natural regulation of fertility is morally correct; contraception is not morally correct."



Sorry, I cannot find any indication there that sex should only be for procreation?



truthseeker said:


> I merely commented on the nature of the subjects you choose. I never indicated I found them offensive?


I didn't say you did.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Sorry, I cannot find any indication there that sex should only be for procreation?


 
Very last line "contraception is not morally correct" - the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, if use of it is not morally correct then that infers that the purpose of sex is to conceive.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> undermined the allegation that the Church is a monolithic, dictatorial organisation that rules and controls by fear.


 
Where was that alleged?


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> Very last line "contraception is not morally correct" - the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, if use of it is not morally correct then that infers that the purpose of sex is to conceive.



No it doesn't. You originally said...




truthseeker said:


> I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like ...sex only for procreation)


which is a different matter entirely.



truthseeker said:


> Where was that alleged?



Fair enough you didn't allege it, I didn't make my point particularly well. However my point still stands, most organisations that rule and "control by fear" (your words) don't bother with niceties like internal policy debates, least of all conducted in the public domain.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> No it doesn't. You originally said...


 
How does it not infer that the purpose of sex is to conceive if the use of contraception is morally wrong? 
I think that its pretty clear that the churches stance on this is that the purpose of sex is for procreation.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Fair enough you didn't allege it, I didn't make my point particularly well. However my point still stands, most organisations that rule and "control by fear" (your words) don't bother with niceties like internal policy debates, least of all conducted in the public domain.


 
Of course they do!! Its so the masses will believe that they are not being controlled by fear.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> How does it not infer that the purpose of sex is to conceive if the use of contraception is morally wrong?
> I think that its pretty clear that the churches stance on this is that the purpose of sex is for procreation.



If what you are saying is correct, the Church would teach that it is immoral for a woman to have sex if she is infertile. If this is their teaching, it is news to me.


truthseeker said:


> Of course they do!! Its so *people like you *will believe that you are not being controlled by fear.



If you wish to personalise the debate by making inferences about me and my beliefs, then feel free to debate away on your own


----------



## truthseeker

apologies ubi - I will edit the offending post, I did not intend to personalise in that manner - call it trigger happy typing.


----------



## ubiquitous

apology accepted. Thanks


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> If what you are saying is correct, the Church would teach that it is immoral for a woman to have sex if she is infertile. If this is their teaching, it is news to me.


 
Its not what Im saying, its what the church is saying. And if thats the inference that comes from it then yes, I assume that is their teaching - sad though that is.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> apology accepted. Thanks


 
No worries - I dont mean to offend, but sometimes my train of thought gets ahead of my sense of pc posting - if you know what I mean......


----------



## Ash 22

truthseeker said:


> But dont the people who dont go to mass still have to pay the church for things like baptisms, weddings, funerals etc?


 

Certainly do and rightly so and they should be contributing every week or on a yearly basis towards the upkeep of the Church. It is very sad when the Church and the priest are so taken for granted and then when the big occassion arrives so many people appear and especially with weddings, put on a big show for the day, may not be seen again in the Church for so long and almost expect the priest to do the ceremony for nothing. Yet they fork out bigtime on all the other expenses on the day. It is pretty annoying and by golly the priest better be available at the day and time they want him.


----------



## Caveat

Ash 22 said:


> ...almost expect the priest to do the ceremony for nothing


 
They are in paid employment - how are they doing it for nothing?


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> They are in paid employment



Are you sure? Priests are treated for tax purposes as self-employed. Their earnings are normally comprised of a combination of a % of Mass collections (usually fixed at diocesan level) and Mass stipends for funerals, weddings, "mass card" masses etc.


----------



## Caveat

Do diocesan priests not receive a weekly salary?

I thought the self employed aspect only applied to the other earnings you mention.

Anyway, my point was more that weddings (or funerals & christenings etc) are part of their job and not an 'extra' or something as Ash22 seems to be implying.


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> Do diocesan priests not receive a weekly salary?
> 
> I thought the self employed aspect only applied to the other earnings you mention.
> 
> Anyway, my point was more that weddings (or funerals & christenings etc) are part of their job and not an 'extra' or something as Ash22 seems to be implying.



No, not the ones in my neck of the woods. Their earnings are expected to include "fees" for funerals etc.


----------



## TarfHead

Caveat said:


> Anyway, my point was more that weddings (or funerals & christenings etc) are part of their job and not an 'extra' or something as Ash22 seems to be implying.


 
My read on what Ash22 was implying is that people who do not contribute to the Church or parish take the priest & parish for granted. The priests are not employees, and sacraments are not '_part of their job_'.


----------



## Caveat

Not easy to find info on this but:



...this for starters suggests payment of salaries to priests is not unusual.

Maybe it is just not publicised much?



TarfHead said:


> The priests are not employees, and sacraments are not '_part of their job_'.


 
I would be astonished if it wasn't made very clear during their training that priests would be expected to perform these duties on a regular basis.  As such, I don't see that it could be reasonably described as anything but 'part of their job'.


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> Not easy to find info on this but:
> 
> 
> 
> ...this for starters suggests payment of salaries to priests is not unusual.
> 
> Maybe it is just not publicised much?



Ah yes, the Mayo News, the technical publication of choice for tax professionals in the West  The Irish Tax Review must be quaking in their boots


----------



## Teabag

Thought provoking article here.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Ash 22

TarfHead said:


> My read on what Ash22 was implying is that people who do not contribute to the Church or parish take the priest & parish for granted. The priests are not employees, and sacraments are not '_part of their job_'.


 
Yes exactly they do take them for granted. The running costs for any Church for any year are very high as you would imagine. You have insurance, heating, lighting, refurbishments etc, what is going to pay for all this if we do not contribute. The Church is there for everybody but some people are users. Of course the sacraments are part of their job and I know our priest would not ask for any money for doing them but in fairness for people who just turn up for the "big day" and expect the Church to be heated, cleaned etc, priest there with nice sermon even though he might scarcely have met them, I still think is not nice. Priest deserves a few bob. 
Priests are expected to be available 24 hours a day for a call out. How many more professions will put up with that?


----------



## Caveat

ubiquitous said:


> Ah yes, the Mayo News, the technical publication of choice for tax professionals in the West  The Irish Tax Review must be quaking in their boots


 
 OK - but surely you accept that priests receiving salaries exist anyway?


----------



## truthseeker

Ash 22 said:


> Priests are expected to be available 24 hours a day for a call out. How many more professions will put up with that?


 
I would have classed the priesthood as a vocation and not a profession.


----------



## ubiquitous

Caveat said:


> OK - but surely you accept that priests receiving salaries exists anyway?



As I said, they most certainly don't do so in my own area - I know because I do tax returns for some of them. I also know that this applies in other areas. Maybe it doesn't in Mayo but I certainly wouldn't take the Mayo News or other local newspapers as authoritative sources for this or anything else.


----------



## ubiquitous

truthseeker said:


> I would have classed the priesthood as a vocation and not a profession.



Jockeys and bookmakers are also classed as vocations. They get paid for their work as well


----------



## truthseeker

I found this thread:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=23699

See post#17 in it - I dont know how true it is etc... Just adding info for the discussion about priests and salaries.


----------



## truthseeker

article from 2004 which suggests priests DO get paid salaries:

[broken link removed]


----------



## ubiquitous

Pretty confusing...



justsally said:


> There is no payment for a Mass.   However, a stipend can be offered.   There are many diverse opinions as to whether or not money should be handed over.    *The priest receives a weekly salary from the Diocese*, if he is a Diocesan priest.   So any money given to him for the privilege of saying Mass is an extra.   However, it's one's own choice whether or not to offer a stipend.    Re tax etc.  Monies received i.e. Easter Dues Christmas Dues etc are submitted to the Central Fund from where each priest's  weekly salary is drawn down.   The central fund also looks after retired priests etc.   *Priests are self employed*, they pay their taxes and P.R.S.I which enables them to receive social welfare benefits.   OK.
> 
> I am not trying to be controversial.   Just supplying some facts



On the basis that PAYE/PRSI does not have to be operated, I presume its more accurate to call it an "allowance". Anyway this is all irrelevant to an extent, as it is clear from the above that Mass monies etc are treated as additional to the basic allowance/salary.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Pretty confusing...


 
Yep - it does seem confusing alright.

Without taking this as a sarcastic question - what would a priest need a salary for as such? His home is provided, as is a housekeeper, his clothes are 'uniforms', all I can see him spending his salary on are (maybe) utility bills, and the odd bit of private entertainment (few pints, trip to cinema, coffee with a pal perhaps).


----------



## ubiquitous

Priests must pay their own housekeeper costs (and pay PAYE/PRSI on them), uniforms (although vestments are usually provided free to them), and normally run a car.


----------



## Ash 22

His car is possibly the largest expense, petrol upkeep etc.  What about if he needs to have a well earned holiday abroad?


----------



## truthseeker

Ash 22 said:


> Is he suppose to travel by mule?


 
He could if he wanted, personally Id take a bus if I didnt have a car but hey - each to their own!


----------



## ubiquitous

Yes, relying on buses is a fantastic option when a priest is asked to get to a hospital, a dying person's house or the scene of a fatal accident at 3 or 4 in the morning - as happens relatively regularly to most priests stationed in parishes.


----------



## truthseeker

I wouldnt think relying on a mule would be much better.


----------



## Caveat

From Truthseeker's link:

_Priests' salaries vary from diocese to diocese. *Most pay a set salary,* though in some areas,priests are paid on an incremental scale based on the period since their ordination. 

The Diocese of Killaloe pays its priests €16,800 a year, rising incrementally to a ceiling of €20,754. 

The Diocese of Down and Connor, which covers Belfast, Co Antrim and parts of Co Down, pays curates stg»9,480 (e13,776) a year and parish priests stg»10,560 (e15,346)._

It's from The Sunday Business Post BTW - surely a step up from The Mayo News?


----------



## ubiquitous

Indeed much better than the Mayo News anyway, but (as I said above) if there is (i) no PAYE/PRSI to be operated; and (ii) a general understanding that it is only part of the priest's total earnings for doing his day's work, then its hardly a "salary" in the normal sense, no matter what it is called.? The very fact that the article relates to priests who were hit with tax judgments for failing to correctly pay their self-employment taxes would support this.


----------



## truthseeker

ubiquitous said:


> Indeed much better than the Mayo News anyway, but (as I said above) if there is (i) no PAYE/PRSI to be operated; and (ii) a general understanding that it is only part of the priest's total earnings for doing his day's work, then its hardly a "salary" in the normal sense, no matter what it is called.?


 
It doesnt matter what its called, the original point was that priests are in paid employment - and it turns out - they are.


----------



## truthseeker

Ash 22 said:


> His car is possibly the largest expense, petrol upkeep etc. What about if he needs to have a well earned holiday abroad?


 
Ash - I see you changed your 'travel by mule' post.

Even if a car is a big expense, a holiday, bit of entertainment for himself, maybe a nice pair of hiking boots whatever......

He does not have to pay a mortgage, childcare or support a family - which would be most peoples largest expenses. 
Running a car and having a holiday are minor costs compared to mortgages and supporting families.

Im not begrudging a priest a salary - I was just wondering what theyd be spending one on as they have completely different expenses than an average person (like no mortgage).


----------



## Ash 22

truthseeker said:


> Ash - I see you changed your 'travel by mule' post.
> 
> Yes truthseeker the reason I did this was when I put in the post you rightly quoted above in reply to your post of the Priests expenses, I just discovered that ubiquitous had just beaten me too it and had mentioned the car in previous post to me. Thought it looked a bit repetitive so I deleted the mule bit and changed my wording, I have no problem re doing it if it makes you happy. They're quite nice animals anyway!


----------



## MrMan

truthseeker said:


> Yep - it does seem confusing alright.
> 
> Without taking this as a sarcastic question - what would a priest need a salary for as such? His home is provided, as is a housekeeper, his clothes are 'uniforms', all I can see him spending his salary on are (maybe) utility bills, and the odd bit of private entertainment (few pints, trip to cinema, coffee with a pal perhaps).




They wear civvies aswell, I'm sure they might have parents siblings etc that they like to take care of.


----------



## Ash 22

Whatever money a priest gets he deserves it. Do people realise atall the nature of his work. There is one priest in our parish, he is 70 plus years old.  There are 2 Churches in parish. He has to do Sat night Mass, 2 Sun morning Masses, weekday morning Masses. Funerals, wakes, weddings, baptisms, sick calls, accidents, First Fridays, visitations to sick both at homes and in hospitals, visits to 3 schools, First Communions, Confirmations, Penance services, Months Minds, Stations. You can imagine when it comes to trying to fit in all the Easter ceremonies in both Churches and Christmas Masses. All the various paperwork and time it takes preparing sermons for every occasion, attending religious conferences and lots more. In the country he's expected to appear at senior citizens parties, school concerts, gaa matches, sportsdays and whatever.  One day a week off and always expected to be in good humour.


----------



## truthseeker

No Ash youre grand, I was just wondering why you changed it (i thought the original comment was funny).

I totally agree with you that as individuals priests are certainly well deserving of a few bob - probably dont get paid enough for work that they do.

That doesnt change the fact that the church itself is rich beyond measure - you couldnt even put a value on a lot of the assets (like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for example) - but thats a different story.

I dont disagree with priests getting paid (and even well paid) for all the good services they provide - for me personally those services dont mean a thing, I appreciate that they are important to other people. But I feel that that importance has been falsely inflated through the ages by the church putting 'the fear of god' into people. 

Its quite simple, most religions are based on: be good, go to heaven (or relevant happy place), be bold, go to hell (or relevant unhappy place). God is watching so he knows if you have really been good.
That is controlling the masses through fear, fear of whats gonna happen in the afterlife or on judgement day etc...

The Angelus (just to get this thread back on track) is a reminder of that. And IMO I dont think that our national station is the place to be putting these reminders. Religious iconography has no place on the national television station of a multicultural society.


----------



## Ash 22

"I totally agree with you that as individuals priests are certainly well deserving of a few bob - probably dont get paid enough for work that they do."


"I dont disagree with priests getting paid (and even well paid) for all the good services they provide - for me personally those services dont mean a thing, I appreciate that they are important to other people".



Thats good truthseeker that you can appreciate the work they do. Well said.


----------



## Superman

truthseeker said:


> Its quite simple, most religions are based on: be good, go to heaven (or relevant happy place), be bold, go to hell (or relevant unhappy place).


Actually most religions which involve a heaven/hell start out at "do what I say and go to heaven, don't do what I say and go to hell [and I'll kill you in this world too]".  They only switch to "be good and go to heaven" if they have been sufficiently neutered. Religions which don't involve a heaven (generally the Eastern ones) tend to be slightly better - though not always.


----------



## autumnleaf

Well, I'm a non-believer and I'd be disappointed if they stopped showing the Angelus. It's a part of our culture and I think the sound of church bells is quite pleasant myself. It must be the cheapest minute on tv too, so the "license fee" argument is a bit weak.

On the other hand, I find Big Brother offensive - promoting backstabbing, lazy, attention-seeking behaviour. So I don't watch it. It's that easy, really.


----------



## DavyJones

autumnleaf said:


> On the other hand, I find Big Brother offensive - promoting backstabbing, lazy, attention-seeking behaviour. So I don't watch it. It's that easy, really.



You know a lot about it for a non-watcher

P.S how did you post in here with only 38 posts?


----------



## Sue Ellen

DavyJones said:


> how did you post in here with only 38 posts?


 
Autumnleaf's profile actually shows 94 posts and not 38.


----------



## rmelly

sueellen said:


> Autumnleaf's profile actually shows 94 posts and not 38.


 
It depends where you look. 94 includes non counting posts (Letting Off Steam & Shooting The Breeze). The poster has ~30 of these, so the actual valid post count should be ~64.


----------



## DavyJones

sueellen said:


> Autumnleaf's profile actually shows 94 posts and not 38.




I did log on after I was out watching Munster barely win so I was a bit worse for wear. But even now I see a 38 in the right hand side. Please, can anybody else see it?


----------



## rmelly

DavyJones said:


> I did log on after I was out watching Munster barely win so I was a bit worse for wear. But even now I see a 38 in the right hand side. Please, can anybody else see it?


 
see above? Shows 38 but should be approx 64. You've spotted a glitch in the matrix...


----------



## Towger

ubiquitous said:


> Are you sure? Priests are treated for tax purposes as self-employed. Their earnings are normally comprised of a combination of a % of Mass collections (usually fixed at diocesan level) and Mass stipends for funerals, weddings, "mass card" masses etc.


 
RC Priests are employed by the Bishop. They pay Class A PRSI.

COI Clergy are quasi self employed, they are their own boss, but do not own the company! They pay Class E PRSI


----------



## ubiquitous

Towger said:


> RC Priests are employed by the Bishop. They pay Class A PRSI.



No they don't, not in my experience. They are self-employed and must pay tax on self-assessment basis. The pay the same PRSI as other self-employed individuals. Read the above links if you don't believe me.


----------



## Caveat

Towger said:


> COI Clergy are quasi self employed


 
If it's not too complex, could you please explain?


----------



## Towger

Caveat said:


> If it's not too complex, could you please explain?


 
The above is what I have been told by social welfare, I searched the internet and all I can find is:

[broken link removed]

Under arrangements made in 1974, [325] certain classes of ministers of religion or other members of religious communities can be brought into the social insurance system where a representative body requests that their exclusion is unreasonable having regard to other similar occupations and the Minister is satisfied that this is the case. On foot of this provision ministers of the Church of Ireland were brought into social insurance at the class E rate of PRSI contribution in respect of their pastoral employment and are accordingly covered for all social insurance benefits, with the exception of unemployment and occupational injuries benefits. No other group of clergy or religious has made representations since 1974 for inclusion in the social insurance system.
Under the new extended social insurance system for the self-employed as provided for in the Social Welfare Bill, 1988, clergy and other religious who have income which is assessable to income tax will become compulsorily insured for old age and widow's and orphan's pensions and will be liable for the payment of self-employment contributions on such income. It would, therefore, be clearly anomalous to continue to exclude those clergy and religious who are employees from compulsory social insurance i.e., religious employed in schools, universities, hospitals, etc. These regulations now provide for their inclusion in the social insurance system in the same way as other employees. This is in line with the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare in the matter.

Which basically translates into they have a job for life, so no need to pay as much PRSI. Also looks af if I was wrong about priests on class A. Need to get on to the Archbishops palace payroll department


----------



## MOB

"How does it not infer that the purpose of sex is to conceive if the use of contraception is morally wrong? 
I think that its pretty clear that the churches stance on this is that the purpose of sex is for procreation."

This argument lacks logic.   The position of the Church is that the use of artificial contraception is morally wrong.  This does not mean that the church's stance must therefore be interpreted as being that the purpose of sex is for procreation.  

But. more to the point, what does all of this have to do with the relatively simple issue of whether the Angelus should be on TV?


----------

