|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 2, 2012 20:38:11 GMT
Louise, I entirely agree with you. I haven't seen Downtown Abbey but it seems to me very important to retain female-only environments, and male-only environments, so that the sexes don't rub each other smooth and samey.
"'Tis merry in hall when beards wag all" and I am sure the opposite is true as well.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 2, 2012 20:45:35 GMT
Tobias - the difference between "references to articles without any supporting reasons why the poster either agrees or disagrees with the sentiments" and your original post is simple. Those articles were linked as something which other readers might find interesting but on which they could make up their own mind, i.e. "for your information". When you linked to Mary McAleese's article you explicitly said that you agreed with it, and when you asked why you agreed with it you refused to give any supporting arguments but said you agreed with it "because she is right" - this last being a well-known logical fallacy called circular reasoning. To respond to your points, not necessarily in order: (1) "Would the sky fall and the gates of heaven be barred" if women were ordained? In other words, you can't see why anyone would take the opposite position to yours, so you ridicule them rather than trying to find out why they disagree with you, and you assume that the onus of proof is on those who think women should not be ordained. In fact, it's the other way round - if you want to dissent from a position taken by the magisterium of the Church, the onus of proof is on you. I note that you seem to see priesthood in terms of power and church governance (the gentlemen at Downton Abbey) rather than in sacramental terms; in fact it is possible for women to influence the church and wield power within it without being priests. (St Hildegard of Bingen, our most recent Doctor of the Church, whose picture was on this board last month, specifically argued against women priests on the grounds that men and women have different roles in the church and are not interchangeable.) The view that ordination is reserved for men rests on (a) consistent church practice since Apostolic times; this clearly differentiates it from clerical celibacy which has not been universal practice and is therefore recognised as primarily disciplinary rather than doctrinal (b) the view that men and women have different natures and functions which makes one more fitted than the other for certain roles; I might note that anthropologically religions which have male-only clergy tend to favour a transcendent God (as with the Abrahamic religions) while those with priestesses tend to be immanentist or pantheist, and that many present-day advocates of women's ordination explicitly advocate turning Christianity into a pantheist religion of this sort (for an outline of this view see www.touchstonemag.com/archives/print.php?id=10-01-030-b) I would BTW accept that there is a great deal of misogyny in church history and that at various times and places the church has tended to become a boys' club with the limitations, and consequent suppression or contempt for the feminine, implied in that. (2) I do not wish to offend you in relation to your personal experience - I will not speculate on this because it is personal - but I will say this - sexual maturation and trying to observe Christian moral guidelines on this subject is a difficult and testing experience whether one is attracted to one's own sex or to the opposite sex. I know I have sinned and fallen short in this way many times. The fact remains that these standards do exist and cannot be wished away. Both through the clear words of scripture and through her own experience and reflection, the church teaches that homosexual acts distort the end and nature of the sexual act. The fact that homosexual inclinations are inborn doesn't alter that - God gives us crosses and misfortunes and we have to bear them as best we can. We are not to blame for the misfortune; it is up to us to respond to them. Marriage and the sexual act are inherently oriented towards procreation, so two people of the same sex cannot marry and a ceremony professing to marry them is not marriage at all, even if it is given that name, any more than make myself a pro-level golfer by calling myself one. (3) Your statement that Mary McAleese does not show "any ambition to take over the Church or any demand for it to do as she says" is a bit odd unless you simply mean she isn't asking to be made Pope. She is demanding large-scale changes in the teaching and governance of the Church and claiming that these represent the authentic teaching of Vatican II. Are you really suggesting that she is making these claims only for the sake of amusement? If she says her views represent the authentic teaching of Vatican II it follows that she is saying that the current arrangements are illegitimate and ought to be changed. If she was not trying to get the Church changed - to have it "do as she says" - there would be no point in expressing her views at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 20:53:06 GMT
I saw Downton once and thought it was overrated. I can't say that in front of other women though for fear of being lynched and strung up with a foxfur pelisse. But aye, absence makes the heart grow fonder and there's no harm in a bit of mystery between the sexes. Let men be men and women be women, no need or sense in taking umbrage about it, it's glorious and it was God Himself who made us that way. So vive la différence!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 21:58:41 GMT
I work with, have friends and family, and know a lot of people who are gay. I keep schtum unless someone asks me my opinion and I then tell them the truth. I've had gay people confide in me and ask me about Church teaching which is very humbling, I must be approachable on the matter since we're still friendly. Telling the truth is the loving thing to do but the attitude in the telling matters. It's so hard for people who are gay and Catholic, such a terrible cross to bear. On the one hand for people, specifically Catholics, who are overloaded with images and messages that committing mortal sins (which lead to hell - the absence of God (Love) forever) is a-ok, encouraged and even expected and pressured. On the other hand they have the radical call to celibacy required of them by God. It's interesting that you mentioned that Tobias, for a colleague and I were discussing the John Jay Report only this morning. One of the horrifying conclusions was that over 80% of the victims were boys, with 50% of those boys between the ages of 11 and 14 and 27% of the boys were between 15 and 17. Half of the priests who raped and abused those boys were under 35. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report#Profile_of_the_victimsI do wonder how many of these men were actually gay, based on the profiling of their poor victims and what sort of a Church and country (Ireland and America) did we have that not only fostered an environment where it was marriage or the priesthood alone for Catholic men, but couldn't see the horrific pressure cooker that would be created and those poor boys assaulted as a result? I want to make it crystal clear that I am not saying that homosexuality automatically leads to paedophilia. What I am saying though is that when you create a culture where a certain section of society would be treated as lepers and give them no place to go then we can't complain that rotten environments produce such rotten fruits. A lot of those abusers were under 35 and a lot of their victims were teenage boys, it's not rocket science. What did the hierarchy think would happen? I've heard of the Courage support group but I really wish the Church would treat adults as adults and tell them to quit indulging in the lifestyle that will leave them bereft in the end. Have enough respect for them to shepherd them properly. I wish the Church would spell out the teaching and fight for Catholics who are gay to cop themselves on and carry their cross like a man, like Jesus did and show them how much they mean to Christ. Christ loves them and died for them, that means something! Those who are gay have a place in the pew, they're not sidelined unless they choose to be. However, and here comes the stumper...the difficult call to celibacy is required of them, just as it for the rest of us unmarried plebs and peasants! Oh yeah and that they are loved, but the sin isn't, and there is a wide expanse between them and their passions, it's only a part of them, as it is for the rest of us. It isn't easy but with heaven as a reward we can't complain really. I hate all that Jesus said don't judge, you're not a Christian if you judge nonsense. Jesus was God made man and when he caught people taking the mick you know what He did? Kicked the tables over! How angry would you have to be to do that? He didn't let people away with indulging in sin then and there's no reason to presume He would now. He loves them and wants them with Him forever, but they have to choose Him. There's an inherent mocking in the WWJD?/don't judge, it's unChristian gleeful response. It's a dishonest retort to shut a converstion up. If you want someone to shut up, just say so (politely!). I know I've done the imaginary table overturning myself! maryhomegirl.tumblr.com/post/33771437200/when-non-catholics-give-me-troubleWhen you love someone, you do what Jesus did and fight for the best for them and the best is heaven. You don't have to shove your opinion in everybody's face, but when people ask, tell the truth, it's the only thing that we as believers should be doing anyway. Political correctness out of fear is so cowardly, we should have more respect for people who are gay and respond to their questions as believers, not cowards, and do it with love not arrogance. They may not like it, but at least they can respect us for having the courage of our convictions, even if we're seen as loopy. When you expect better standards from people because you know they're capable of it, you'd be amazed how they try reach for it. Besides, who among us wants to hear the cock crowing three times as we lay dying?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 2, 2012 22:35:29 GMT
I have defended my religious beliefs to at least one gay person who was anti-religious and whose hostility to religion, I believe, stemmed mostly from his sexuality. I have argued with an atheist whose daughter was gay and "married" to another woman (but who interestingly was opposed to same-sex adoption-- the father, I mean).
But I have never actually argued that homosexuality is a sin with a gay person (not in person, anyway) and I have to admit I dread that eventuality. I hope I would rise to it but I would find it extraordinarily difficult-- and this without doubting the sexual morality taught by the Church for a nanosecond.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2012 15:09:16 GMT
I have defended my religious beliefs to at least one gay person who was anti-religious and whose hostility to religion, I believe, stemmed mostly from his sexuality. I have argued with an atheist whose daughter was gay and "married" to another woman (but who interestingly was opposed to same-sex adoption-- the father, I mean). But I have never actually argued that homosexuality is a sin with a gay person (not in person, anyway) and I have to admit I dread that eventuality. I hope I would rise to it but I would find it extraordinarily difficult-- and this without doubting the sexual morality taught by the Church for a nanosecond. I know this thread is going off on a tangent but I just want to reply to your last point. Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary use words. People are usually astonished that I take the view I do, I wonder if they expect me to tar and feather random gay people! Silence speaks volumes in situations where issues like that are being discussed. In my own case, the lads and lass who came and asked me my opinion did so of their own volition. I know I haven't changed their behaviour because I still hear of them dating but we are all still very friendly as we were before. And why wouldn't we be?! It's a screw-up of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to elevate sexual desires to the very core of your being. "I'm gay." No, you're Jimmy, you're from Kerry, you have 2 sisters, you're a physiotherapist, you prefer men to women, you play guitar and love the GAA. That was the one point that we discussed more than anything else, that it's important not to let a specific part of your body define you and to try master it always, like we all have to. However, the obnoxious people I usually just verbally bite because life and age will give me enough wrinkles without indulging those specifically looking for a row. Sorry this went off point Hib, if you want to split the thread go for it.
|
|
tobias
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by tobias on Nov 4, 2012 16:58:48 GMT
Hibernicus, you persist in misreading me. I started this Mary McAleese discussion by saying that I thought the article was interesting and that I TENDED to agree with her. I followed your response by saying that I agreed with her solely to elicit a response from you as I subsequently made clear. The reason being that I detected a certain hostility bubbling under the surface and felt it better to see what I had gotten into. On the issue of women and the priesthood, I don't really care what position other people take on this or any other issue and I don't think there is any evidence that I have ridiculed anybody, I thought the purpose of a forum was to express views, not to convert others to my point of view. My reference to Downton Abbey was as an example of how what the what I would call the Church "middle management" have mishandled recent happenings and that perhaps if women were involved as priests that maybe things might have been different, we will never know. But I'm heartened to see that you refer to the Church sometimes tending to become a boys club, which is what I was referring to. I do not see priests as having a role regarding "power and Church governance" In fact,they are the foot soldiers and if women were ordained I cannot see them being any different. To state that men and women have " different natures and functions" which makes one more fitted than the other for certain roles sounds peculiar. Maybe women would have made better priests but since men were in control back in the day they never got the chance. The only proof I can offer is what I have already stated, they comprise half the population of the world and as such it would seem to me that they should be considered equally eligible for for the ministry. I read in the reflection in today's Mass leaflet and it says: "Some people worry today that the Catholic Church is in retreat from the vision of Vatican II and its openness to the world and other Christians, and is slowly seeing itself as a besieged fortress in a hostile environment. What do you think? Today's Gospel cautions against developing an "us" versus "them" mentality, especially in relation to other Christian churches. Jesus and the scribe do not let this happen. In their mutual affirmation of love of God and of neighbor, they recognize God at work in each other. This is a lesson all people of faith can take on board" end
|
|
|
Post by angelo on Nov 13, 2012 12:01:43 GMT
From The Irish Times - Monday, November 12, 2012
Senator Ronan Mullen apology
An article published in the edition of April 23rd last, concerning a meeting in the Dáil on seeking the legalisation of abortion in certain cases reported dialogue between Senator Ronan Mullen and one of the lobbyists present.
Senator Mullen was contacted by an Irish Times reporter who accepted his invitation to revert to him if any specific allegations were made about what was said by him at the meeting.
A specific allegation was made and was reported in our article but it was not put to Senator Mullen beforehand.
This led to a disputed version of events being reported.
The article was not complete and was unfair to Senator Mullen and The Irish Times apologises to him for the error.
We also acknowledge that an addendum comment placed beneath a subsequent letter of clarification from Senator Mullen did not clarify his position.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 20, 2012 9:27:57 GMT
An opinion piece from Patsy McGarry in which he asserts that Church teaching on ensoulment of the unborn child has changed through the ages: www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1120/1224326838848.htmlI don't know much about the subject, and it is obviously a well-researched and carefully constructed piece, although he seems to be rather sneakily saying one thing and implying another (i.e., that the Church has not always held abortion to be a grave sin). Perhaps someone who is sufficiently versed in the development of Catholic thought could reply to him?
|
|
|
Post by gemmagal on Nov 20, 2012 19:50:43 GMT
Its an interesting article on history, but doesn't have much to do with rights to abortion.
I had read what Thomas thought some years ago and it was at that time that I thought about potentiality.
The human egg, when connected with the human sperm, begins a process of cell development which will produce a human life, these tiny cells could never become anything except a human being, not a fish or a chicken or a rock.
I believe this point has something to do with why the church decided that the soul was present at conception, because this potentiality is led by something, it is the soul as form, which as it is added to the material body makes a human being. It can be no other way. God creates things by uniting form and matter, in the case of a human the form is an eternal soul, once united with human matter in the case of the sperm and egg joined, it is eternal. At death form and matter part, and soul waits until the resurrection to be united to its own individuated matter once again.
I may have missed some of the theology here, which is likely, however I think the above is understandable.
There is no reason to wonder WHEN the tiny cell bodies of human children are with soul, because to kill one is to kill a human life.
The problem countering the pro choice speak doesn't revolve around proving when the cells become human, the problem is with people thinking mothers must protect themselves against their babies and so deciding when the baby is 'human' may give them some kind of false logic that they may use to justify the timing of an abortion and then act in any manner to get rid of the human life growing inside them.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 20, 2012 21:52:01 GMT
Logically you are entirely right, and it's not as though pro-life people even appeal to Catholic or Christian teaching in the public forum-- they appeal to natural law and to logic.
However, I do think this kind of historicism does in fact carry a lot of weight with people out there-- "you see, their own doctrine is just made-up and patched-together anyway, it can't possibly express a moral truth".
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 21, 2012 8:31:45 GMT
Looked at the piece. It may be well-researched, but not by Patsy McGarry; there are dozens of places where he could have got this information. The late Conor Cruise O'Brien had a similar article in the Indo over 20 years ago citing Ute Ranke-Heinemann's "Eunuchs for the Kingdom" which was published in the 1980s and this has been recycled many times since. I don't believe it was even new then.
This is a classic case of how the Church is informed by science, a fact often lost on our former atheist guests. St Thomas Aquinas, for example, didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception because he followed Aristotelian biology, which believed in a later 'ensoulment'. The Church only promulgated the doctrine in the 19th century after science pointed at conception as the begining of human life. An observation missing from Mr McGarry's 'analysis'.
|
|
|
Post by gemmagal on Nov 21, 2012 15:50:38 GMT
I think the article misses another significant point.
Once the cell and sperm meet and begin to multiply, if the process in the mother's womb is not interrupted, these cells will become a fully formed human capable of living outside the womb within a few months.
To interfere in this process by abortion is killing a human being, ( I am not familiar with murder rap terms so I will just say it is the killing of a human) whether one believes it is potentially human, fully human or otherwise (I assume that for Patty his beliefs are that human is defined only as the state where both matter (or body) is with soul or ensouled). In other words, stopping the life of the fetus, deprives that human from being born. If the notion that quickening, or movement is a significant point in development, this would be hard to prove, as small movements are barely perceptible early in pregnancy, but its only later that a mother can be sure that it is in fact the baby who is rumbling around in there. We know now that movement of the fetus happens much earlier than had been known.
The author, Poor Patty, is not being logical nor is he covering all the ramifications of his chosen position. He ignores the obvious to suit his needs. I can surmise, but not prove, that his needs are to advocate what he pretends is a concern for mothers by favoring legalized abortion.
There are few, and presently under debate, there may be actually NO situations where a living fetus harms a mother's biological life and must be artificially removed from a mother's womb.
Mother's who seek abortions will argue for the right to abort claiming that it is their psychological/mental health, or that the economic burden will cause stress, or that they are suicidal. There is also the situation where a mother is mentally handicapped and institutionalized; abortion is becoming the proper way to handle a pregnant mentally handicapped mother.
Rarely, perhaps never, is an abortion necessary to save a mother's biological life. This is currently being researched and reported re: the Mrs. S. H.'s death in Ireland.
You can also find an article about an American pro abortion researcher, unfortunately I don't remember her name, who reportedly lied at a legislative conference that addressed the issue of abortion when there is danger to a mother's life and whether and in what situations abortion would save the lives of mothers. Evidently her research revealed that there are almost none, zero, situations where abortion saves mothers. However she failed to say that when her research was offered at the conference and she was later found out.
Judaism sees the fetus as an aggressor toward the mother and therefore allows abortion right up until birth. I don't know all the details of how they come to that conclusion, but very few Jewish people have abortions, surprisingly it is the anglo and catholics who are killing off their children in large numbers.
Also, it is to be noted that abortion clinics and the doctors who have founded them and who perform same are significantly of a higher proportion Jewish. Now those statistics may be skewed because there are a high number of Jewish doctors in relation to all doctors.
This does not mean I feel there is a conspiracy, but others do.
Maolsheachlann, I don't think history carries much weight with people "out there". Presently science and statistics are the fundamental basis for arguing for persuasion. IMO statistics are not really valid resources for good reasoning, but do seem to sway popular opinion.
Alisdir, Yes I knew this about Thomas's writings. It is odd he would think that, given his understanding of the roles of prime matter and form in the creation of things.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 21, 2012 21:40:45 GMT
Another point which Patsy McGarry omits is that the earlier church position (based on now outdated biology) only said that early abortion was not homicide, not that it was not wrong - it was regarded as criminal but not homicide. The statement that Jewish law allows abortion to protect the mother's life by defining it as analogous to the right to defend one's life against an aggressor is I believe correct - it should be borne in mind that Jewish religious law tends to work by analogies from a set of core statements (e.g. Strictly Orthodox Jews will not turn on an electric switch on the Sabbath because they see this as an extension of the divine command not to light a fire on the Sabbath). The statement that very few Jews have abortions is true of the Orthodox but not of secular and Reform Jews. The Jews involved in the abortion industry tend to be secular and Reform Jews, not Orthodox. It is very important when addressing the subject of Judaism and abortion to be extremely clear about what you mean when you refer to Jews, and to avoid ill-informed generalisations and the least trace of anti-semitic conspiracy theories which have unfortunately been put about by certain people. Anyone who wilfully circulates such conspiracy theories on this board will be expelled immediately.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Dec 9, 2012 20:07:05 GMT
|
|