Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
POPE FRANCIS HAS issued a strong signal of support for reform of the Catholic Church’s approach to marriage, cohabitation and divorce as bishops began a landmark review of teaching on the family.
Opening an extraordinary synod of nearly 200 senior clerics, the Pope suggested the church must address the present gulf between what it currently says on these issues and what tens of millions of believers actually do.
Thorny theological questions such as whether divorced and remarried believers should be able to receive communion will dominate two weeks of closed-door discussions set to pit conservative clerics against reformists led by German cardinal Walter Kasper.
Vatican insiders say Kasper has the backing of Francis but that the pontiff wants consensus for any change.
That stance was reflected in the sermon the pontiff delivered at the synod’s opening mass.
In it, he urged bishops to be generous in understanding the problems faced by ordinary believers trying to live within the rules of the church.
Pointedly, he invoked a passage from the gospel of Matthew which admonishes “evil pastors (who) lay intolerable burdens on the shoulders of others which they themselves do not lift a finger to move”.
He added: “Synod Assemblies are not meant to discuss beautiful and clever ideas, or to see who is more intelligent.
They are meant to better nurture and tend the Lord’s vineyard… In this case the Lord is asking us to care for the family.
Since becoming pontiff just over 18 months ago, Pope Francis has repeatedly urged the church to tend to the “wounds” caused by family breakdown rather than seeking to exclude or judge the many divorced people, cohabiting couples and single mothers within its ranks.
He has underlined that stance by personally marrying couples who had lived together “in sin” prior to their weddings and by baptising a child born to parents married outside of the church.
Strong signals
His reforming instincts have already been demonstrated in the steps he has taken to overhaul the way the Vatican bank and administration are run and the strong signals he has issued about the determination of the church to deal with the issue of clerical sex abuse.
But updating the church’s approach to social issues is seen as a tougher challenge.
Conservatives in the Vatican hierarchy have vowed to fight any dilution of traditional doctrine.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Don’t understand this. If the church changes its stance does that mean all the previous infallible popes were wrong.
No no Michael, you are wrong!! Previous popes were right for their moment! It’s not like it’s laws are written down to be changed adhoc to suit the guilty and sinful!
So bob – every decision taken by every Pope is correct?
I don’t think so – but maybe that’s the reason why they have a couple of them now!
One can blame the other…..
Popes are not infallible… they can claim a decree but the last time this was advocated was the early part of the 20th century… no recent Pope has used it.
Yes Will. Two Popes are a great idea and a big improvement.
Yeah the world is flat & has always been.
Bob, you have three choices to reconcile this conundrum with the Catholic faith:
1) All previous popes are in fact not infallible.
2) Morality and social norms change over time and the church adapts, meaning that it has no absolute moral authority.
3) Both.
They make it up as they go along. Francis has the wherewithall to realise that the old ways of shaming people won’t stand anymore. He knows the church must modernise in order to prevent a total demise in the western world. Smart business man
My tongue firmly in cheek on this one!
I am not catholic and have never subscribed to their ethos.
But they have an important role to play.
If catholocism were to go into decline this would leave a vacuum to be filled by Islam.
I think that most of would agree on that.
But for the catholic church to re emerge with an acceptable format is crucial.
Aibhe, that’s basically option two: the church goes with the times and has no moral authority.
Bob, fair enough.
Antonov, any evidence to support that? In traditionally Catholic nations like Ireland, a decrease in Catholic follows is inversely proportionate to the increase in atheists and agnostics. I imagine that there are people who lose their Catholic faith and adopt Islam, but these are a fraction of the Muslim population in Ireland.
The collapse of Catholicism doesn’t result in a religious vaccum, people often leave their faith because they’ve started to lose it naturally and become sceptical of God and religion in general. They don’t give it up on a whim and decide to pick another one.
While I agree that an extreme version of Islam is worse than an extreme version of Catholicism, they can both be relatively benign as well.
Could you explain the mechanism behind your logic? Does a decline of religion lead to mass conversion of it’s adherents or does it causally lead to an influx of Muslim immigrants?
Sean…I hear what you say but Islam is not a religion you merely pick up.
Islams propaganda is powerful and not one to sit around and wait for maybe converts.
It is true Islam is growing and the Catholic Church declining. Don’t think that’s valid reason to keep it going. I don’t see Catholics just jumping ship to Islam. If you’re cherry picking from the Catholic Church to suit yourself. You’re a pretender. In my opinion it should be take it as it is or forget about it and risk burning in hell. If there is a god and you meet him. Will he take your excuse that it was what suited me at the time. Don’t think he will be pleased. This reform is BS.
That’s my point. People don’t pick it up, converts are very rare.
I couldn’t disagree more. There’s no propoganda surrounding Islam, they wear their faith on their sleeves and the five pillars are very accessible and understanding. It’s one of the few major religions without a central authority, there is no driving force telling Muslims to gather more followers.
I’ve met Christians, Mormons, Scientologists, Buddhists and all sorts who have tried to sell me their brand of salvation on the streets and door to door. Islam doesn’t because there is no hierarchy above Imam. It’s both Islam’s greatest strength and greatest weakness. There is no one man whose opinion is more valuable and who can dictate the faith. But that means there’s no voice for the silent majority. There’s no international leader who can condemn ISIS or the Taliban in behalf of Islam. It’s an interesting religion in that sense.
They are not looking for converts for these reasons, it’s a religion where the majority keep to themselves and want to be allowed to practice in peace. They have no goals of salvation for mankind because it’s not in the Qur’an and there’s no figure telling them otherwise.
Sean…Most of the other religions you mention are motivated by monetary issues.
Not Islam though.
Their agenda is a far more cinister one
Sean look at other forms of Christianity in other regions. Antonov has a point. When a majority comes into being heavy taxes, persecution and violence against non Muslims becomes the norm. Look at Egypt as the most recent example. Morsi was dragged out. In came the Muslim Brotherhood and both women’s and non muslims rights suffered and crucifixions rose.
Antonov, Buddhism isn’t looking for money. And neither is Christianity, at least not in any more sense than Islam. Scientology and Mormonism fair enough, they’re both cults though.
Where are you getting this from? Where is this sinister agenda? How are they converting ex-Catholics if by your own admission they make no effort to do so? If you go to Clonskeagh, most of them are foreign nationals or members of foreign national families. If anything you are buying into anti-Islam propoganda. I actually agree with you that Islam at it’s heart is incredibly violent. The spread of Christianity was relatively bloodless, Islam spread at the point of the prophet’s sword. But the majority of Muslims are not violent and are just ordinary people. Don’t forget, the God of Christian it, Yawe, Jehavvoh and Allah are all the same being.
Pol, you’re mixing up your facts. You make it sound like Morsi was deposed and the Muslim brotherhood took over. A quick Google search would have revealed that Morsi WAS the brotherhood. He ran on the MB ticket. What are you talking about? The Muslim brotherhood was overthrown precisely BECAUSE of it’s bigotry and oppression, the country is very unstable at the moment though so it’s a poor example for any conversation. People didn’t want exactly what you are talking about so they overthrew him. A Muslim majority did not vote for the Muslim Brotherhood and immediately deposed him when he overstepped his mandate.
A mandate which they never gave him in the first place!
There isn’t a single democratic nation on the planet that has fully implemented sharia law. The ones that do are all dictatorships and have heavy limitations on civil rights. Egypt was one of these until recently.
Either way, these are middle eastern countries with a completely different historical baggage to Ireland and that has to be taken into account. It’s not apples and apples.
The Pope only rarely pronounces that what he is saying is infallible. I think the last time this was done was when the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary was promulgated and tgat was in the 1870s… you know the one they decided had to be so because only a person conceived without the original sin could be the brood vessel for the son of God…
Ahippo, so the Pope prefaces his infallibility with a declaration of infallibility? Without sounding flippant, if he’s only infallible when he says he is, what if he’s wrong about saying he’s infallible in the first place?
It’s such a nonsense rule, it’s laughable.
The teaching is that he is infallible when speaking on matters of dogma and will preface what he says with “As a matter of dogma.. ” or some such thing, then you know he is speaking infallibly. They used to teach this stuff in Catholic schools and churches and people used to know what these things meant. For example, no Pope has never spoken dogmatically about priestly celibacy, contraception or divorced people receiving communion. And probably never will. They have and will only speak doctrinally about these, and many other, things. Dogma is really only in the realm of high theology.
so it’s the lesser of two evils.
Ahipo, that’s quite interesting. I’ve learned something today. So the infallability doesn’t apply to new statements? It only applies when he’s reiterating stuff that’s black and white in the bible? What about stuff like the Council of Nicaea and views on Arianism?
Paul, what’s the lesser of which two evils?
Antonov seems to have a naive idea that the only alternative to Islam is to have another organised religion as a bulwark and choice for the masses.
Thankfully most of the world is no longer illiterate and living in dirt huts and therefore religion of any kind is not a foregone conclusion.
Antonov: What’s wrong with a healthy mix of humanism, science and the innate sense of morality most of are born with (without men in frocks claiming only they can teach morality)
Alan, I obviously agree with you. But I didn’t want to go down the secular humanist route before hearing how he justifies this false dichotomy between Islam and Christianity. There are any number of belief systems that could theoretically fill a faith vaccum, assuming there even is one. But like I said, people leave Catholicism normally because they stop believing in God, not because they want to try a different God.
Nothing in the bible is black and white… Nicaea defined a fair bit of dogma and hence the persecution of the monophysites who created Islam.
Ahippo,
Do you not take issue with the council of Nicaea? I think it’s a very embarassing part of Christian history when it’s fundamental core tenants were decided by committee chaired by the leader of the Roman pagan religion. It was done for political reasons.
Why does a non-believer get to dictate dogma and yet a supposed living representative of God in the Pope does not? The inconsistency and glaringly obvious politics that dictated Christianity is astounding and should be reason alone to reject the faith.
No pope would be even better…
This would be an ecumenical matter
Paedophiles on tour – Yawn…..
I was raised Catholic, like most in Ireland, but no longer consider myself a Catholic, nor do I attend mass. But what this current pope is doing is great in my opinion. Many people have faith here, and that should be respected. If the Church doesn’t change its opinion on homosexuality, divorce, living in sin etc. then they will find it very hard to retain a Catholic church in Ireland as it was in the past. If we don’t interpret the bible literally in every sense, then why can’t we as enlightened human beings make brave decisions on important matters such as these? It seems to me that the problem with religion nowadays is that too much emphasis is placed on what you can and cannot do, and as we live in a Western democracy we don’t like to be instructed on issues of morality.
What a ridiculous comment. It’s God’s church, not man’s. It’s fantastic that the church hasn’t adopted the trendy, materialist views that Western Democracy has.
Caolan is right, religions are excessively prescriptive. I’d say a good 90% of the bible is full of either stories that never happened or laws that we must obey. There’s very little actual philosophical thought in it. It never encourages us to question or think about things. It’s just orders and makey upey stories basically, and even the most objective person would accept that. The little philosophical thought in it isn’t even original.
Pretty sure it was man who started the church. It’s not the first nor will it be the last of religions. If they don’t adapt to the times they disappear along with all their ridiculous superstitions.
Sin is an imaginary disease, invented to sell you an imaginary cure.
All of the best ‘businesses’ adapt to their operating environments!
This chap might just bring the organisation back from the middle ages.
Its no harm really is it? Modern day and all that , its crying out for reform as I see it. Though I think its too little too late for alot, including myself
It’s a pick your poison moment for the Church.
Either they live in the past and face more resentment from a clearly more moral and conscientious general population, or they change fundamental core values and admit they have no absolute authority. It’s an admission that morals come from mankind, not God. They’d lose all credibility.
It must be very difficult being a devout Catholic in the 21st century.
“more moral and conscientious general population”
Says who?
People in general are more moral and conscientious. They make moral decisions based on innate feelings rather than what a priest told them as it would have been in the middle ages.
This is because people are far more literate and educated today than they were in the past. People do things that they perceive as good because they want to, not because they are told to. That’s what I meant by moral and conscientious.
The ability of the church to dictate morality, for better OR worse is gone now.
Pope Francis is leading the change in the Vatican,another John Paul II on our hands?So great to see this!
Pope John Paul was a great man, but did he really lead any change?
Pope John Paul or what ever you call him allowed the sexual exploitation of children to continue unabaited despite knowing about it. He was no better than the peadophiles he protected. He was a criminal who escaped justice and I can only hope that he in now in the hell that he believed in.Snake oil salesmen the lot of them.
I was more leaning towards him being an excellent Pope besides being reformitive,but the man changed a lot.He was the first Pope to visit a synagogue and mosque,he inspired millions of young people,he changed the perception of the Catholic Chruch world wide and he was a globetrotter,his Papal vists were the first of it’s kind.He took almost all the Italiann influences out of the Church.
Keenan
Was JPII that great? He was the Pope remembet who presided over the cover up of paedophile priests.
Sure whats a little child abuse at least he made the Catholic church look good and that’s all that matters.
One point against him that I fully recognise and is absolutely tragic,that should not outweigh the good the man himself did as Pope.The Church has paid the toll for it’s consistent ignoring of the abuses,yet it’s hard to put an umbrella term over the 4.2m working for the church.
And that’s only one of his crimes. He backed ultra rightwing governments around the world as the butchered their own people. Interfered in the changing of laws in this and other countries with regard to divorce and abortion.Allowed his churches bank to be used to launder billions for criminal and terrorist organisations ect ect ect.What do the CC do ? Take steps to make him a saint.If he were any other world leader he would have be hauled to the international court and have died in disgrace.
Ultra right wing are opposed to Ultra left wing like that of which kept his own native Poland under the Iron Curtain.The man aided significantally the fight against communism.Can I have some examples of him laundered money for criminal organisations?I’ve genuinely never heard of him being accused of doing such a thing.How did he ‘interfere’?Are you confusing it with influence?If a country was majority Catholic and held a vote on abortion,divorce etc. are they not in the right to pass comment?
@keenan. It’s not tragic it’s criminal.He knew that priests were abusing kids and not only did he do nothing he actively allowed it to continue by moving those doing it to parishes where they could continue their abuse.He facilitated the sexual abuse of children on massive level.He might as well have pimped them out. That is not a black mark that is one of the worst crimes you can possibly commit.It is a crime against humanity.
*The current pope is continuing this practice by refusing to extradite a priest accused of the same crimes from the Vatican.
There is no good he could do that could ever forgive leaving those poor kids at hands of Evil. Disgusting corrupt vile
@keenan. The Vatican has ,under international pressure , admitted to knowingly laundering billions for the Mafia. They have had to change the chief executive recently due to the fall out.
Left wing or right wing dosen’t matter. When your backing the likes of Rios Montt and Noriega you are out of bounds. The CC would like us to believe that he single handedly brought down communism. I suppose it had nothing to do with the crippling economic situation within the USSR and it’s Warsaw pact allies coupled with a massive people power movement.It was the very capitalist values that he professed to reject that brought down communisim.Interfering in our countrys internal affairs by threatning excommunication on any politican who supported divorce or abortion reform knowing full well that it would end their political career and any standing they held in their local community.The church tried this again lately btw.
The guy has been given mythical status through the CC’s PR machine despite causing untold suffering and misery. He was a criminal and should have faced justice.
Have to hand it to the Pope, he is a great politician, starting to make statements that people want to hear. Very clever otherwise this church certainly will die out. However maybe he should be answering some other questions. He, and nobody else has any right to decide which consenting adults can have sex, and who lives together and who makes good parents.
The church isn’t dying but it is waning. The western world knows better and sees what the church does in other lands. In Africa it allows the spread of aids through baning of condom use. It encourages the discrimination of LGBT. Francis knows he needs to modernise to hold on to those in the western states.
Great to see the church playing an important part again in civil life again. No harm to stick the 2 fingers up to the educate together crowd
What important role does superstition offer society?
Halloween and Santa is good for the kids. That’s about it though..
What an unchristian attitude, Linda.
What’s wrong with the Educate Together crowd Linda?
Hope sometimes,…
Troll troll troll
I’d be very surprised if anything major changes. The current pope brings hope for reform but he also has people he has to answer to.
Baby steps for the Chruch are monumental for traditionalists,screaming heresy and all that,they’re holding the Church back.
Wow the Catholic Church is moving into the 1950s!! Maybe in 50 years they will realise God does not exist!
Awfully stuck up of you to use the world “realise”,have you had some grand Eureka moment?Are the 5 billion odd theists across the world wrong because you said so and they need to ‘realise’ what indisputable knowledge you have?Not to mention all the generations before?God is not one definite thing,there are thousands of images of God.Just because you’re an atheist doesn’t mean you have look down your nose at theists.
Appeal to common belief is not really proof of anything. There is little proof for the existence of the biblical God, but one cannot also state truthfully that they have disproven the existence of a creator. Just that there is not sufficient to evidence to believe that there is one.
On this one, you’re actually both in the wrong.
I didn’t say which I was,Shanti.Militant and outspoken atheists are just annoying,even Einstein disapproved of them.They claim to have this great englightment.I do agree with what you said though.
My apologies then Keenan!
May I just make a small distinction? The “militant atheists” (who can be equally as bad as the fundamentalist religious folk) would be more accurately described as “anti theist” than atheist.
Atheist people simply don’t believe in something they have not seen sufficient evidence for – anti theists take this lack of evidence as proof of non existence, and in doing so abandon the scientific principle they claim to use as their yardstick.
Science is not about setting out with an idea and trying to prove it – it’s about the “what if?” it requires an open mind.
In this sense anti theists and fundamentalists are two sides of the same coin, whereas a large chunk of atheists simply don’t believe based on what they have seen thus far – but would be open to new evidence should it present itself – which is far more “scientific”.
Shanti your description of anti theists is somewhat simplistic. Like atheism I believe there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest the existence of a deity but would be open to further evidence in the future. I don’t define myself by my lack of belief in a god any more than I would ghosts or any other paranormal entities. As an anti theist I believe religion is wrong, very dangerous and to the detriment of human development . I am in complete opposition to religion not belief in a deity, that is the difference to what you described.
Apologies Les, while I would personally disagree with those who seek to push their religious ideals upon others, my experience of anti theists is more along the lines of what is frequently termed “militant atheism”.
Actually Shanti I disagree. I was looking at a talk show a few weeks ago and one of the guests was a historian in one of the major British museums in Britain. He said over the years he has witnessed numerous artifacts over the years that convince him and other historians that Christ must have existed. He said the evidence is there in the artifacts. There would be no reason why people around that era would go into such detail and lengths for nothing. Shanti I lay down the gauntlet to you to disprove the existence of my Christ with clear and transparent fact. If you can’t do it then leave people to there beliefs and stop undermining their beliefs.
@ Shanti : No apologies necessary, what you described would be for want of a better term the dictionary definition of an anti theist but the term covers broader spectrum than just being in complete opposition to theism.
@ Pól : It’s impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on you to produce the evidence to his existence!
Why is the onus on me to provide evidence? I don’t need evidence. It is is atheists that deal supposedly in evidence. So come on intelligent people of the world. Prove it or zip it.
BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE!
Elaborate on the term negative?
Your logical fallacy is….
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
If there was proof that Jesus was the actual son of God – the Bible would not be the only source for this claim.
There may well have been a man named Jesus who lived and said some cool things, but in the spirit of the fish that was caught at 2lb and told at 20lb, his exploits and actions may well have been exaggerated in the time between his existence and the writing of the gospels.
I’m sure there’s plenty of things to say a man named Jesus who had some anti establishment ideals existed – but there’s only one source claiming him to be the son of God, and only one source claiming the resurrection ever happened. If it had – there would not be any Jews in the world as they all would have converted to follow this guy who rose from the dead!
Pol, no serious historian disputes the fact that a Palestinian Jew called Yeshua/Iesu/ Jesus who preached that he was the Messiah existed; he was maybe the most influential of many and won a big following and his cult grew largely through the work of Paul of Tarsus, the tentmaker. But to claim he was the son of God, died and was resurrected and carried body and sould to heaven stretches things a bit far.
Shanti I agree with your link. Thumbs up good point. My point is if I can’t prove god’s existence right now and you can’t disprove his existence right now, then does that mean that people of either side should argue over something that can not be fully proved or disproved? It’s a never ending argument that always strays into conflict. It just comes down to tolerance and respect for me to be honest. So either side should either provide evidence or quit talking about what is or isn’t and keep it personal.
Read my reply to Shanti. If you can prove that that didn’t happen I will give up my beliefs. But you can’t no more than I can tell you otherwise. I can’t convince you and I can’t convince you either.
“Wow the Catholic Church is moving into the 1950s!! Maybe in 50 years they will realise God does not exist!”
I just don’t understand the usual vitriol of people towards Christians. We accept you without scorn by atheists have to make harsh comments like the ones above. It’s not very tolerant.
by = but
Pol, did you read what I said initially?
I said that the person saying “god doesn’t exist” can no more claim this with certainty than the person claiming it does can.
I also said that militant atheists can be just as bad as overly religious folk.
Where fair is fair I read your later comment further down from your original statement. Humblest apologies.
And in an attempt to add html tags the journal lost the majority of my comment.. Well done Journal..
I was trying to point out that I really don’t care what you believe – so long as you don’t expect your beliefs to have any say in my life.
Apology accepted – hopefully you got to read the rest of the comment that got butchered there in your emails!!
I had thought it a little odd that you addressed your comment to me in light of what u had said!!
Nor is there sufficient evidence to say god does not exist. Who knows, maybe god is more like a force of nature such as gravity. We can only prove gravity exists by its effect, no one can say “ta da!” and produce gravity out of a hat. So what if love, compassion and kindness were as much evidence of a “god force” as much as falling apples are evidence of gravity? Just a theory mind you.
Hey – I’m not saying there’s nothing greater than ourselves nor am I saying there is. I’m not arrogant enough to claim I have the definitive answer.
I have always said that as faith (or lack thereof) is such an intensely personal thing that that is how it should remain. If you believe in a god that’s between you and them – if you don’t, it’s a matter for yourself.
Now – if you start expecting others to bow down to your beliefs, or important decisions for others to be based upon those beliefs – then there’s a problem.
If we could all stay away from that sort of thing I really don’t think this tolerance malarkey would be that difficult to achieve. Easier said than done unfortunately!
Mark Andrew, I believe you are very close to the truth with that thinking. Mankind has long had a need to think of a creator in their own image…fostered by the “God made Man in his image” stuff. Perhaps our scientific enlightenment will allow us to understand that what we have previously called “God” is actually a definable force in the universe; one which our ancestors could only assign to a Spirit or invisible/unknowable being. If so, then science should – over time – replace religion, except for those who gain real, personal comfort from believing in a spiritual father figure.
As for Islam, it post-dates Christianity by by some considerable time and Judaism by far longer. Perhaps it is going through it’s teen phase and some few groups are being a bit of g1t. Christianity once had a lot of blood on its hands…which brings us back to that Marian religion, the Roman Catholic Church, (Marian in that it focuses on Mary rather than being Christian and focusing on the Christ).
Apologies for the ramble.
And vice versa. Your opinions have little or no say in the course of my life either. To be clear I am not trying to convert you or anyone. It’s a choice. But as you admitted above atheism is a view just like most religions. If it is spoken with reason and logic fair enough. But if people descend into mockery it’s no worse than a bible or quran basher forcing it down the throats of all.
Cant be bothered!
Problem for him is that the catholic church has been found out for the evil organisation that it is.
Remember it fought the use of condoms in Africa despite the fact that this would help stop the spread of aids.
Of course they did help spread pedophile priests across many of their dioceses.
It would be a good idea to promote condom use.
Throw out the bible as the foundation for the church.
Satan is the foundation of the Catholic Church and not the Bible.
If this was not so the Catholic Church would not be doing everything the very opposite to what the Bible preaches, worshiping statues, raping children, calling clergy members “Father”, celibacy, hypocrisy, foundation on material wealth. etc..
“I am the LORD that is my name and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” Isaiah 42:8
“Afternoon Frank!”
Mark 15:28
Everything
Should rephrase that to almost everything. If the Devil wants to tell corrupt something he will not be so blatant about it. He will mix some truth in it. “the best way to hide a lie is by wrapping it in layers of truth”. and what no better way is to mingle ancient Babylonian paganism with Christianity and call it Roman Catholicism.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B7yFo3Hn8Iw/TP4z3sr0UTI/AAAAAAAAABM/v8kb0kkB6TI/s1600/z162510135.jpg
Who is this “devil” chap you speak of?
Matthew 18:18, Franck Carthysen.
@Art: The “devil” is the ground goblin who is the baddy in the stories about the sky fairy
I really don’t understand this. Who are these people to change anything they’ve been preaching for years. Is God answering them. Pfft. because it no longer works on brainwashing the masses. Biggest con on this earth. Wonder where the vast wealth will go when it does come to end. they’ve been investigated numerous times by Italian authorities about their bank’s. Corrupt to core.
If a restaurant is loosing money it changes its menu, if a shop is loosing money it changes its stock.. How can a religion, which is based around a book, change what it’s been ramming down our throats just to get a few more bums on the seats?? This is supposed to be the word of God, his word!! so why is ok not to believe in the 7 deadly sins and the 10 commandments now? What a pile of complete and utter crap!! Anyone that follows this hateful cult deserves to go to hell because there is not one person on the planet that hasn’t broken one of these laws … Oh I forgot, if you say sorry and welcome jebus into your heart you’re given the “get out of jail card” Joke!!
Ask yourself what good act/deed a religious person can do that a nonbeliever cannot?
Now ask yourself is there an evil act/deed a religious person would do that a nonbeliever wouldn’t?
Also people don’t need religion to be moral!(those that claim so must be rather pathetic doing good only for a reward in an afterlife) morality predates religion!
Ask yourself do you need to surrender logic sense and reason to believe the stories of religion and if you’d believe such stories from a different faith? But the stories from your indoctrinated faith aren’t held to the same account?
Ask yourself why do you need a middleman like the corrupt Vatican if you do believe in God?
What is this imposter trying to do to Catholicism?
Bring it back to it’s good hearted roots which have been manipulated and twitsed over centuries by the powerful
Make it remotely relevant again in order to arrest its cataclysmic decline in power, numbers and influence in the Western World.
God hearted roots?! Jaha
What Deirdre?I’m speaking of it’s roots as in the time of Jesus himself and what he preached,which have been contorted and used in out of context situations.He preached good moral values and that can’t be ignored.It’s how those in his succession interpreted them that is the issue.
Jesus was a Jew, not a Catholic, hate to break it to you, but the Catholic Church’s roots as you put it originate with Emperor Constantine’s conversion and the amalgamation of pagan practices with Christian ones, such as Easter, Christmas etc. There’s nothing in the bible that refers to catholicism or popes or any of that other hokum;
‘The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately AD 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?’
Good old fashioned Roman political expediency I would hazard to guess.
I can just see the headlines: “Catholic Church to allow Divorced Lesbian Women Who have had abortions to become Priests”
While he is at it he should remove the tooth fairy doctrine of transubstantiation.
Can a woman become a pope?
No*
*stating a fact, I have no opinion on the matter)
Not under current rules; but the cardinal electors can in theory choose and baptised man.
And = any
Getting rid of some terrible dogmas and replacing them with moderate dogmas
It’s a step in the right direction.
Religion (as opposed to spirituality) is a load of mumbo jumbo that has no place in an enlightened society.
oh ffs
Surely an enlightened society is one that has a place for opposition?
Hahaahahahahahahahahahah that’s the best giggle I’ve had all day, a shower of sh*tbags the lot of them.
croft=idiot
Or a child….
I agree Gravel,all those nuns that have dedicated their lives to serving the poor and needy,all ‘shitbags’…
The baby-dumping, child trafficking, women enslaving, money hungry sadists, those nuns?
A German looking to reform the Catholic church? We all know how that ended the last time………
Is he not from Argentina?
no the cardinal I believe trying to reform the Church is stated as being German in the article
Why don’t the Pope come out an say we change our stance on Lord too so we’re packing up this circus and moving on to other things.
This process of discussion about family, will take one year to complete. Apart from the bishops and specialists, there are also several husband and wife pairs attending, and contributing.
It is very unlikely that church doctrine will change in any way, but the rules whereby an annulment is granted may become easier. An annulment basically says a marriage never existed. As societies view of marriage becomes less mature, many entering into marriage fail to understand the exclusive, conjugal and permanent nature of marriage from a Catholic perspective.
Liberal media cast the debate from their own perspectives, but the church cannot change, or go against Christ’s own clear direction on marriage.
The gap in understainding between the different faiths and society, with respect to marriage, is best demonstrated by society considering to redefine marriage to a purely emotional commitment, between any two or more, of whatever genders, for how ever long.
Catholicism is looking for new ways of encouraging society to adapt again it’s vision of family and marriage. This the church believes is good for individuals and society.
Oh look it’s paddy sounding off on marriage.
Paddy I think you may have to face some challenges about your long held beliefs within the next 5 years… I guess youll head off and start a pre Vatican 3 church then.
@ Ahippo
I trust the pope, shall remain Catholic, true to Christ’s words, and tradition. All popes, even the bad few, never erred on issues of faith and morals. We have in Pope Francis, a true Christian, with a sincere love for all, but especially the poor.
The family, and therefore society, was never in such hard times, and Pope Francis is keen to strengthen the family. The liberal take , as is always the way on these occasions , is to immagine the pope has changed his mind, decided Christ erred, and that the liberals were right all along!
So I don’t expect to be a part of any schism in the near future, I’m a fan of continuity, rather than discontinuity.
Paddy thinks “societies view of marriage becomes less mature” while promoting the Catholic perspective that “An annulment basically says a marriage never existed”. The Catholic attitude here seems significantly less mature.
Is it not more likely Paddy that the Bishops will say we humans erred in our understanding of the Christ’s message and what we should have seen was the mercy shown to the woman caught in adultery and the compassion shown to the sisters of Lazarus and heeded the sermon on the mount instead of becoming more pharisaical than the Pharisees, concerned more with rules than love and forgiveness? Actually you are right they will neve do that because to do that would be to actually be Christian and they are more concerned with temporal authority than humility.
@ David Thomas
Wells David if you take the three ingrédients of traditional marriage, a man and a woman, for life, and exclusive; all three are under siege by our western culture. The first by “gay marriage”, the second by no fault divorce, and the third by the growth of infidelity within marriage.
Any young person approaching marriage today, whereas they may long for the ideal, are none the less formed by society to believe they can escape their responsabilities at a mere whim. Society, and the laws of the land in particular, is weakening marriage, leading to broken marriages, greater poverty, and more financial demands, through dependency, on the state.
This weakening of the marriage contract/vows, affects young people, and nurtures an immature view of the commitments needed within marriage. One can then argue that the breakup of marriages is forstered by the law of the land, and when the individuals made their vows with a priest, they accepted caviats in their strength of commitment. They know they can at will “escspe” their legal contract.
Catholic marriage does not accept such caviats, and the immatuirity of such a commitment, could be deemed as grounds to declare, that there never was a marriage.
The “Continuity Catholic Church” perhaps?
@ Ahippo
No. Christs message is clear and unambiguous. Not only that but the rush to dismantle marriage is quite new, and only gained momentum in the 1960. Anthropologically speaking, societies generally frowned upon the breakup of families, in the persuit of personal fancies.
It’s amazing how people have found a new use for mercy. It is true Mercy is core to the christian, and indeed to all gods directives. But to tell a sinner they are not sinning, is not mercy.
Here is a really good article from someone caught in this situation, giving an informed catholic view.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9330022/faith-sin-and-divorce/
Paddy.
Please stop equating matrimony with marriage. They’re separate things.
If you don’t sign the marriage register then your matrimony has no legal standing, but has great spiritual significance (to those whom this matters to).
If you get married without a priest present you are married. No spiritual connotation required, it’s a legal contract. One which may be dissolved if necessary.
No one is pushing for same sex matrimony. Your church is free to keep or change whatever rules it likes within itself. Marriage is a civil contract, it is separate from the church.
Your perceived attack is truly an attack on others. No one is attacking you or your church, you just need to realise that your church is not the state nor the ruler of this country.
@ Mark Andrew Salmon
Ha!
But yes, I’m a fan of what’s called the ” hermeneutic of continuity “.
@ Shanti
Frankly my dear, I don’t give a hoot. Marriage, matrimony, read it semantically if you wish. Parse it to infinity if you choose, I’m just casually having a conversation, not writing a thesis.
People marry in church, both sacrementally and legally. The discussion here is about the synod in Rome, so if you wish to discuss something else, perhaps you are in the wrong thread, or even article.
I am unaware of having attacked anyone. I think the discussion is very civil. It is important for the world, and individuals, to ask “what is marriage”, and what is family. Otherwise we will, in the rush to modernity, throw out the baby with the bathwater.
My apologies Paddy, the term you used was “under seige”, no one outside of the church is attempting to change any of the churches doctrines on matrimony – least of all gay people. That was the point I was making.
The state may allow gay people to marry, as it allows divorce – because the state is (supposed to be) a separate entity.
If you’re discussing things exclusive to the church fine – but then you must concede that your comments about gay people are unwarranted.
If you are talking about marriage in the wider sense – which you would have to be if you see marriage equality as an affront, then you are no longer speaking of the institution solely within the confines of the church.
Which is it Paddy?
Personally I think no religious marriage should be recognised as a State marriage… if you want a religious marriage fine go ahead but none of the benefits that accrue to marriage because of the State should go to you unless you also go through a State process as well.
@ Ahippo
No sacramental marriage, is recognised as marriage by the state. But the priests are usually deemed as agents of the state for officiating at the civil side of the marriage also. So at Catholic marriages in Ireland, there are effectively two events, to the best of my knowledge.
@ Shanti
The discussion is about marriage, family, and the synod. It would be rather difficult to discuss marriage without reference to the effects of “gay marriage”, on societies understanding of marriage. And yes marriage is under siege, or what may more correctly be described as the remnants of marriage, as the last fifty years has already greatly damaged the institution. It’s effects are seen in a fourfold increase in divorce, and 40% of children been born outside of wedlock. In the west the biggest predictor of poverty is to be in a single parent family. Combine this with huge abortion statistics, and we can be sure, marriage is in trouble. So now we are going to redefine it!
Yes the state is the legal entity acting in the interest of the people. And we know states never get things wrong.
The country is waking up to the value of marriage; the value of husbands and wives; the value of fathers and mothers. The polls are changing fast, the liberal media has decided they are doing their own cause harm, and have now halted the previous incessant flow of pro-redefinition articles. The surrogacy was expeditiously dropped here. The nature of what is proposed is begenning to dawn on the masses
Ah Paddy, I do love how when you have no argument you resort to plain making things up..
The Supreme Court are hearing a case relating to surrogacy and as its decision will be legally binding the government cannot legislate in this area prior to the Supreme courts ruling.
It’s not that they “dropped” it, it’s that they are showing respect for the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.. Same reason we are having a referendum.
Care to cite your sources for a decrease in support? Oh no, that’s right, you never do.
The Catholic Church has yet to condemn Barack Obama for his support for head hacking militia that are wiping Christian communities out right across the middle east.
American nationalism and strong Christian faith often go hand in hand so they are better off to remain quiet on the issue.
The catholic church has condemned the head hackers Mr McCarthy
Does Papal infallability apply to Alexander VI, Clement VII or Leo X?
No.. The doctrine of infallibility in the promulgation of dogma has existed for less than 150 years.
Is it not retroactively applied? Does it not sound somewhat arbitrary that a pope can decide: “Okay, from now on everytime a pope says they’re infallible, they’re automagically infallible”.
It’s ridiculous.
Jesus Christ thought his disciples tolerance, respect, love, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, community, humility and charity.
Then the Catholic church spent almost 2000 years distorting the message. Jesus planted the seed in the hearts of man. Some are more fertile soil for this seed to grow then others. Those who are without Jesus will never understand. Those who are with Jesus need not the Pope of Rome.
have your say