|
Post by jharekcarnelian on Jun 20, 2008 19:18:31 GMT
A Chara,
I saw the links to this posted by a member over at Catholic answers and as I am Irish myself I was intrigued. My family are from Kilkenny and Offaly but I've lived the majority of my life and gone to school in London where I still live.
I'm not the world's best Catholic but I was trying to reconnect to my faith after many years away from it. Partly that's my wife's influence even though she's from the Orthodox church.
I'm a member of a number of Irish forums but most of them are political ones given I am a republican who inclines towards socialism. I thought it might be interesting however to use a non-political forum for once for discussion of questions that ultimately go beyond politics.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jun 24, 2008 14:01:06 GMT
OK, jharekcarnelian. I can identify with your politics. Where do you want to begin regarding Catholicism? In spite of what some people say, I believe Catholicism to be more compatible with the left than the right. Let's start there.
|
|
|
Post by jharekcarnelian on Jul 11, 2008 19:07:33 GMT
I'm familar with the vast majority of anti-Church arguments in Irish history. None of them impress me greatly, arguments against SPECIFIC churchmen who have showed shallow understanding of social conditions or arguments where the church conflicts on particular issues are different. Many of the people I'd admire in Irish history have had their differences with the church even some who were remarkably devout. But much of the arguments against the church tend to come across as empty intellectualism, essentially vapid at bottom.
I'm by no means at all a 'good' Catholic (that elusive species that is rarely found) but my relationship with the church does have a meaning to me. To judge the church by particularly poor actions it may have carried out is limiting as it is notable that the courtesy of judging it for good actions as well is rarely applied in that particular debating gambit.
Please feel free to try - you may now list the common arguments such as
1) Child abuse in the church
2)Anti-abortion policies are an insult to women
3)The church always hated the idea of national freedom in Ireland
4)The church was an overly controlling draconian influence in Irish life
Believe me I've spent the last 5 years or so arguing with hard-core loyalists so nothing you can say is going to be particularly groundbreaking once you have seen some of the conspiraciy theories that fly via copious hot air in that community.
|
|
|
Post by falconer on Jul 11, 2008 20:48:10 GMT
I'm familar with the vast majority of anti-Church arguments in Irish history. None of them impress me greatly, arguments against SPECIFIC churchmen who have showed shallow understanding of social conditions or arguments where the church conflicts on particular issues are different. Many of the people I'd admire in Irish history have had their differences with the church even some who were remarkably devout. But much of the arguments against the church tend to come across as empty intellectualism, essentially vapid at bottom. One churchman does not a church make. The way I look at it is its history overall since it morphed from a brand of Judaism into a collection of various ideas including those from the Stoics, the Gnostic's and Pagans. I'm by no means at all a 'good' Catholic (that elusive species that is rarely found) but my relationship with the church does have a meaning to me. To judge the church by particularly poor actions it may have carried out is limiting as it is notable that the courtesy of judging it for good actions as well is rarely applied in that particular debating gambit. What does "the church has meaning to me" mean exactly and what do you mean by "the church". Are you talking about something local as a bonding agent between you and yours or the whole international organisation or do you mean you just feel better thinking "there's something up there". Please feel free to try - you may now list the common arguments such as 1) Child abuse in the church 2)Anti-abortion policies are an insult to women 3)The church always hated the idea of national freedom in Ireland 4)The church was an overly controlling draconian influence in Irish life From above: But much of the arguments against the church tend to come across as empty intellectualism, essentially vapid at bottom. So do you think that people who criticise an organisation for a worldwide tsunami of child rape (not to mention everything else) and it's cover up are putting across "arguments that come across as empty intellectualism that is essentially vapid at bottom (to paraphrase what you've said) Whats empty and vapid about objecting to child rape and torture? I'd be fascinated to know.... Better still how do you justify it and dismiss it so lightly? Believe me I've spent the last 5 years or so arguing with hard-core loyalists so nothing you can say is going to be particularly groundbreaking once you have seen some of the conspiraciy theories that fly via copious hot air in that community. I've talked to hard core loyalist on Pulse. You've some patience to last five years! But to say that everything they say is hot air is not true. To understand Loyalist you have to understand how they historically became Loyalists.
|
|
|
Post by jharekcarnelian on Jul 12, 2008 6:09:03 GMT
falconer, I'll deal with points in reverse order later on today or tomorrow as it's hideously busy at work presently but for the last point quickly if the original wording in my post implied that all loyalists talk hot air i certainly don't believe that. But just as there's as a certain set or republicans who tend towards merely brit bashing rather than anything more constructive so to there is a sub set of loyalists who tend to focus all their energy on going on about the sectarian free state and the kafflicks ad infinitum (strangely enough the cavemen end of loyalism and republicanism both love that phrase 'free state'...)
|
|