Codology not theology.

[Purple]

So what makes us think the latest power play by Mary and her henchwomen will fare any better?

That’s a strange way to describe her. Who are her henchwomen?

That logic seems unavoidable, though. It has stuck to the same line over and over, and twice in the modern era declared it to be infallible. That seems pretty definitive.

It's a long time since I looked at anything to do with Vatican II but if I remember right, all of its documents are extensively footnoted with how it is part of the unbroken Tradition. Could be horse manure, but that's what it claims.

That’s fine, except it is based on the culture of the time as interpreted by a bunch of men a few hundred years after the fact. By the way, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery; he often talked about treating your slaves well though it iss not mistranslated into servants. The RC Church doesn’t still think it’s okay to own slaves.

Why would anyone want anything to do with something so removed from reality? Surely Mary should be running a mile from something that's been making infallible claims for twenty millenia that are all drivel.

Mary is a Catholic and has a strong faith.

Don't worry about it. We're Irish -- being opinionated about the RCC is our birthright even if we haven't darkened the door of a church for decades.

Even if we haven’t darkened their door in years they still cast a long shadow over much of our country.

 

[dub_nerd]

That’s a strange way to describe her. Who are her henchwomen?

The OP didn't give the context, but she wasn't on a solo run. This was apparently part of a conference of like-minded ladies.

That’s fine, except it is based on the culture of the time as interpreted by a bunch of men a few hundred years after the fact. By the way, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery; he often talked about treating your slaves well though it iss not mistranslated into servants. The RC Church doesn’t still think it’s okay to own slaves.

The RC church didn't think so back then either, if you read Paul, Augustine, or Chrysostom. It would be a diversion to get into refuting "This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery", except to note that if it's true then the founder of the church was a monster. Who'd want to be part of that, let alone a leader of it?

Mary is a Catholic and has a strong faith.

... except for the bits she doesn't like. Martin Luther was a strong Catholic too.

Even if we haven’t darkened their door in years they still cast a long shadow over much of our country.

Sounds straight out of Mary's school of "they're evil monsters but we wanna run things anyway".

 

[cremeegg]

Poor Mary, (irony intentional), not only is the church misogynist, and unwelcoming to her gay son, it seems that it also sadistically abused her brother. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...e-suffered-sadistic-abuse-at-school-1.3423923

Mary, are you familiar with the concept of empowering your abuser.

Do you not think that your own position is in fact not too far removed from Bishop MacAreavey's. He showed public solidarity, concelebrated mass with, officiated at the funeral of, a man accused of abuse. You are studying the theology of, attending conferences about, a church accused of facilitating that abuse.

Let those who wish try to "reform" the church.

Those of us without a vested interest in its success should try to exclude it from education and other aspects of public life until that "reform" can at the very least be shown to have been successful.

 

[Purple]

The OP didn't give the context, but she wasn't on a solo run. This was apparently part of a conference of like-minded ladies.

Like-minded ladies is a long way from henchwomen.

The RC church didn't think so back then either, if you read Paul, Augustine, or Chrysostom. It would be a diversion to get into refuting "This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery", except to note that if it's true then the founder of the church was a monster. Who'd want to be part of that, let alone a leader of it?

Why? Many of the Founding Fathers of the USA were slave owners. They weren't monsters. Slavery was just part of life in the time This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was reputed to live, just as treating women as second class was. They have rightly changed their position on slavery. Why not on women?

... except for the bits she doesn't like. Martin Luther was a strong Catholic too.

He was indeed, one of only a very few in a position of authority at the time.

Sounds straight out of Mary's school of "they're evil monsters but we wanna run things anyway".

I don't understand that bit. Do you think that the RC Church, which controls the vast majority of our schools and employs so many of our teachers (even though they are paid by the State) don't have a big influence on the country?

 

[Purple]

Those of us without a vested interest in its success should try to exclude it from education and other aspects of public life until that "reform" can at the very least be shown to have been successful.

Agreed.

 

[dub_nerd]

Like-minded ladies is a long way from henchwomen.

Not when Mary's acting like a thug.

Why? Many of the Founding Fathers of the USA were slave owners. They weren't monsters.

They didn't claim to be god either. You'd expect god to have a slightly more consistent view.

Slavery was just part of life in the time This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was reputed to live, just as treating women as second class was.

According to the claims of the church, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately didn't treat women as second class. That's why his appointment of men as church functionaries was significant... and unchangeable. They also claim that when they pronounce something infallibly, it's as good as if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said it. This brings us back to Mary's Catch-22. (You don't need me to tell you this, obviously. You can Google "ordinatio sacerdotalis" and "ratzinger dubium" just as easily as I can).

He [Luther] was indeed, one of only a very few in a position of authority at the time.

I suppose he stopped being a good catholic when he started inventing his own doctrine... like Mary.

Do you think that the RC Church, which controls the vast majority of our schools and employs so many of our teachers (even though they are paid by the State) don't have a big influence on the country?

Big influence doesn't have the same connotations as "long shadow". If it's any consolation, I think the Catholic Church should butt out of education. Most people have the good sense to know when they're not wanted. Not the Irish bishops, apparently. In fairness to them, they are taken in by the schizophrenic attitude of Irish "catholics" who still demand their rituals but reject everything else. Mary's just a more high-brow, and even more demanding, version of the same phenomenon.

 

[Purple]

Not when Mary's acting like a thug.

A thug? How so?

They didn't claim to be god either. You'd expect god to have a slightly more consistent view.

The Christian/Jewish God really mellowed as he got older; he used to destroy cities, send floods and turn people into pillars of salt. The RC Church just continued on that path and changed their views on slavery. They should probably do the same thing now on women.

According to the claims of the church, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately didn't treat women as second class. That's why his appointment of men as church functionaries was significant... and unchangeable. They also claim that when they pronounce something infallibly, it's as good as if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said it. This brings us back to Mary's Catch-22. (You don't need me to tell you this, obviously. You can Google "ordinatio sacerdotalis" and "ratzinger dubium" just as easily as I can).

Yep, but they have changed their position on things in the past, sure they don’t even burn people any more.

I suppose he stopped being a good catholic when he started inventing his own doctrine... like Mary.

Maybe, but maybe he started being a good Christian.

Big influence doesn't have the same connotations as "long shadow".

Indeed, just as hench-women and thug aren’t apt descriptions for people peacefully questioning the stance of an organisation to which they belong.

If it's any consolation, I think the Catholic Church should butt out of education. Most people have the good sense to know when they're not wanted. Not the Irish bishops, apparently. In fairness to them, they are taken in by the schizophrenic attitude of Irish "catholics" who still demand their rituals but reject everything else. Mary's just a more high-brow, and even more demanding, version of the same phenomenon.

True, I wouldn’t have anything to do with a misogynistic, homophobic repressive organisation which simultaneously claims to be a moral authority while covering up and therefore facilitates massive and systematic child abuse.

 

[dub_nerd]

A thug? How so?

Just another bolshie talking head who likes to dish out orders. Did you see her list of demands?

The Christian/Jewish God really mellowed as he got older; he used to destroy cities, send floods and turn people into pillars of salt. The RC Church just continued on that path and changed their views on slavery. They should probably do the same thing now on women.

And have Mary running things? Uh, the pillar of salt idea sounds more attractive.

Maybe, but maybe he [Luther] started being a good Christian.

If I remember right, he applied himself to remaking the church in his own image, starting with expunging the bits of scripture he didn't like. Pretty much like Mary wants to do. Well, there's nothing stopping her taking the same approach.

Indeed, just as hench-women and thug aren’t apt descriptions for people peacefully questioning the stance of an organisation to which they belong.

Fair enough. Let's just say I wouldn't stand near her if she was waving ninety-five theses and a nail gun.

True, I wouldn’t have anything to do with a misogynistic, homophobic repressive organisation which simultaneously claims to be a moral authority while covering up and therefore facilitates massive and systematic child abuse.

Sounds eminently sensible. Let's both hope that Mary takes a leaf from your book.

 

[Purple]

Just another bolshie talking head who likes to dish out orders. Did you see her list of demands?

No, I wasn’t aware she had a list of demands but she's flagged her stance on RC Church reform for years.

And have Mary running things? Uh, the pillar of salt idea sounds more attractive.

I get the impression that your dislike for her pre-dates this issue.

If I remember right, he applied himself to remaking the church in his own image, starting with expunging the bits of scripture he didn't like. Pretty much like Mary wants to do. Well, there's nothing stopping her taking the same approach.

She sees herself as a Catholic who loved her Church and doesn’t want a punch of celibate old men to continue to kill it.

Fair enough. Let's just say I wouldn't stand near her if she was waving ninety-five theses and a nail gun.

Why? Did she do something to you?

Sounds eminently sensible. Let's both hope that Mary takes a leaf from your book.

I hope she doesn’t. The RC Church has a chance to be a power for good in the world. It certainly isn’t that now. With women breaking up the misogynistic old men’s club that might change.

 

[dub_nerd]

I get the impression that your dislike for her pre-dates this issue... Did she do something to you?

Nope, just dealing with this issue on its merits.

She sees herself as a Catholic who loved her Church and doesn’t want a punch of celibate old men to continue to kill it.

Yeah, as I said, Martin Luther was similar. So let's see -- she hates the institution and the people that run it, and rejects a broad swathe of its doctrines. Her take on the Vatican reminds me of Ian Paisley Snr's hilarious "sewer pipes of hell" diatribe. Why wouldn't she just start again? Churches are ten-a-penny and you can get ordained on the internet. It's not like she gives any credence to the notion of apostolic succession, so there isn't the slightest thing hindering her. Unless it's a power grab...

The RC Church has a chance to be a power for good in the world. It certainly isn’t that now. With women breaking up the misogynistic old men’s club that might change.

Or it could just turn into a misandrist old women's club like most of the female religious orders did. I have a very healthy distrust for people who engage in power politics, men and women.

 

[Purple]

Nope, just dealing with this issue on its merits.

That's not how it sounds.

Yeah, as I said, Martin Luther was similar. So let's see -- she hates the institution and the people that run it, and rejects a broad swathe of its doctrines. Her take on the Vatican reminds me of Ian Paisley Snr's hilarious "sewer pipes of hell" diatribe. Why wouldn't she just start again? Churches are ten-a-penny and you can get ordained on the internet. It's not like she gives any credence to the notion of apostolic succession, so there isn't the slightest thing hindering her. Unless it's a power grab...

Where did she say she hates the institution and the people who run it? Did women hate democracy when they looked for the vote? Were they misandrist when they looked for equality? If her take on the vatican reminds you of Ian Paisley Snr's it says much more about you than it does about her.
The notion of Apostolic Succession predates the splintering the Christian Church into the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and Roman Catholic churches in the fifth century. The Pope was just one of many Patriarchs until the Muslims Took Antioch and Constantinople (the latter thanks to it being sacked by Latin/RC Crusaders). Are they all valid or just the RC one?

Or it could just turn into a misandrist old women's club like most of the female religious orders did. I have a very healthy distrust for people who engage in power politics, men and women.

Since when is looking for some level of equality power politics?
Are they really that frightened of women?
What have they got to hide?

 

[dub_nerd]

That's not how it sounds.

Can't help you there I'm afraid. Except to say that we are all predisposed to suspecting an ulterior motive in people we disagree with.

Where did she say she hates the institution and the people who run it? ... If her take on the vatican reminds you of Ian Paisley Snr's it says much more about you than it does about her.

Again, let's stick to Mary rather than me if you don't mind. She called it an "empire of misogyny". Does that sound to you like she's well-disposed toward it? She implied that its 2000 year history is one of unbroken gynophobia. To be honest, she sounds unhinged. That's why she sounds like Ian Paisley.

The notion of Apostolic Succession predates the splintering the Christian Church into the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and Roman Catholic churches in the fifth century. The Pope was just one of many Patriarchs until the Muslims Took Antioch and Constantinople (the latter thanks to it being sacked by Latin/RC Crusaders). Are they all valid or just the RC one?

You sound quite well informed (or good at Googling). So presumably you know the RC's position on this and why they hold it -- they agree that those church's have valid apostolic succession.

Since when is looking for some level of equality power politics?
Are they really that frightened of women?
What have they got to hide?

That's kind of beating around the bush, though, isn't it? Mary isn't looking for equality. She's looking for a swathe of doctrines to be changed. She needs to get into power so that she can change them. She believes that all of the things she wants changed are down to one annoying obstacle -- men. The puzzling thing is why she doesn't just go and do her own thing. Why is she so interested in the church whose founder was presumably the Emperor of Misogyny? Do you have a view on that? Mine is that she's a misandrist thug. Happy to change my mind if I see evidence to the contrary.

 

[Purple]

Can't help you there I'm afraid. Except to say that we are all predisposed to suspecting an ulterior motive in people we disagree with.

I don’t suspect your motives. I’m just trying to understand why you hold the views you do. To me they seem disproportionately hostile and aggressive towards someone who is seeking to change her Church, the one to which she belongs, from within.

Again, let's stick to Mary rather than me if you don't mind. She called it an "empire of misogyny". Does that sound to you like she's well-disposed toward it?

It sounds like she wants it to reflect the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately as she understand them.

You sound quite well informed (or good at Googling). So presumably you know the RC's position on this and why they hold it -- they agree that those church's have valid apostolic succession.

Didn’t Google it and didn’t know that the RC Church agrees that the other Churches have valid apostolic succession. The reason they have the views they do is because it suits them.

That's kind of beating around the bush, though, isn't it? Mary isn't looking for equality. She's looking for a swathe of doctrines to be changed. She needs to get into power so that she can change them. She believes that all of the things she wants changed are down to one annoying obstacle -- men. The puzzling thing is why she doesn't just go and do her own thing. Why is she so interested in the church whose founder was presumably the Emperor of Misogyny?

I don’t accept that she is looking to get into power or that she sees the issue as just men. Nothing she has said supports that view. Equality is exactly what she is looking for.

The founder of the RC Church was the Emperor Constantine and I don’t know if he was a misogynist or not.

Do you have a view on that? Mine is that she's a misandrist thug. Happy to change my mind if I see evidence to the contrary.

You keep using the word thug. That implies violence. Why is looking for change within the structures of her Church thuggish?

 

[dub_nerd]

I don’t suspect your motives. I’m just trying to understand why you hold the views you do. To me they seem disproportionately hostile and aggressive towards someone who is seeking to change her Church, the one to which she belongs, from within.

I don't think I've used language any more immoderate than Mary has used.

It sounds like she wants it to reflect the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately as she understand them.

Then she will make an excellent Protestant.

Didn’t Google it and didn’t know that the RC Church agrees that the other Churches have valid apostolic succession. The reason they have the views they do is because it suits them.

It seems unlikely that you are intimate with their motives on something that you didn't even know about until ten minutes ago. So I'm going to guess you don't know why they recognise apostolic succession in the Orthodox churches and not the Protestant churches.

I don’t accept that she is looking to get into power or that she sees the issue as just men. Nothing she has said supports that view. Equality is exactly what she is looking for.

Well, she wants to change catholic doctrine. Even the pope can't do that. Sounds like a power grab.

The founder of the RC Church was the Emperor Constantine and I don’t know if he was a misogynist or not.

Clever guy. He must have had a time machine to go back a couple of centuries to 100 AD when the Catholic Church was already calling itself Catholic. (The term Roman Catholic Church is a Protestant invention).

You keep using the word thug. That implies violence. Why is looking for change within the structures of her Church thuggish?

She hasn't the slightest authority -- legal or moral -- to do so.

 

[Betsy Og]

dub_nerd, I'm not sure is the phrase "enigmatic", or "mercurial" or what, but you've no time for the church yet seem to have an intimate knowledge of it and its history. Despite not liking the church you're fighting tooth and nail for its right to remain what it is, all wrapped up in hostility to Mary Mc for her temerity to challenge the church you're not really a fan of.

Hmmm..... just puzzled like. I haven't followed your past contributions so I dont know your 'form', but tis a quare wan (no pun intended) all the same.

 

[dub_nerd]

Hi Betsy Og, I don't think I said I have no time for the church. I don't think I said anything either way. But I'm not trying to hide anything. It's been asserted here that Mary Mc is a devoutly practising Catholic. I'm not one of those. But I do know something about it (I mean for a layperson ... I'm not claiming any special expertise, and I don't have any qualifications like Mary).

I suppose the thing that gets my goat is the general Irish schizophrenic relationship with the Catholic church. I am constantly amazed how people claim the church has some death grip stranglehold on the country. For god's sake, are we not able to think for ourselves? I don't recall the RCC ever having a stranglehold over me, and certainly no undue influence since I turned 12 and decided to be an atheist (I am now in my fifties). I have had various voluntary flirtations with it since.

Anyway, this isn't about me. Back to your point about Mary's "temerity". This story about Mary only seeking equality for poor downtrodden women may gain some sympathy from those who know no better. But it's complete bunkum. Mary's a hardcore activist. And she comes from a long line of hardcore activists whose tactic has been to push their own doctrinal agenda until there is a reaction, then throw their hands up in pretend shock when they were only "following their conscience". Indeed she wrote the forward to the book, A Question of Conscience, written by another well-known dissident who also rejects some fundamental tenets of the religion. She has form -- lots of it.

I truly don't mean this in any sort of pejorative way. Mary's entitled to her opinions. I have some pretty wacky ones of my own. She's just not entitled to get her own way. I reckon it's also pretty shoddy to refer to the church as a dangerous virus, and then claim it's her that is being slapped down. Though I suppose it's always easy to get a sympathy vote when you go up against those evil misogynists in the Vatican, especially when you're as good with the flowery language as Mary. The thing I really don't get is why she, and people like her, torture themselves over something totally obvious. Love it, hate it, or couldn't care less about it, the RC church simply can't accede to what she wants. Anyone who has studied Catholicism 101 (i.e. not 99% of Catholics, especially not the ones pastored by the useless Irish bishops) could tell you that. But surely you'd expect the people with theology degrees to know it. Nor can they claim they are "following their conscience". Newman's essay on conscience in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk after Vatican I (easily findable online) would confirm why that's no excuse.

That reminds me of another irony (since Newman was making the opposite journey to Mary, from Protestant to Catholic). What about the thousands of people in the personal ordinariates? For those who don't know, those are the canonical structures within the Catholic Church for thousands of former Anglicans and other Protestant men and women who jumped ship over the exact same issues in Anglicanism that Mary is trying to foist on Catholics. It must feel like stepping off the Titanic onto the Lusitania. Is she claiming to speak for those?

Nope, no hard feelings to Mary, but she needs to take her pick of the 30,000 or so Christian churches formed by and for dissenters like her. Or if none are suitable there's always the DIY option.

 

[Betsy Og]

Fair play, far more cogent an analysis.

 

[Purple]

Back to your point about Mary's "temerity". This story about Mary only seeking equality for poor downtrodden women may gain some sympathy from those who know no better. But it's complete bunkum. Mary's a hardcore activist. And she comes from a long line of hardcore activists whose tactic has been to push their own doctrinal agenda until there is a reaction, then throw their hands up in pretend shock when they were only "following their conscience". Indeed she wrote the forward to the book, A Question of Conscience, written by another well-known dissident who also rejects some fundamental tenets of the religion. She has form -- lots of it.

So she is seeking to change an organisation to which you don't belong or support and you call her a thug for doing so.
Do you accept that the structures of the RC Church are misogynistic? If not why and if so do you think that's okay?
By the way, she called the misogyny in the Church a dangerous virus, not the Church itself.

The structures of the RC Church are human and can be changed by humans. It has happened before and will happen again.

I agree about Irish people's relationship with the RC Church, and religion in general. We are generally a la carte about it. To me they are all just different brands of crazy but each to their own. In general I support people who seek to change any organisations or structures to make them less sexist, less homophobic, less xenophobic and less bigoted.

 

[dub_nerd]

Do you accept that the structures of the RC Church are misogynistic? If not why and if so do you think that's okay?

On Mary's terms? No. She's saying the mere existence of a male hierarchy is misogynistic. They're saying it's divinely instituted. You could claim (like Mary) that their claims are hogwash. But then you wouldn't be "a devout catholic" and the thing you were trying to recreate wouldn't be the catholic church. It's simple logic.

By the way, she called the misogyny in the Church a dangerous virus, not the Church itself.

That's the crux of the matter though. The thing she wants to change is considered by the church to be intrinsic to itself.

The structures of the RC Church are human and can be changed by humans. It has happened before and will happen again

Not according to the church.

In general I support people who seek to change any organisations or structures to make them less sexist, less homophobic, less xenophobic and less bigoted.

In general I'm nervous of a new authoritarianism that seems to want to define how people must think, especially when it wants to stamp out ideas that seemed unremarkable just a few years ago. In that respect I think Mary has more in common with the Empire of Misogyny than she realises.

 

[Leo]

especially when it wants to stamp out ideas that seemed unremarkable just a few years ago.

It's not that long ago here that the idea of women being barred from working after marriage was unremarkable, just a few years ago here the idea that rape within marriage could not exist in law was unremarkable. Just because something was unremarkable a few years ago doesn't make it right. At a point of time in the church, the genocide carried out under the crusades was unremarkable, they seem to have changed their views on that now.