|
Post by cato on Mar 24, 2018 16:51:34 GMT
A special conference to save the Irish Church will be held in the Gresham Hotel ballroom Dublin on the 19th of May.
It will be addressed by Mary Mc Aleese , Fr Brian D'Arcy , Sr Stanislaus Kennedy , Fr Mark Patrick Hederman OSB and Fr Joe mc Donald.
Could I suggest we open talks with the Church of Ireland since all the solutions to church issues advocated by the above have all been implemented already by the church of Ireland? Just as Moses was called to leave Egypt perhaps we stop whinging that Rome doesn't change to suit our agendas and set out boldly on an ecumenical pilgrimage of hope ? Time to wipe the dust off our sandals.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 24, 2018 17:14:14 GMT
I suspect that, for the organizers, "save" does not mean "revive". They are not interested in increasing congregations and vocations, but redeeming the soul of the Church as they see it.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Mar 24, 2018 17:22:28 GMT
I smiled at the 5 years bit. I am sorely tempted to make an ageist comment but as we are about to enter Holy Week I shall resist . 🙄
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 22, 2018 20:56:56 GMT
The 19th of May, which I now realise was the vigil of Pentecost came and went without any news from the "5 Years to save the Church Meeting". It was organised by Columba Press who will probably publish a book with the wisdom of Fr Brian D'Archy et al on how to save the church.
Outside on O Connell St on Saturday dozens of young save the 8th advocates were canvassing the public instead of sitting in the Gresham ballroom complaining that the church is too counter cultural. The 1960s radicals now sound tired and conservative (with a very small c I hasten to add!)
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 27, 2018 23:12:49 GMT
I guess that 5 year estimate was somewhat optimistic!
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jun 18, 2018 2:08:15 GMT
I suspect that, for the organizers, "save" does not mean "revive". They are not interested in increasing congregations and vocations, but redeeming the soul of the Church as they see it. I just noticed in today's paper that Pope Francis has condemned the growing trend to encourage abortion after pre-natal disability testing "children should be accepted as God sends them, as God allows... The whole world was scandalised by what the nazis did to pursue the pureness of the race. Today we are doing the same thing with white gloves" Symbolism there. Nazis would have used gloves also. An opinion piece earlier in the newspaper by fairly conservative writer Andrew Bolt is perhaps an eye-opener against thinking that abuse of children has been tacitly encouraged by religions only. He started with mention of a communist and feminist poet and playwright named Dorothy Hewett, whose daughters have just said publicly that they were forced, by her, into abuse by older men from arts and intelligentsia circles. Hewett was against taboos of any sort. He goes on to mention several artists, authors and journalists who portrayed these things openly in the 70s. A group called the National Council for Civil Liberties in Britain called, in '76, for the age of consent to be lowered to 10. Three pederasts were interviewed openly on ABC (Aust)radio in 1975, the ABC chairman defended this. Bolt commented "how different things were then..." And although not a religious man, he points out, "(the 70s), when most paedophile priests were almost most active"
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 18, 2018 19:38:43 GMT
I did somewhere, here predict Mary Mc Aleese would publically come out for a Yes vote. She waited until the weekend to announce this and also said this is not something she would confess. I wonder what level of responsibility is she prepared to accept when we start throwing the new and unwanted unborn into hospital incinerators in Ireland? Probably very few people who mistreated and abused the Magdalenes felt they were sinning either.
The article announcing this in today's Irish Independent is a truly terrible and sad thing to read. It shows how far a certain group of catholics have drifted from the most simple basic christian teachings. According to Mrs Mc Aleese opposition to abortion is a man made rule. And the stress is on the "man" part of that statement!
Similarly the church's teaching on marriage as reserved to a man and woman. This reduction of church teaching to a party political platform idea suggests her much vaunted intellect is profoundly ill informed. She now subscribes to the infallible triad of feminism , anti clericalism and me feinism. A true leader for post catholic Ireland.
And this was a woman who defended Humanae Vitae and opposed divorce and abortion in the 1980s.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 18, 2018 20:02:24 GMT
The Irish have become a herd of Gadarene swine, racing each other over a moral cliff.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jun 19, 2018 10:43:59 GMT
And this was a woman who defended Humanae Vitae and opposed divorce and abortion in the 1980s. I didn't realise. I wonder did she support the church then or was it a show?
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jun 19, 2018 12:10:14 GMT
I... Etc... wonder what level of responsibility is she prepared to accept when we start throwing the new and unwanted unborn into hospital incinerators in Ireland? Probably very few people who mistreated and abused the Magdalenes felt they were sinning either. .... Etc... the 1980s. I haven't seen the full text, only quotations, but I noticed that President Higgins had some decency to apologise to the victims of any abuse in Magdalene laundries on behalf of the Government also, thereby acknowledging that neglect wasn't the Church's responsibility only. I've been reading POLLY FARMER A BIOGRAPHY, not a name anyone in Ireland would be expected to know(unless he ever went there for the International Rules competition) but he's a famous aboriginal Australian rules footballer, active in the 50s and 60s. One piece might be of interest for anyone who thinks that a murky relationship existed between welfare-religious orders and governments only in Ireland or in the Roman catholic sphere. Here we have Church of England nuns working with a government with an Anglican leaning but without any real establishment church: "Sister Kate(Katherine Clutterbuck) belonged to the Sisters of the Church, an Anglican order devoted to the education and care of children which came to Perth in 1901 to establish a girls school.... Sister Kate's desire... resulted in a letter to A.O. Neville, then entering the third decade of his tenure as Western Australia's Chief Protector of Aborigines. 'I have always been interested in half castes and natives', she wrote,'and should very much like to work among them... We would, of course, like to have the poorest and most neglected children, not those who have mothers who love and care for them...those who are the most unwanted in the State.' One of Neville's major preoccupations was the future of part-aboriginal children. He was a leading proponent of biological assimilation which aimed at the breeding out of colour by controlled racial intermarriage... These mixed motives on the part of the two main figures were to cause confusion and tensions in the years to come. By 1933 the first cottage was established,and the first ten children, mostly under five years old, were selected by Neville from the Moore River Settlement on the basis that ' they were so white they should be given the benefit of the doubt" Sister, it should be explained, didn't wish to remove full-blooded indigenous children from their environment. Part-European children were at times unwanted by both sides, something critics ignore. Catholic sisters who have had similar criticisms against them have said the same thing. "the subsidy paid by the department was half that paid by the child welfare department to institutions caring for non-aboriginal children, but Sister Kate was able to draw on her network of contacts and supporters" (she was already 72 when starting this) (Farmer was one success story. Established as a mechanic, he, however embraced and excelled at sport. A freeway in Perth bears his name today.)
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 19, 2018 16:53:37 GMT
And this was a woman who defended Humanae Vitae and opposed divorce and abortion in the 1980s. I didn't realise. I wonder did she support the church then or was it a show? It seemed genuine . She was a special advisor to the bishops when they went to the New Ireland Forum in the 1980s to argue FOR the divorce ban. I also recall her talking about her personal use of NFP. At the same time she like Mary Robinson had supported reform of the laws against homosexual practice when she lecturered at Trinity college. Mc Aleese was looked down on by RTE insiders when she worked there as she was too northern, too Nationalist and too Catholic. She has journeyed a along way since then.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 1, 2018 18:28:19 GMT
I noticed a slender pamphlet in Veritas today retailing for €9.99 consisting of the theological outpourings of Mary Mc Aleese , Fr Brian D'arcy, the former abbot of Glenstal and others that resulted from the above conference.
I hadn't the time nor the inclination to browse it but the solution to our woes no doubt involves empowering middle class women to take over priestly roles, the church "listening" to a secular capitalist society and making the 6th and 9th commandments into optional ideals.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 8, 2019 12:15:15 GMT
The former president has recently returned to one of her hobby horses; condemning child baptism as a human rights abuse. I have never come across anyone who objects to this practice other than born again Christians. Mz Mc Aleese should have enough learning to realise this is simply the old 16th century Anabaptist heresy. I wonder does she object to parents naming a child without consent or forcing a child to adopt a specific nationality?
She also embarrassed herself by twisting remarks made by St John Paul by alleging he advocated rape when in fact he was condemning it. She rather lamely has said she was making an analogy and has refused to back down. As they would say in Belfast she needs to cop herself on.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 20, 2019 12:32:29 GMT
Mary Mc Aleese is displaying a rather unpleasant side to her character by refusing to acknowledge or apologise for her malicious nasty remarks about the writings of Pope John Paul.
Not only is she being stubborn when she is clearly in the wrong she has also attempted to put pressure on the editor of the Irish Catholic by secretly appealing to the papers owners to bring the editor to heel. It is strange how liberals who value an independent media behave when that media criticises them. For a lady who regularly rants about clericalism Mary is quite willing to wield her own crozier to beat down her critics.
|
|