Why do we still have "The Angelus" on RTE?


That link does not seperate out the act of homsexual sex Vs a person being a homosexual nor does it discuss whether or not homosexuality is condemned by the church - but I would imagine a document banning homosexuals from joining the priesthood would in fact give support to the point I made about the church being against homosexuality!
 
truthseeker said:
Are you saying that female circumcision is comparable to the idea of the tooth fairy :confused:
Click to expand...

No, I'm merely puzzled that you seem to take exception to others raising what you see as "deliberately inflammatory subjects" while you yourself are quite happy to make fairly wild accusations and generalisations about the Church, and religion in general.
 
ubiquitous said:
Great - could you post a link
Click to expand...

From:
[broken link removed]
Modern history of Catholic teaching

1930

The modern attitude of the Catholic Church to contraception was laid down in the 1930s when Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubii (which translates as 'Of Chaste Marriage').
This document said that artificial birth control was a violation of the "law of God and nature" and that those who used it committed "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
1951

In 1951 Pope Pius XII said that it was acceptable to use the rhythm method if a couple had a good reason to limit the size of their family.
1958

In 1958 Pius XII stated that it was legitimate for women to take the birth control pill for medical reasons other than contraception. He said that the contraceptive side effect would not be wrong because of the 'doctrine of double effect'.
1968

In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, which banned all artificial methods of birth control. His uncompromising position on birth control led to protests around the Catholic world and Roman Catholic hierarchies in some countries openly modified the policy.
The document surprised many Catholics, who had hoped for a relaxation of the traditional attitude after Vatican II, and it rejected the views of the commission appointed to consider birth control, which had recommended that the ban on contraception be ended.
Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II thought birth control was profoundly important; while still Cardinal Wojtyla he wrote that the issue of contraception was a "struggle for the value and meaning of humanity itself" (1978).
When he became Pope he confirmed the Church's position, "the natural regulation of fertility is morally correct; contraception is not morally correct."
 
ubiquitous said:
No, I'm merely puzzled that you seem to take exception to others raising what you see as "deliberately inflammatory subjects" while you don't seem to have any problem with making fairly wild accusations and generalisations about the Church, and religion in general.
Click to expand...

Where did I take exception? I merely commented on the nature of the subjects you choose. I never indicated I found them offensive?

How is it a wild accusation to compare one imaginary entity to another?
 
Sunny said:
Anyway, are you just going to ignore the good things the Church does on a daily basis?
Click to expand...

No - I'm not attacking the church per se.

I'm not a believer as it happens but I don't believe it's my place to criticize the beliefs of others and I don't think I have done so, and yes, the catholic church does of course do good work - as do other churches in the country.

As I've said, I just object to their influence, in this state, on my personal daily life - examples above - and in terms of the OP, I believe The Angelus to be another (albeit minor) example of this.

Practicing catholics are free to conduct their lives with as much or as little concern for the views/teachings of the church as they like. Everyone else should have a choice IMO.
 
truthseeker said:
I dont understand what is offensive in comparing a god to any other imaginary entity. As much scientific evidence exists to support the existence of the tooth fairy as does to support the existence of a god. I am sorry if you find that offensive. Unfortunately it is the truth. If the truth offends it is because the mind examining it is not open to fact.

If science could prove the existence of a god, in a manner that could be repeated, experiment after experiment then Id be the first to jump on the god bandwagon. But it cannot.

Plus there is the common sense notion that there are a large number of different religions around the world. They cant all be right can they? The only reason a large number of people are Catholic is that they were born of Catholic parents. They were indoctrinated before they had any understanding of the world around them or knew what they were signing up for by being baptised/make communion/confirmed. Its a matter of chance what religion you are.

I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like being against homosexuality, contraception, abortion, divorce, sex outside of marriage, sex only for procreation etc).
But that is a totally seperate issue to belief in the existance of a god. And it is intended to be an unquestioning belief. Its very easy to stand by the argument for a god if no one is allowed to question it.
Questioning it and making valid comparisions is classed as 'offensive' - so this prevents open discussion because the religious member can always use the 'you are causing offence' as a fall back position.
Click to expand...

Very well put Truthseeker. I agree with you 100%. May I subscribe to your newsletter ?

Did you hear about the agnostic, insomiac, dyxlexic guy ?

He stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog.
 
truthseeker said:
I would imagine a document banning homosexuals from joining the priesthood would in fact give support to the point I made about the church being against homosexuality!
Click to expand...

..only if it is ultimately accepted by the Church, which is by no means certain, given the opposition of Dr. Martin & others. Incidentally, I would have thought that the existence of differing viewpoints within the Church in relation to this document would have undermined the allegation that the Church is a monolithic, dictatorial organisation that rules and controls by fear.
 
truthseeker said:
From:
[broken link removed]
Modern history of Catholic teaching

1930

The modern attitude of the Catholic Church to contraception was laid down in the 1930s when Pope Pius XI issued Casti Connubii (which translates as 'Of Chaste Marriage').
This document said that artificial birth control was a violation of the "law of God and nature" and that those who used it committed "a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."
1951

In 1951 Pope Pius XII said that it was acceptable to use the rhythm method if a couple had a good reason to limit the size of their family.
1958

In 1958 Pius XII stated that it was legitimate for women to take the birth control pill for medical reasons other than contraception. He said that the contraceptive side effect would not be wrong because of the 'doctrine of double effect'.
1968

In 1968 Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, which banned all artificial methods of birth control. His uncompromising position on birth control led to protests around the Catholic world and Roman Catholic hierarchies in some countries openly modified the policy.
The document surprised many Catholics, who had hoped for a relaxation of the traditional attitude after Vatican II, and it rejected the views of the commission appointed to consider birth control, which had recommended that the ban on contraception be ended.
Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II thought birth control was profoundly important; while still Cardinal Wojtyla he wrote that the issue of contraception was a "struggle for the value and meaning of humanity itself" (1978).
When he became Pope he confirmed the Church's position, "the natural regulation of fertility is morally correct; contraception is not morally correct."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I cannot find any indication there that sex should only be for procreation?

truthseeker said:
I merely commented on the nature of the subjects you choose. I never indicated I found them offensive?
Click to expand...
I didn't say you did.
 
ubiquitous said:
Sorry, I cannot find any indication there that sex should only be for procreation?
Click to expand...

Very last line "contraception is not morally correct" - the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, if use of it is not morally correct then that infers that the purpose of sex is to conceive.
 
truthseeker said:
Very last line "contraception is not morally correct" - the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, if use of it is not morally correct then that infers that the purpose of sex is to conceive.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You originally said...


truthseeker said:
I fundamentally disagree with a number of different 'rules and regulations' of the Catholic church (like ...sex only for procreation)
Click to expand...
which is a different matter entirely.

truthseeker said:
Where was that alleged?
Click to expand...

Fair enough you didn't allege it, I didn't make my point particularly well. However my point still stands, most organisations that rule and "control by fear" (your words) don't bother with niceties like internal policy debates, least of all conducted in the public domain.
 
ubiquitous said:
No it doesn't. You originally said...
Click to expand...

How does it not infer that the purpose of sex is to conceive if the use of contraception is morally wrong?
I think that its pretty clear that the churches stance on this is that the purpose of sex is for procreation.
 
ubiquitous said:
Fair enough you didn't allege it, I didn't make my point particularly well. However my point still stands, most organisations that rule and "control by fear" (your words) don't bother with niceties like internal policy debates, least of all conducted in the public domain.
Click to expand...

Of course they do!! Its so the masses will believe that they are not being controlled by fear.
 
truthseeker said:
How does it not infer that the purpose of sex is to conceive if the use of contraception is morally wrong?
I think that its pretty clear that the churches stance on this is that the purpose of sex is for procreation.
Click to expand...

If what you are saying is correct, the Church would teach that it is immoral for a woman to have sex if she is infertile. If this is their teaching, it is news to me.
truthseeker said:
Of course they do!! Its so people like you will believe that you are not being controlled by fear.
Click to expand...

If you wish to personalise the debate by making inferences about me and my beliefs, then feel free to debate away on your own :(
 
apologies ubi - I will edit the offending post, I did not intend to personalise in that manner - call it trigger happy typing.
 
ubiquitous said:
If what you are saying is correct, the Church would teach that it is immoral for a woman to have sex if she is infertile. If this is their teaching, it is news to me.
Click to expand...

Its not what Im saying, its what the church is saying. And if thats the inference that comes from it then yes, I assume that is their teaching - sad though that is.
 
truthseeker said:
But dont the people who dont go to mass still have to pay the church for things like baptisms, weddings, funerals etc?
Click to expand...


Certainly do and rightly so and they should be contributing every week or on a yearly basis towards the upkeep of the Church. It is very sad when the Church and the priest are so taken for granted and then when the big occassion arrives so many people appear and especially with weddings, put on a big show for the day, may not be seen again in the Church for so long and almost expect the priest to do the ceremony for nothing. Yet they fork out bigtime on all the other expenses on the day. It is pretty annoying and by golly the priest better be available at the day and time they want him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top