molly
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by molly on Oct 21, 2008 22:57:47 GMT
I dont see why this is so important to you but.........
Baptised into the Catholic faith in 1972; Made my first confession & communion 1979; made confirmation 1985 and attended the De La Salle Brothers all my school life and attended religious studies like a good catholic boy.
[/quote]
While I am using above as an example of the point I'm trying to make it applies to similar expressions from other posters along the lines of "brought up a 'good Catholic'......eventually saw reason" What does this actually mean? Going to mass, making your communion and confirmation and undergoing 'religious studies' could probably be claimed by almost ALL Irish people...The sentiment implied by this assertion is that you followed blindly a faith that was imposed on you until you saw the light and gave up all that nonsense. Roman Catholicism IS NOT an ethnicity, it is a way of life you choose to lead and a faith that you embrace. For those who claim they are 'modern' or 'progressive' catholics and who directly disagree with the social teachings of the Church I can only encourage you to form your own religion because you can't BE something that you totally disagree with. For example a lot (and I'm generalising here) of people in Ireland who when asked on the census what their religion is would put down Catholic. If you were then to go on and ask them about abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex would probably scoff at the very idea of disapproving of them... This is not being a Catholic, you either agree or you don't and if you don't then go form the Church of Jimmy Reilly or whatever, which includes the beliefs you want to keep and those you want to leave out. Yes churches would be a lot emptier but better to have a church which was comprised of people who actually followed the faith they professed than just went as a social convention.
|
|
molly
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by molly on Oct 22, 2008 18:57:48 GMT
Hemingway said:"Should I be Excommunicated for this?"I never said you should "Does that make me a heretic?"Never said this either... "This too, apparently, also seems to appeal to you. How odd........"Low church numbers does not appeal to me... but I don't understand why people who openly disagree with major teachings of the church would even want to attend? "Your attitude of "youre either one of us or one of them" is disturbing to me. It contains no area for compromise. You are suggesting that we deal in absolutes on this issue." Never said anything about you being ‘one of them’ who are ‘they’?, towing the party line or putting anyone 'on a rack' My point is simply this.... You are talking about change/progress etc and how the church needs to adapt to the modern world...can I ask you why it needs to do this? to keep the numbers up? To look like it’s all hip and modern? There is a huge misconception out there that the church gets some sadistic pleasure out of repressing people and this generally occurs in the area of human sexuality...This I don't believe is the case. The church teaches that sex is a very powerful thing and that is why it has what some might call 'strict' teachings on the matter...some of these issues both you and I have already mentioned for example, contraception; The church believes that contraception is wrong all over the world and not just in Africa. To suggest that they should change their teaching for Africa because...well why? because there is a terrible disease very prevalent there? The Church offers abstinence as a very plausible and caring approach to human sexuality and consequently to its implementation in preventing the spread of aids..a program that has been extremely successful in Uganda at lowering HIV/AIDS. I find it extremely disturbing that there are attitudes out there that think that throwing condoms at people will solve the problem. Condoms are I would guess readily available in Africa....and they don't seem to be halting the spread of AIDS? Similarily in the West where you see condoms for sale everywhere we still have rising STD rates and unplanned pregnancies... If people practice abstinence (and understand WHY they are abstaining) you have a 0% risk of pregnancy or contracting AIDS. The Church's teaching on sexuality is not designed to be a negative one and it is a lot more complex than people realise. It is not about not having sex ever, it is about having sex in the appropriate context and having an awareness of how profound sex is. The cathechism is probably your best description of it. “I will decline your invitation to start my own church.”I am sorry that you don't wish to start your own Church (it'd be easy enough, rent a hall, draw up some guidelines and you're away) but can I ask you why you still want to be a Catholic? What is it that attracts you to it? And also if the Church does change its teachings what happens to people like me....us "outdated" folks... because there are considerably more of us than you might imagine, and Catholicism in Ireland is probably a very bad indicator of the state and true beliefs of the worldwide church. How do you cater for people who don’t share your “progressive” ideas?
|
|
molly
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by molly on Oct 23, 2008 23:59:30 GMT
Hi Hemingway. I apologise if I sounded like a Grand Inquisitor in my previous post...that was not my intention. The point I was trying to make was that if you are a part of a religion (which I certainly have no power to excommunicate you from) but yet you disagree with several of its main tenets...is it really a viable solution that you try and change a lot of things which you see as backward in that religion and then you would be satisfied? For example,if I were a Muslim and I objected to praying five times a day, would it be logical for me to say that the Muslim clerics/leaders should change this practice because I wanted them to? Yes perhaps many more feel the same way as I do but would it not mean that the faith I profess to have is radically different to what that faith sees itself to be... Its probably not a great example but what I'm trying to understand is why you still believe in being a Catholic? What about the faith (as it currently stands) do you believe in? Let me put it another way...you have said previously that you are against abortion..I share this view. However there is a group in America who (I would guess) would also call themselves 'progressive' called 'Catholics for Choice' who believe that the Church should change her teaching on this matter. Why should they too not be allowed bring their modern ideas into the teaching of the church? There are actually very important theological ideas behind not using contraception...it has to do with what sex means, as in a total giving of self to another person.... and also to do with the gift that children are..not a right but a gift from God. The Catholic Church allows couples to space their children naturally if they so wish whether for economic reasons or out of a consideration of being a good parent to your children and being able to devote your time and energy to them. I'm afraid I still have issues with your views on Africa.. Condoms are available in Africa and are distributed by many other groups.... the Church teaches an alternative to this....blaming the Church for millions of deaths to me does not make sense... The Church believes that contraception is damaging to individuals in the long term...and would have a very holistic approach to human sexuality. As it belives it is damaging, why would it encourage its use? To say that Catholics in Africa are not using condoms for fear of eternal damnation is quite frankly bordering on racism.. As you have rejected the teaching on contraception they are equally free to do so..African Catholics are capable of critical thought and appreciate that the Church's teaching is totally different to the approaches of other groups...They are aware that contraception exists but did it occur to you that they may see the Church's teaching as a positive thing? You say abstinence is "plausible ...but unpractical".. I'm afraid I don't understand this... Why is it unpractical? Also I don't understand how not using condoms goes against human nature?Were they not a twentieth century invention? I would argue the exact opposite...that they in fact Do go against nature. To say that because the laws were made up by celibate men they should be disregarded is not logical... Do you think that because people have not had sex they are completely ignorant of it? Celibacy is not a rejection of sex..its an enormous sacrifice that the clergy make in order to carry out their priestly vocation and I would venture that clergy are more aware than anybody of what it asks of lay Catholics when it preaches about abstinence...Its not a case of "because we're not having it nobody can"... And by the way lay people of the Church do support the Church's teachings on sexuality (I'm one ).. the clergy are a big part but not the totality of the Church. Catholicism should always be a proposition... It should never be enforced on anyone... A Catholic should say to another person.. "This is what I believe and this is what my Church teaches, I believe that living your life in this way will give you the greatess happiness as it has done for me"... It is NOT an easy path but then again what things worth doing ever are?
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 29, 2008 15:34:41 GMT
To all my debating friends. Are we diverting from the thread question too much? This is about the 'animal rights' question and the Pope's traditional fur clothing. How did it end up as a discussion on 'other' things not really connected? This is my thread lads, keep M... and those things out of it. Deal?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 29, 2008 17:50:13 GMT
Inedifix doesn't seem to have noticed that we also believe in grace and forgiveness for the worst of sinners who repent, and that the Gospel says even the most just are sinners in need of forgiveness. To be fair to him, St Stephen seems to take this for granted and so hasn't drawn it to his attention.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 30, 2008 19:17:43 GMT
now your talking my language saintstephen. great to be back on track
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 31, 2008 11:15:40 GMT
Thanks a million saintstephen, that is most interesting. Note however the year I had to shut down my farm, 1991. According to the graph that was the very bottom of the market. I attended a meeting of all those organisations targeted by the animal rights ideologists at 8am on the 8th of the 8th 08. There were speakers over from America and Europe giving us the facts about these organisations. They have infiltrated all animal WELFARE projects and in America skim MILLIONS of dollars off animal CARE to use as finance for animal 'RIGHTS'. They showed us that they have one of the most elaborate internet operations. The organiser told the meeting that his e-mails to only a few others was INTERCEPTED and the rent-a-mob were outside the 'secret' meeting picketing. Calls came from some absent invitees saying that they were not prepared to pass those intimidating pickets who were photographing all entering the hotel. Their agenda is long term, 100 years is nothing. Their aim is to stop all human use of animals. They intend doing it domino effect, first close down grayhounds, mink farms, hunting, animal testing and so on. They use methods that are very clever but are now undertaking the brainwashing of young boys and girls on the internet using animal games.
Now while there are things done to animals that any decent person would abhor, the anti tactics are intimidation and terrifying. Thus no Catholic could possibly support them. Moreover, human rights are Christian in the main and as I said these include the proper use of animals for food, labour, companionship etc.
By the way saintstepher, did you know your views are an 'embarrassment' to Catholics - according to hazelireland that is.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Oct 31, 2008 11:53:05 GMT
now your talking my language saintstephen. great to be back on track Hi redmond. I am not in favour of the Pope wearing fur. I am not a member of any radical animal rights groups but the concept of farming of animals for their fur does not sit well with me.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Oct 31, 2008 15:31:20 GMT
now your talking my language saintstephen. great to be back on track Hi redmond. I am not in favour of the Pope wearing fur. I am not a member of any radical animal rights groups but the concept of farming of animals for their fur does not sit well with me. The question I have, Harris, is what about leather? I accept your point about fur, but why farm or trap animals for leather either? I just looked at the current Brandsma Review, which Cedar Lounge Revolution describes as for high brow fundamentalists and what Catholic-perspective/the Hibernian call neo-con. The editor asks why animal liberation people don't target people who go round in leather. He says little old ladies wear fur coats, but bikers who might be 6 foot 6 and 17 stones go around in leather. Which are the easier to scream abuse at?
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 31, 2008 18:47:47 GMT
Harris, redmond here. Could you try to put into words why you feel that way and even better, why you feel the pope should not wear the fur garments in the papal wardrobe? This is why I put up this thread, mainly to answer such criticism. Indeed askel has put forward one such question to you. why not take advantage of the only mink farmer willing to defend his life career on any forum? There are many others who also see the absurdity in picking fur for special attention. Is there a psychologist out there who could tell us why some think your way?
The best example of the leather hypocracy is picturing a protest group outside landsdown Road Rugby stadium screeming at the rugby players kicking around a MURDERED rugby ball.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Nov 1, 2008 15:19:32 GMT
My problem was that I was really too old to take up a new career. I tried a few businesses but none succeeded because my heart was not in it. I am now retired but very active at many things.
|
|
|
Post by ezigboututu on Nov 2, 2008 15:53:20 GMT
I am not in favour of the Pope wearing fur. I am not a member of any radical animal rights groups but the concept of farming of animals for their fur does not sit well with me. There are a few animal rights people who set up in Dublin every weekend. They are campaigning to stop fur farming. I've asked them more than once what have they got against animals with curly coats like sheep for example. I can't see the difference between raising one animal for it's hide and another.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 3, 2008 12:45:19 GMT
Harris, redmond here. Could you try to put into words why you feel that way and even better, why you feel the pope should not wear the fur garments in the papal wardrobe? This is why I put up this thread, mainly to answer such criticism. Indeed askel has put forward one such question to you. why not take advantage of the only mink farmer willing to defend his life career on any forum? There are many others who also see the absurdity in picking fur for special attention. Is there a psychologist out there who could tell us why some think your way? The best example of the leather hypocracy is picturing a protest group outside landsdown Road Rugby stadium screeming at the rugby players kicking around a MURDERED rugby ball. Hi redmond, I am uncomfortable with people utilising animals in any way that leads to their unnatural death and that is just based on my personal morality. This goes for everyone including the Pope. I am not picking on him for any reason. I don’t buy leather or fur products and I do not eat meat either. Its a personal choice for me and I have no wish to convert others to my way of thinking on this issue. I have a love for all living things but I am not militant in my beliefs. If someone asks me my view I give it as honestly as I can. god bless........
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 3, 2008 12:52:53 GMT
I am not in favour of the Pope wearing fur. I am not a member of any radical animal rights groups but the concept of farming of animals for their fur does not sit well with me. There are a few animal rights people who set up in Dublin every weekend. They are campaigning to stop fur farming. I've asked them more than once what have they got against animals with curly coats like sheep for example. I can't see the difference between raising one animal for it's hide and another. Hi ezigboututu, I would imagine they would say that a sheeps life isnt taken from them when they have their fur removed. This is speculation on my part but it appears logical to me.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Nov 3, 2008 18:16:10 GMT
Harris. I could tell you that being a veg in no way guarantees that fauna are left in peace to live out their lives in the wild. I could go on about DDT and pesticides and a 50,000,000 rabbit kill all to ensure veggies get their dinner, but you probably know that.
Your answer is fair enough harris and I respect your view. God bless
|
|