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

[truthseeker]

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.

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?

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."

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]

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?

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).

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]

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.

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]

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

Global warming?

 

[ubiquitous]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Great - could you post a link?

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]

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....