Codology not theology.

dub_nerd said:
So what makes us think the latest power play by Mary and her henchwomen will fare any better?
Click to expand...
That’s a strange way to describe her. Who are her henchwomen?


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mary is a Catholic and has a strong faith.


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if we haven’t darkened their door in years they still cast a long shadow over much of our country.
 
Purple said:
That’s a strange way to describe her. Who are her henchwomen?
Click to expand...

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.


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?

Purple said:
Mary is a Catholic and has a strong faith.
Click to expand...

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

Purple said:
Even if we haven’t darkened their door in years they still cast a long shadow over much of our country.
Click to expand...

Sounds straight out of Mary's school of "they're evil monsters but we wanna run things anyway".
 
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.
 
dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like-minded ladies is a long way from henchwomen.

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?

dub_nerd said:
... except for the bits she doesn't like. Martin Luther was a strong Catholic too.
Click to expand...
He was indeed, one of only a very few in a position of authority at the time.

dub_nerd said:
Sounds straight out of Mary's school of "they're evil monsters but we wanna run things anyway".
Click to expand...
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?
 
cremeegg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Purple said:
Like-minded ladies is a long way from henchwomen.
Click to expand...

Not when Mary's acting like a thug.

Purple said:
Why? Many of the Founding Fathers of the USA were slave owners. They weren't monsters.
Click to expand...

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

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).

Purple said:
He [Luther] was indeed, one of only a very few in a position of authority at the time.
Click to expand...

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

Purple said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
dub_nerd said:
Not when Mary's acting like a thug.
Click to expand...

A thug? How so?


dub_nerd said:
They didn't claim to be god either. You'd expect god to have a slightly more consistent view.
Click to expand...
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.


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


dub_nerd said:
I suppose he stopped being a good catholic when he started inventing his own doctrine... like Mary.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but maybe he started being a good Christian.


dub_nerd said:
Big influence doesn't have the same connotations as "long shadow".
Click to expand...
Indeed, just as hench-women and thug aren’t apt descriptions for people peacefully questioning the stance of an organisation to which they belong.



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.
 
Reactions: Leo
Purple said:
A thug? How so?
Click to expand...

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


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

Purple said:
Maybe, but maybe he [Luther] started being a good Christian.
Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds eminently sensible. Let's both hope that Mary takes a leaf from your book.
 
dub_nerd said:
Just another bolshie talking head who likes to dish out orders. Did you see her list of demands?
Click to expand...
No, I wasn’t aware she had a list of demands but she's flagged her stance on RC Church reform for years.


dub_nerd said:
And have Mary running things? Uh, the pillar of salt idea sounds more attractive.
Click to expand...
I get the impression that your dislike for her pre-dates this issue.


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


dub_nerd said:
Fair enough. Let's just say I wouldn't stand near her if she was waving ninety-five theses and a nail gun.
Click to expand...
Why? Did she do something to you?


dub_nerd said:
Sounds eminently sensible. Let's both hope that Mary takes a leaf from your book.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Purple said:
I get the impression that your dislike for her pre-dates this issue... Did she do something to you?
Click to expand...

Nope, just dealing with this issue on its merits.

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dub_nerd said:
Nope, just dealing with this issue on its merits.
Click to expand...
That's not how it sounds.

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?

dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since when is looking for some level of equality power politics?
Are they really that frightened of women?
What have they got to hide?
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
That's not how it sounds.
Click to expand...

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.

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.

Purple said:
Since when is looking for some level of equality power politics?
Are they really that frightened of women?
What have they got to hide?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


dub_nerd said:
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?
Click to expand...

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


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


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.


dub_nerd said:
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.
Click to expand...
You keep using the word thug. That implies violence. Why is looking for change within the structures of her Church thuggish?
 

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

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

Then she will make an excellent Protestant.

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Purple said:
The founder of the RC Church was the Emperor Constantine and I don’t know if he was a misogynist or not.
Click to expand...

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).

Purple said:
You keep using the word thug. That implies violence. Why is looking for change within the structures of her Church thuggish?
Click to expand...

She hasn't the slightest authority -- legal or moral -- to do so.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Purple said:
Do you accept that the structures of the RC Church are misogynistic? If not why and if so do you think that's okay?
Click to expand...

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.

Purple said:
By the way, she called the misogyny in the Church a dangerous virus, not the Church itself.
Click to expand...

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

Purple said:
The structures of the RC Church are human and can be changed by humans. It has happened before and will happen again
Click to expand...

Not according to the church.

Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dub_nerd said:
especially when it wants to stamp out ideas that seemed unremarkable just a few years ago.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register