|
Post by Sinead on May 26, 2008 15:08:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 26, 2008 15:15:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 26, 2008 15:20:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 26, 2008 15:22:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by guest on May 26, 2008 15:25:24 GMT
I don't think we need to debate it. We need Catholics to read it and for our Bishops and priests to preach the teachings on matters raised in Humanae Vitae.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 26, 2008 15:26:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 26, 2008 15:28:33 GMT
I don't think we need to debate it. We need Catholics to read it and for our Bishops and priests to preach the teachings on matters raised in Humanae Vitae. Yea! That's what i mean. Why are the irish bishops going on about the Lisbon treaty (which is none of there business) when we have not heard a word out them on an issue as vital as human dignity and humane sexuality?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 26, 2008 15:32:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on May 27, 2008 19:08:15 GMT
I don't think we need to debate it. We need Catholics to read it and for our Bishops and priests to preach the teachings on matters raised in Humanae Vitae. Yea! That's what i mean. Why are the irish bishops going on about the Lisbon treaty (which is none of there business) when we have not heard a word out them on an issue as vital as human dignity and humane sexuality? Because it's a softer option? Or because they are embarrassed by Humanae Vitae? (Just wondering.)
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 27, 2008 22:27:01 GMT
Yea! That's what i mean. Why are the Irish bishops going on about the Lisbon treaty (which is none of there business) when we have not heard a word out them on an issue as vital as human dignity and humane sexuality? Because it's a softer option? Or because they are embarrassed by Humanae Vitae? (Just wondering.) No. I'd say it is a case of little Bow Peep has lost all her sheep and does not know where to find them. Several of the Irish hierarchy are off the the (doctrinal) rails and will blab on about anything except what they were ordained to preach. In all of the blabbing, everyone realizes they're chancing their arms. Any professional lay person will tell you they have not a clue on most of the political/social issues they spout on about. For instance, how many of the Irish bishops would be able to locate Lisbon on the map for you? In the 19th century Newman went on (with good reason) about the "national apostasy". Reading him, I am sometimes left wondering if he is making a prophecy about the 21 century Irish hierarchy!
|
|
|
Post by TIM on May 27, 2008 22:33:18 GMT
Yea! That's what i mean. Why are the Irish bishops going on about the Lisbon treaty (which is none of there business) when we have not heard a word out them on an issue as vital as human dignity and humane sexuality? Because it's a softer option? Or because they are embarrassed by Humanae Vitae? (Just wondering.) No. It's not a matter of embarrassment. it's lack of any belief in or conviction about a Catholic vision of man, human dignity and humane sexuality. Because of this fundamental lack of conviction, they are not in a position to say anything about marriage, family, society, gay unions, etc. etc. etc. etc. The greatest joke of all is that little Willie Walsh in Killaloe is in charge of Catholic Marriage at the level of the Irish Episcopal Conference. He was never a great supporter of Humanae Vitae and probably would know what it was if it jumped out at him.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 29, 2008 17:33:55 GMT
Because it's a softer option? Or because they are embarrassed by Humanae Vitae? (Just wondering.) No. It's not a matter of embarrassment. it's lack of any belief in or conviction about a Catholic vision of man, human dignity and humane sexuality. Because of this fundamental lack of conviction, they are not in a position to say anything about marriage, family, society, gay unions, etc. etc. etc. etc. The greatest joke of all is that little Willie Walsh in Killaloe is in charge of Catholic Marriage at the level of the Irish Episcopal Conference. He was never a great supporter of Humanae Vitae and probably would know what it was if it jumped out at him. A very interesting view of things.
|
|
|
Post by molagga on May 30, 2008 22:12:27 GMT
Anybody been to a pre-marriage course recently organised by ACCORD, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Service, where the joys of condoms and contraceptives were NOT recommended?
|
|
|
Post by Marie on Jun 1, 2008 21:43:57 GMT
NAOMI does a much better job on marriage preparation than ACCORD. This association takes HV seriously and produces serious results. www.naomi.ie/index.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2010 12:55:07 GMT
This discussion on the DAILYTELEGRAPH blog (not from a catholic perspective) may be relevant here: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100026525/dont-blame-advertisers-for-the-sexualisation-of-children/EXTRACT Natasha Walter tackled this issue in her recent book Living Dolls, which is essentially two long essays, one about the sexual objectification of women and the other about the rise of biological determinism. In the first part Walter laments that post-war feminism, which was supposed to be about the freedom of women to enjoy sex without being stigmatised (among other things), has led to a society that is far more sexualised and in which women are sexually exploited, as prostitutes, lap dancers and Nuts fodder. Worst of all, this hypersexual culture puts unbearable pressure on young girls to become sexually active against their will, young girls who now grow up idolising Katie Price rather than Emmeline Pankhurst or Marie Curie. Walter’s solution, as far as she offers one, is to somehow impart upon sexual wrongdoers (be it men who drool over images of half-naked women in lads mags or teenage girls who bully sexually inactive classmates) some form of Guardian readers’ sexual morality. It wasn’t until almost page 100 of Walter’s book that I saw the word “shame”, and that was in reference (although not explicitly spelled out) to honour killings – as if Purdah was the only alternative to the current model, rather than just the opposite extreme of Britain’s hyper-sexual culture. Sexual repression is (or was) enforced not because old people want to stop youngsters having fun, although that’s obviously a motive, but to protect people from being sexually exploited, and from being prematurely sexualised, as well as suffering the disaster of unwanted children. People who broke that code were shamed, often in a very unpleasant and nasty way. Now we’ve gone to the other extreme, and Conservative politicians and commentators feel scared to mention the s-word for fear they’ll get portrayed as Victorian Dad from Viz.
|
|