|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Sept 5, 2012 15:30:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 17, 2012 20:12:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Sept 18, 2012 11:50:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Sept 18, 2012 11:55:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 18, 2012 18:53:09 GMT
David Quinn; apologetics without the cardboard smile. I wish there were more like him. Lots more.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 18, 2012 18:55:41 GMT
I was responding to a post from Hibernicus which seems to have disappeared. Or maybe I did something wrong!
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 18, 2012 20:15:43 GMT
Oops; I was responding to a post on the first page of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Sept 20, 2012 11:22:02 GMT
You know, I have read articles about this story by Irish Times columnists every day this week. Monday was Anne Marie Hourihan; Tuesday was Fintan O'Toole; yesterday was Vincent Browne; and today was Professor Alan Titley i nGaeilge. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy here - the photographs aren't actually published, but acres of commentary is devoted to them. And even if the Times doesn't publish photographs of naked or almost naked women as a rule, some of the models in their fashion pages or supplements are pretty racey.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 20, 2012 18:09:05 GMT
I would have my doubts about what Fintan O'Toole means when he wants the right to a free press regulated in the name of social responsibility rather than profit. O'Toole also points out (correctly) that the photos of Mrs Windsor also raise a different moral question from those of the models, given that they were taken in a private and intimate setting without her knowledge and published without her consent.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 21, 2012 7:51:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 21, 2012 10:50:50 GMT
Fr John Mannion's rant contains too many blunders and confusions to be all listed here, but here are a few: (1) He presents himself as wishing for an end to the Vatican State and remarks that it is not mentioned in the Creed, but many of his statements imply that he wishes to end the Papal magisterium and perhaps the papacy as such; he uses the Vatican state as a stalking-horse because it allows him to avoid discussing the Petrine passages in the New Testament. (For example, he treats the term "vicar of Christ" as a mediaeval invention, but it is exactly what is implied by the grant of the keys of the kingdom of heaven - Peter is made Jesus' steward and put in charge of the household.) Similarly, he denounces the CDF as successor to the inquisition, but his real objection seems to be to the existence of a teaching authority which determines what is and is not heresy. (2) He mentions that before Papal elections were entrusted to the College of Cardinals, Popes were elected by the clergy and people of Rome. He doesn't mention that this regularly led to such abuses as the nomination of Popes by the temporal rulers of Rome or the appearance of rival papal claimants each of whom organised their own election (attended by their own supporters) and declared the other's election to be bogus. The former is an important point - the insistence on papal sovereignty did not just stem from personal ambition but from realisation that unless the Pope was sovereign he would be subordinated to temporal rulers. (This of course is what modern-day Vaticanophobes want to do in the name of democracy.) (3) He says the papal monarchy is incompatible with the church described in the New Testament, but there are New Testament passages which can be cited in support of the monarchical episcopacy - it depends on your presuppositions. (For example, he says that the office of cardinal has no basis in the New Testament, but cardinals are often compared to the seventy helpers of lesser rank chosen by Jesus to assist the apostles - that is why between Sixtus V and John XXIII the maximum number of cardinals was set at seventy.) Really he seems to have adopted a low-church Protestant ecclesiology without saying so (note the assumption that the New Testament is the sole source of authority and that subsequent developments must by definition be corruptions).
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 23, 2012 19:15:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by loughcrew on Sept 24, 2012 10:08:25 GMT
Inda fiddles with his phone while Rome learns.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 24, 2012 19:12:58 GMT
THe Irish papers don't seem to have picked up on this yet - I wonder will they, or will they present it as another example of "Heroic Inda Ignores Reactionary Pope"? His spin-doctors seem to be emphasising that he did not have any conversation with the Pope and has no regrets for his speech blaming the Vatican for clerical abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Sept 25, 2012 19:49:05 GMT
Irish Times 25 September 2012:
|
|