Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Left Wing, Right Wing, moderate, extreme
Topic Started: Tuesday, 1. June 2010, 12:27 (2,138 Views)
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Friday, 4. June 2010, 17:36
Mairtin
 
Government comes from elected politicians and elected politicians come from society in general and they reflect that society


You're joking? You think that "elected" politicians reflect us?
Errr .... what part of "elected" do you not understand, Clare?

Clare
 
Mairtin
 
You cannot blame society for thinking like that; we are the privileged people selected by God to receive His message but with that privilege goes a heavy responsibility - it is our duty to spread the Good News everywhere and if society is not getting the message then it is our fault, not society's fault.

Who's blaming society? I'm blaming the government and the media.

It's not the government or the media's job to spread the Good News, Clare, it is our responsibility and if it's not happening then we are the ones to blame.

Clare
 
Mairtin
 
It's perhaps no coincidence that it's in the Western world where we had it so easy that religion is substantially in decline whereas in the "undeveloped" world where Christianity has had to fight its corner, it is in fact still growing and progressing.

I don't disagree with you there. But we have to fight our corner now. That means resisting what is going on. It means protesting. It means objecting. It does not mean ignoring it!

And, of course it means praying. But there needs to be action too.

We might agree on the basic principle but probably not in the detail. If by "resisting" and "objecting" and "action" you mean things along the lines adopted by the pro-life movement than I think you're wasting your time; I cannot think of a single example of them changing legislation anywhere in the world,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Actually, I can think of one example very close to home. Although abortion was illegal at the time in Ireland, the pro-life movement in 1983 pressurised the government into holding a referendum to put a constitutional ban on abortion in order, as they saw it, to prevent any future government changing the law without referring the changes to the people in another referendum. Unfortunately, they misjudged the whole thing entirely and the clause inserted into the Constitution with the words "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" actually created a potential onus on the government to not only make abortion legal where the mother's life is at risk but to actually provide abortion facilities in such cases. No case has yet been taken to test it but majority opinion amongst legal people and constitutional experts seems to support that conclusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Clare
Friday, 4. June 2010, 17:27
Islam doesn't save, now, does it, being a false religion and all. Islam won't get anyone to Heaven.

Quote:
 
How many artistic sacred paintings of women, produced well before the twentieth century, show women bare-breasted and cherubs with boys genitals? - and people swoon over them!

Can you really not see the difference between such art and adverts and the like which are designed to provoke impure thoughts and behaviour

When, Clare, you arive in Heaven I think you will be surprised (maybe even shocked!) to find that the majority of people weren't even Christian, let alone Catholics, on earth. Throughout history of mankind (or should it be personkind!) Christians willl be a minority and I very much doubt if God's Judgement and Mercy will condemn all non-Christians to Hell!

I suppose if I take a photgraph of a semi-nude young lady and present it as art, it is not sinful unless it appears on page 3 of a tabloid or in an advertisement. In the days of many of the world-famous artists there was no photography; does that make their work artistic and not sinful? Perhaps I should start painting nude models in the hope my heirs will gain money
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Friday, 4. June 2010, 18:39
Errr .... what part of "elected" do you not understand, Clare?
I understand the word elected.

Did you know we have postal votes here, and that you can get one or more without needing any proof of existence?

Mairtin
 
Clare
 
Mairtin
 
You cannot blame society for thinking like that; we are the privileged people selected by God to receive His message but with that privilege goes a heavy responsibility - it is our duty to spread the Good News everywhere and if society is not getting the message then it is our fault, not society's fault.

Who's blaming society? I'm blaming the government and the media.

It's not the government or the media's job to spread the Good News, Clare, it is our responsibility and if it's not happening then we are the ones to blame.


It is not the government's or media's job to do a lot of things they do. Corrupting society and endangering souls is noone's job.

Mairtin
 
And, of course it means praying. But there needs to be action too.

We might agree on the basic principle but probably not in the detail. If by "resisting" and "objecting" and "action" you mean things along the lines adopted by the pro-life movement than I think you're wasting your time; I cannot think of a single example of them changing legislation anywhere in the world,[/quote]

Doing the right thing is never a waste of time.

As a matter of interest, what do you think they should do, Mairtin?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derekap
Saturday, 5. June 2010, 10:53
When, Clare, you arive in Heaven I think you will be surprised (maybe even shocked!) to find that the majority of people weren't even Christian, let alone Catholics, on earth. Throughout history of mankind (or should it be personkind!) Christians willl be a minority and I very much doubt if God's Judgement and Mercy will condemn all non-Christians to Hell!
If I arrive in Heaven, I will only be surprised or shocked that I am there.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Saturday, 5. June 2010, 20:57
Mairtin
Friday, 4. June 2010, 18:39
Errr .... what part of "elected" do you not understand, Clare?
I understand the word elected.

Did you know we have postal votes here, and that you can get one or more without needing any proof of existence?
The system is not fool proof.

What alternative to elections would you suggest?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

"If I arrive in Heaven, I will only be surprised or shocked that I am there."

Send me a text message when you're on the way, Clare, and I'll open the back door for you. We must continue haggling!
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Saturday, 5. June 2010, 20:57
As a matter of interest, what do you think they should do, Mairtin?
Some of the things I would do:

  • Make a clear distinction between abortion and contraception. At the moment these are jumbled together, the people who are fighting against abortion are also fighting against contraception, some of them going as far as accusing women of being abortionists because they use IUDs or certain types of contraceptive pill. The Church has a massive credibility problem in regard to her stance on contraception and linking abortion with it transfers the lack of credibility onto the abortion issue.

  • Seek to influence those who disagree with us rather than castigating them. Calling for Catholic politicians to be refused Holy Communion because of their stance on abortion legislation or denouncing non-Catholic politicians like Obama as baby butchers might sound good to those doing the shouting but it is not particularly productive in getting them to listen to our arguments. As I said earlier in this post, you are starting on the wrong foot when you classify politicians as hellbent on destroying our souls; most politicians are not particularly antireligious, they are areligious, they just don’t see religion as having any importance or relevance. We need to convince them otherwise, we can only do that by proactively engaging them, not by dismissing them as evil men and women.

  • The Church has to make her stance more credible. At the moment, she pushes the view that human life begins at conception. We don’t know that for sure and it hasn’t even always been the rigid position of the Church yet anyone who mentions that gets lambasted for being soft on abortion like I was in this forum last year. In my opinion, the fact that we don’t know for certain exactly when life begins, properly presented, can be as strong an argument against abortion than the present stance, probably even a stronger one because it is more honest.

  • Our Church has to develop people who can talk articulately and intellectually present the Church’s position in the media; that’s not just an issue with abortion, by the way, it applies to every aspect of the Church – our total lack of “PR” skills is a total disaster. A while back, you gave a link to this article in which Dr. Bernard Nathanson explains how he and others manipulated the media. We have to learn to “box clever” like they did though we obviously shouldn’t tell lies or be dishonest in other ways like they did – we don’t even need to do that, they had to hide the truth, we just need to tell it.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

Well put in my opinion Mairtin. Just one point.

"most politicians are not particularly antireligious, they are areligious, they just don’t see religion as having any importance or relevance"

Areligious? - to me anyone so is surely in some respects 'lacking' in the intellectual sense. I am not saying that they are backward as one would say; but I am getting close to it.

PJD

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Mairtin
 
most politicians are not particularly antireligious, they are areligious, they just don’t see religion as having any importance or relevance.


I would think all politicians, including atheists, know that religion affects society at large. Education and medicine in particular have religious aspects. So does adoption. Sometimes antipathy towards a religion necessitates police activity.
Edited by Rose of York, Sunday, 6. June 2010, 18:41.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Sunday, 6. June 2010, 04:11
Clare
Saturday, 5. June 2010, 20:57
As a matter of interest, what do you think they should do, Mairtin?
Some of the things I would do:

  • Make a clear distinction between abortion and contraception. At the moment these are jumbled together, the people who are fighting against abortion are also fighting against contraception, some of them going as far as accusing women of being abortionists because they use IUDs or certain types of contraceptive pill. The Church has a massive credibility problem in regard to her stance on contraception and linking abortion with it transfers the lack of credibility onto the abortion issue.
The two things are inseparable. The problem is not pro-lifers who take a consistent view, but with those who believe that contraception is acceptable.

Quote:
 
  • The Church has to make her stance more credible. At the moment, she pushes the view that human life begins at conception. We don’t know that for sure and it hasn’t even always been the rigid position of the Church yet anyone who mentions that gets lambasted for being soft on abortion like I was in this forum last year. In my opinion, the fact that we don’t know for certain exactly when life begins, properly presented, can be as strong an argument against abortion than the present stance, probably even a stronger one because it is more honest.


If we cannot be sure life begins at conception, we cannot be sure it doesn't. Best to err on the side of caution, isn't it? Besides, the Church has never said that early abortion is ok.

The Church's stance will never be credible to the worldly. They must convert and change their way of thinking. It takes grace for that to happen, of course.

One thing the Church must not do is make her position more "credible" by changing it to suit the world. If the world doesn't like it, it is the world that is wrong.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Mairtin
 
If by "resisting" and "objecting" and "action" you mean things along the lines adopted by the pro-life movement than I think you're wasting your time; I cannot think of a single example of them changing legislation anywhere in the world,


Clare
 
If the world doesn't like it, it is the world that is wrong.


QED
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Really, Mairtin. If a practising Catholic perceives areas where the world and the Church are at odds with each other, the Catholic ought to support the Church.

I can understand non-Catholics taking the world's side, but not Catholics.

Abandoning the truth for error is failure. If the Church were to become "credible" to her enemies (whether witting or unwitting enemies), the gates of Hell will have prevailed.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Sunday, 6. June 2010, 20:59
I can understand non-Catholics taking the world's side, but not Catholics.
That's exactly what I mean about the pro-life movements being dominated by people who are absorbed with their own views of "the message" and who immediately label anybody who dares suggest any different approach as a bad Catholic; feeling good about their activities seems far more important than actually achieving anything.

It's why I long ago gave up any attempt at having a rational discussion with them and, no harm to you Clare, but I have no intention of entering into a debate here which is simply going to descend into yet another example of you attacking what you see as my personal lack of faithfulness to the Church.

I'm fed up with that sort of rubbish and I'm sure other people are too.
Edited by Mairtin, Sunday, 6. June 2010, 21:47.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
I'm a bit fed up with Catholic teaching being dismissed as "not credible".

Not every pro-lifer is Catholic, Mairtin, and even some of the pro-lifers who oppose contraception are also non-Catholic. So if even they "get it" (ie the fact that to be consistently pro-life, you need to oppose contraception), why can't some Catholics?
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply