|
Post by unfortunately on May 27, 2018 19:57:18 GMT
Should the Catholic Church openly denounce and excommunicate those Catholics who voted yes?
It seems a large proportion of Irish people claim to be Catholic but do not follow or actively reject Catholic teachings regarding contraception, divorce, pre-marital sex, pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, transubstatiation, the existence of hell. There are even Catholics who believe in reincarnation and astrology. Should the Church reaffirm what it's members should believe - and if you don't then you can't partake fully until you do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 15:20:26 GMT
Hello again, Unfortunately. Good to see you. (If you don't mind, I would like to call you Unf for short, as sometimes I see people respond to you and it seems like they are showing signs of remorse at the start of every sentence.)
I am not quite sure of your own religious views as I haven't partaken much in a lot of the threads in the other board. I assume you are atheist, agnostic, or spiritualist? I think this might be a complex answer, but I'll give it a try.
Personally I feel that all sides would benefit from such a move, though I think certain opponents of the Church would display a mixture of not-so-subtle glee as well as faux-outrage over this. I also think certain members of the clergy would be reluctant as it means they would have to surrender certain things such as their influence in public schools. Of course, there would also be the issue of the collections, which would no doubt hit churches hard, since it would appear supposed Catholics make up a significant enough number of parishioners. Perhaps you know of this story yourself, but after the same-sex marriage there was a priest who rebuked his congregation over the vote in favour of same-sex marriage. When it came to the part of Mass when people are supposed to stand up, he told people only to stand up if it still meant anything to them. Many of the parishioners walked out in outrage. I remember reading the comments of a journal article about it. You could see people pretending to be outraged that the Church, which they despise, would enforce its own rules, while simultaneously joking about the Church finishing itself off. Other commenters, also hostile to the Church, simply pointed out that the Church had the right to call its members to live by its rules, and that if people didn't like it they should simply stop pretending to be Catholic.
Personally I see no reason not to do as you have said above. We are constantly being told that the votes on same-sex marriage and abortion were blows to the influence of the Church in this country. I disagree with this, in so far as I believe the Church was already in a weak position influentially (at least on a personal level for individuals), hence why these things passed at all.I believe that the last referendum simply made it more obvious to people, and with that said I see no reason why the Church should dance around the subject anymore, other than the financial aspect, which is unfortunate but is just the way of things that have lost their meaning to people. It would result in the Church being much smaller, but at least its members would be devout. Besides, I don't think anyone really likes anything that tries to pander to all, rather than focusing on something very specific.
A smaller Church, though less powerful, would seem more romanticised to people, I think. Then people will be able to decide whether or not they can truly be a part of this small group, or whether it is too much for them, rather than insert themselves into it and try to change it to suit them. (Not sure if I explained that well, as I'm in a semi-rush.) Non-Catholics would obviously gain from the fact that the facade of Holy Catholic Ireland has crumbled, as it would give each of those groups more influence in the country too. As for the false Catholics, they would gain in so far as they can take an honest look at themselves and what they stand for. Allowing for the sort of moral leeway they have been given so far makes no sense for anyone. They have a false notion they can be Catholics without actually being Catholic, allowing them to live a life of double-standards, which would no doubt be seen as a major sin by the clergy in the eyes of God. It also irritates atheists to no end when they see people claiming to be Catholic when they know they're not.
The only people who will really have a problem with this are the false Catholics (at least initially) who will no doubt be taken aback by the sudden enforcement of Church doctrine and dogma, and who may even try to highjack the Church with claims about how the Church is the people and not the clergy, etc. In other words, they would try to have the best of both worlds, while not having to quite pledge loyalty to either (at least in their eyes.) Them, and maybe the hypocrites in the media who will be angry at the Church for taking such a heavy handed (I suppose?) stance on the issue, while at the same time (as mentioned above) trying to reconcile that with the fact that they should be happy their sworn enemy, the Catholic Church, has willingly reduced its numbers (on paper).
I think that's all I have to say for now.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 28, 2018 20:41:22 GMT
Hello again, Unfortunately. Good to see you. (If you don't mind, I would like to call you Unf for short, as sometimes I see people respond to you and it seems like they are showing signs of remorse at the start of every sentence.) I am not quite sure of your own religious views as I haven't partaken much in a lot of the threads in the other board. I assume you are atheist, agnostic, or spiritualist? I think this might be a complex answer, but I'll give it a try. Personally I feel that all sides would benefit from such a move, though I think certain opponents of the Church would display a mixture of not-so-subtle glee as well as faux-outrage over this. I also think certain members of the clergy would be reluctant as it means they would have to surrender certain things such as their influence in public schools. Of course, there would also be the issue of the collections, which would no doubt hit churches hard, since it would appear supposed Catholics make up a significant enough number of parishioners. Perhaps you know of this story yourself, but after the same-sex marriage there was a priest who rebuked his congregation over the vote in favour of same-sex marriage. When it came to the part of Mass when people are supposed to stand up, he told people only to stand up if it still meant anything to them. Many of the parishioners walked out in outrage. I remember reading the comments of a journal article about it. You could see people pretending to be outraged that the Church, which they despise, would enforce its own rules, while simultaneously joking about the Church finishing itself off. Other commenters, also hostile to the Church, simply pointed out that the Church had the right to call its members to live by its rules, and that if people didn't like it they should simply stop pretending to be Catholic. Personally I see no reason not to do as you have said above. We are constantly being told that the votes on same-sex marriage and abortion were blows to the influence of the Church in this country. I disagree with this, in so far as I believe the Church was already in a weak position influentially (at least on a personal level for individuals), hence why these things passed at all.I believe that the last referendum simply made it more obvious to people, and with that said I see no reason why the Church should dance around the subject anymore, other than the financial aspect, which is unfortunate but is just the way of things that have lost their meaning to people. It would result in the Church being much smaller, but at least its members would be devout. Besides, I don't think anyone really likes anything that tries to pander to all, rather than focusing on something very specific. A smaller Church, though less powerful, would seem more romanticised to people, I think. Then people will be able to decide whether or not they can truly be a part of this small group, or whether it is too much for them, rather than insert themselves into it and try to change it to suit them. (Not sure if I explained that well, as I'm in a semi-rush.) Non-Catholics would obviously gain from the fact that the facade of Holy Catholic Ireland has crumbled, as it would give each of those groups more influence in the country too. As for the false Catholics, they would gain in so far as they can take an honest look at themselves and what they stand for. Allowing for the sort of moral leeway they have been given so far makes no sense for anyone. They have a false notion they can be Catholics without actually being Catholic, allowing them to live a life of double-standards, which would no doubt be seen as a major sin by the clergy in the eyes of God. It also irritates atheists to no end when they see people claiming to be Catholic when they know they're not. The only people who will really have a problem with this are the false Catholics (at least initially) who will no doubt be taken aback by the sudden enforcement of Church doctrine and dogma, and who may even try to highjack the Church with claims about how the Church is the people and not the clergy, etc. In other words, they would try to have the best of both worlds, while not having to quite pledge loyalty to either (at least in their eyes.) Them, and maybe the hypocrites in the media who will be angry at the Church for taking such a heavy handed (I suppose?) stance on the issue, while at the same time (as mentioned above) trying to reconcile that with the fact that they should be happy their sworn enemy, the Catholic Church, has willingly reduced its numbers (on paper). I think that's all I have to say for now. I would strongly recommend that the Church hierarchy in Ireland meet to find a decisive way forward. The referendum has shown that the Church will be sidelined even more if it continues to be cowering in the shadows. Show fight and belief in your doctrines and values and you will get more respect and reboot the Church in Ireland. No more ACPs. No more trying to curry favour with a press and government that is laughing at you. The current church leadership in Ireland are perceived to be weak; that is problem number one. If they were stronger then they could ask all YES voters that continue to support abortion to review their membership of the Church, attend confession and return only if they renounce their sin. I don't think the Irish hierarchy can do something as groundbreaking as this without papal permission. It would need to be thought through (for example we would have to make it clear that it is for this referendum only as you wouldn't want to repeat such action after every other future referendum or vote that has moral or religious overtones). Abortion is so egregious that unique action can be justified. Is this type of action scary? Yes. Is it too early to be considering this when emotions are still raw? Would we risk losing (or gaining in the long run) souls? Would the press and government accuse the church of being unfeeling to parishioners, of course.
|
|
|
Abortion
May 28, 2018 21:43:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by unfortunately on May 28, 2018 21:43:31 GMT
Hello again, Unfortunately. Good to see you. (If you don't mind, I would like to call you Unf for short, as sometimes I see people respond to you and it seems like they are showing signs of remorse at the start of every sentence.) I am not quite sure of your own religious views as I haven't partaken much in a lot of the threads in the other board. I assume you are atheist, agnostic, or spiritualist? I think this might be a complex answer, but I'll give it a try. Personally I feel that all sides would benefit from such a move, though I think certain opponents of the Church would display a mixture of not-so-subtle glee as well as faux-outrage over this. I also think certain members of the clergy would be reluctant as it means they would have to surrender certain things such as their influence in public schools. Of course, there would also be the issue of the collections, which would no doubt hit churches hard, since it would appear supposed Catholics make up a significant enough number of parishioners. Perhaps you know of this story yourself, but after the same-sex marriage there was a priest who rebuked his congregation over the vote in favour of same-sex marriage. When it came to the part of Mass when people are supposed to stand up, he told people only to stand up if it still meant anything to them. Many of the parishioners walked out in outrage. I remember reading the comments of a journal article about it. You could see people pretending to be outraged that the Church, which they despise, would enforce its own rules, while simultaneously joking about the Church finishing itself off. Other commenters, also hostile to the Church, simply pointed out that the Church had the right to call its members to live by its rules, and that if people didn't like it they should simply stop pretending to be Catholic. Personally I see no reason not to do as you have said above. We are constantly being told that the votes on same-sex marriage and abortion were blows to the influence of the Church in this country. I disagree with this, in so far as I believe the Church was already in a weak position influentially (at least on a personal level for individuals), hence why these things passed at all.I believe that the last referendum simply made it more obvious to people, and with that said I see no reason why the Church should dance around the subject anymore, other than the financial aspect, which is unfortunate but is just the way of things that have lost their meaning to people. It would result in the Church being much smaller, but at least its members would be devout. Besides, I don't think anyone really likes anything that tries to pander to all, rather than focusing on something very specific. A smaller Church, though less powerful, would seem more romanticised to people, I think. Then people will be able to decide whether or not they can truly be a part of this small group, or whether it is too much for them, rather than insert themselves into it and try to change it to suit them. (Not sure if I explained that well, as I'm in a semi-rush.) Non-Catholics would obviously gain from the fact that the facade of Holy Catholic Ireland has crumbled, as it would give each of those groups more influence in the country too. As for the false Catholics, they would gain in so far as they can take an honest look at themselves and what they stand for. Allowing for the sort of moral leeway they have been given so far makes no sense for anyone. They have a false notion they can be Catholics without actually being Catholic, allowing them to live a life of double-standards, which would no doubt be seen as a major sin by the clergy in the eyes of God. It also irritates atheists to no end when they see people claiming to be Catholic when they know they're not. The only people who will really have a problem with this are the false Catholics (at least initially) who will no doubt be taken aback by the sudden enforcement of Church doctrine and dogma, and who may even try to highjack the Church with claims about how the Church is the people and not the clergy, etc. In other words, they would try to have the best of both worlds, while not having to quite pledge loyalty to either (at least in their eyes.) Them, and maybe the hypocrites in the media who will be angry at the Church for taking such a heavy handed (I suppose?) stance on the issue, while at the same time (as mentioned above) trying to reconcile that with the fact that they should be happy their sworn enemy, the Catholic Church, has willingly reduced its numbers (on paper). I think that's all I have to say for now. Hi Antaine, it is good to chat to you too. Unfortunately I was banned without warning and was unable to respond on the other forum. I am not a Catholic and I do not believe in any gods hence my post critising faith. I meant not only religious faith but the concept of faith in general - faith in ideologies, economic theories even pseudoscientific theories. I felt it was unfair that I was accused of trolling - the thread was critising Islam with glee until I pointed I thought the real problem was faith. Political correctness and ideas you can't criticise seem to be not only a problem of elements in the Left but the Right too, who would rather banish than discuss. Hopefully we can have that discussion in another thread. There are also demographic problems with the Church in Ireland. It has an aging clergy that is not being fully replaced as well as a raft of young people that do not associate with it at all except for weddings, funerals and christenings. So either way it will be a smaller organisation in Ireland at least. It could be self selective in that the true believers will remain while others leave.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 29, 2018 6:20:31 GMT
I am the administrator of the Irish Conservatives Forum, the forum from which Unfortunately was banned, as mentioned in one of the foregoing posts. He was not banned for "political correctness", as he puts it. I banned him because I believed he was trolling.
This was my reasoning:
1) I think it is trolling to participate in a forum where you are at variance on every issue with the members of that forum. It simply seems like an attempt to provoke. Unfortunately seems to be some kind of philosophical materialist and ethical hedonist. Such a viewpoint isn't conservative by any standard. Nor did he (I assume you are a "he") seem interested in taking conservative views seriously but simply rebutting them, repeating the same arguments over and over. I don't know what interest he takes in conservative and Catholic forums. Why would someone who thinks religion is inherently bad be interested in the internal discipline of the Catholic Church?
2) Unfortunately posted a lot and I felt it was adversely affecting the atmosphere of the forum.
3) I felt he was so far from any common ground with other members that there was really no room for fruitful discussion. Simply arguing over first principles all the time is not very interesting. As administrator I read all the posts and I didn't relish having to read so many posts by someone who evidently had no sympathy with even the fundamentals of conservatism, any kind of conservatism.
If he says he is not a troll, I take him at his word, but it amounts to the same thing.
As for the lack of a warning, well, I don't really see the point of warnings. It would be like being at a dinner party and your host warning you to shape up or leave after twenty minutes. It's going to be pretty uncomfortable for everybody after that, right?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on May 29, 2018 21:16:58 GMT
My own view on admitting unfortunately is: (a) The big issue IMHO is not how far he differs from the rest of us - it's whether he can observe the basic rules of intellectual debate (e.g. being willing to address the point "if you believe X why don't you believe Y",being able to examine his own presuppositions etc, observing elementary courtesy). If he does it's worthwhile engaging with him, if he doesn't out he goes.
I certainly think people who actively teach beliefs incompatible with Catholicism should be excommunicated. People who are uninstructed and perhaps do not realise the incompatibility need to be handled more gently. Bear in mind that we are living in a society where expulsion from the Church does not mean becoming an outlaw, as in certain societies we can name.
What exactly do you mean by faith? Bear in mind that anyone must take a great deal of their beliefs/understanding on the basis of what the experts say, because life is too short to do otherwise. We all take decisions on incomplete information, or else we'd never do anything at all.
Why are you calling this thread "Abortion" since the question you raise is about whether/how the Church should discipline its members, rather than about the rights and wrongs of abortion, which can be argued on secular grounds? (For example, anyone who accepts the Kantian categorical imperative - that human beings should always be treated as ends and never as means - and accepts that the unborn child is a human being, should logically oppose abortion on demand.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 9:15:43 GMT
Unfortunately's argument is that consciousness is necessary for a being to be considered a human person and to possess human rights. I tried pointing out to him that this would mean giving a lethal injection to an unconscious person would not be against their rights, but he then qualified the definition further-- I can't remember what exactly.
My argument was that such specifications always seem ad hoc as they are modified whenever an objection is made against them.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 9:18:19 GMT
A lot of Catholics in Ireland now seem positively eager for a Kulturkampf with secular Irish society. I'm not so keen, though I understand the attraction. The Church stands to lose a lot of privileges of genuine spiritual value, such as chaplaincies in universities, prisons, the armed forces, the Gardai, etc. I'm sure there are many others we don't even think about.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 9:28:03 GMT
My own view on admitting unfortunately is: (a) The big issue IMHO is not how far he differs from the rest of us - it's whether he can observe the basic rules of intellectual debate (e.g. being willing to address the point "if you believe X why don't you believe Y",being able to examine his own presuppositions etc, observing elementary courtesy). If he does it's worthwhile engaging with him, if he doesn't out he goes. In all fairness, he was perfectly courteous and polite.
|
|
|
Abortion
May 30, 2018 15:58:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by unfortunately on May 30, 2018 15:58:07 GMT
maolsheachlann I understand that a forum is for like-minded individuals but in this modern world of information bubbles I think it would be helpful for myself and other forum members to interact so we have a clear picture of each others viewpoints.
I don't agree with how you worded my argument Maolsheachlann, I wouldn't defend it presented like that. You have have repeatedly said it is an ad hoc argument but I feel this is unfair. I believe I am working from the foundations of what I think morality is about: suffering. And I have clarified what I mean by conciousness several times. An unconcious person is still conscious, using my meaning. I didn't just invent the argument to defend terminating pregnancies. I took this view of morality first.
Hibernicus Apologies, I wrote the title "Abortion" before I wrote the post as I was thinking directly of should the Church excommunicate Yes voters but the post drifted from the original purpose slightly.
Yes I agree we take everyday things on faith as we don't have time to fact check everything but we usually assume that the things we do take on faith ultimately are tested and supported by independent objective evidence. So I take pharmaceutical drugs on faith but I am sure if I study it there will be studies and verifiable evidence.
There is a form of faith that is different from this everday "faith of convenience/necessity". What I mean by faith is when something is "just believed". When there is no evidence or reason to believe something but people claim it is true, because they either feel it is true or that it should be. Part of this faith also is that it can not be doubted or questioned. I might have faith in my doctor but as soon as her credentials or competence come into question I might cease to have faith. But ideas which are held in faith are rarely doubted, especially religious faith - it seems the more you believe in a religious idea even in the face of contradictory evidence the more virtuous you are. And faith is unquestionable and can not be reasoned with - and I think that is very dangerous because how can you talk someone out of a misguided belief if it is simply believed because it is believed.
Holding something on faith should result in the holder feeling doubt and acting in a prudent manner as it may be completely false but usually we see the opposite - claiming certainty, judging and condeming others by the idea and behaving as if you have knowledge of the truth.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 16:06:17 GMT
Unfortunately, there is an enormous tradition of Catholic and Christian apologetics putting forward the arguments for belief. Do some research into Christian apologetics. You must have encountered some already.
Faith plays a role but the idea that faith is blind is a very unlettered one.
|
|
|
Abortion
May 30, 2018 18:33:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by unfortunately on May 30, 2018 18:33:00 GMT
Unfortunately, there is an enormous tradition of Catholic and Christian apologetics putting forward the arguments for belief. Do some research into Christian apologetics. You must have encountered some already. Faith plays a role but the idea that faith is blind is a very unlettered one. I think faith plays the central role. But faith by its nature is blind, what need is there for faith if you have reasons and arguments and evidence. Apologetics I think are an after the fact rationalisation of what the believer already takes on faith. I presume you reject Muslim apolgetics but to the many hundreds of millions of Muslims it presents a water tight case to support their faith. I am against this type of faith in principle - if you believe something on faith - not a careful doubtful unsure faith but a certain faith - where you believe and act as if what you believe is true, how would you know you are mistaken? How do we get a Muslim to reject the Koran as being divinely inspired if he claims he believes on faith? I presume you think he is wrong but how could we ever reach him? Faith wipes all discussion off the table. He believes because he believes. That is the basis of all religious claims. Faith convinces people that they have knowledge which they do not in fact possess, like what happens after death etc.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 18:53:34 GMT
OK, unfortunately, here is an example of why I find it unrewarding to interact with you. You didn't consider my argument; you just looked for a way to shoot it down, and you show a pattern of this. I don't see any evidence that you are open-minded at all. There are different arguments for different religious beliefs and a believer in one religion finds one argument superior than another. The familiar arguments against this will be: Have you considered the claims of every religion in the world? Why do people generally believe the religion they are born into? The answer to me is: No, and I'm not going to. I'm sufficiently convinced by Catholicism and it seems to me superior to any other religion on many grounds, including its staying power and its geographical diversity. As a matter of fact I was an agnostic until my thirties and it took a LOT of thinking and pondering of evidence to come to faith. Here is my account of that process.I am not going to try to get a Muslim to "reject the Koran" per se. I want him to accept Jesus. Every religion is not completely false except for Catholicism. There are elements of truth in them all, to a greater or lesser degree. "What need is there for faith if you have reason and argument and evidence"? Outside the realm of pure mathematics, you are never going to have a knock-down argument for anything. Knowledge doesn't work that way. Besides, why do you assume the ultimate truth of the universe is one only achievable through rational demonstration? What right do you have to assume the universe is so conveniently designed for the human mind? Why should't God wish human beings to trust Him on the grounds of what he has revealed? If God coerced the intellect, affirming Him would have no merit in it. As the Bible says, "The demons believe and tremble". I agree with Peter Hitchens that nobody is objective about the existence of God; nearly always there is a desire that God should not exist amongst atheists, and that desire itself has moral implications. And what about the faith of atheism? You presumably believe the universe "just exists", even though this makes no sense and makes a mockery of all rational and logical enquiry. You believe that the conditions for intelligent human life "just happened" even though the odds against this are astronomical. That seems like faith to me; just accepting the existence of something and refusing to ask any further questions. As for how I would know I was mistaken, it's extraordinary that religious belief is put to this unique test of being constantly falsifiable. Presumably you believe that ancient Rome actually existed. How you know you were mistaken? My belief in the Catholic Church is rooted in so many converging considerations, I see no reason I should supply one test by which it should succeed or fail. Going on my previous experience of you, you are simply going to repeat your previous assertions. At the same time, I'm guessing you find your existing worldview unfulfilling, which is why you are here.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on May 30, 2018 19:27:01 GMT
So, Unfortunately, here is a question for you, and I'd ask that this time you do try to answer it.
You say that the basis of your morality is suffering. Let's say I am a sadist. Let's say I revel in the suffering of others, and therefore I believe that other peoples' suffering is good but mine is bad. How can you argue against this proposition, using only evidence and reason?
If you think this preposterous, there are many variations on the theme that I could play. Your fellow atheist Friedrich Nietzsche had complete contempt for the view that the avoidance of suffering and the maximization of pleasure was the basis of morality. He did indeed think that sensitivity to suffering was decadent. And he was a very influential philosopher, so my question is by no means ridiculous or contrived.
|
|
|
Post by AntaineGuest on Jun 2, 2018 12:08:23 GMT
I wanted to take part in this thread more, but am having some keyboard trouble.
I understand the point you were making Unf. You were suggesting that having faith in a higher being, to whom you would rely on for knowing best and helping you decide on the final say, could be abused to make people do atrocious things that otherwise they may be reluctant or outright refuse to do,
On the topic of abortion, I didn't get to there much at all, but someone on the radio today was talking about Yes voters being able to go to Confession to repent. Maybe someone else here has heard the full thing. I literally only heard a few seconds of it.
|
|