http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8362046.stm
Fair fcuks to him
I love the Juxtaposition of this topic right after where did you meet your partner ;D ;D
I'd say there were a fair few young fellas who were caught out when their mother asked them what the topic of the sermon was. "Er, something about Jesus . . ."
With the Dublin diocese struggling to fill each parish with a priest is it not about time El Benedicto held a vatican council or whatever it is to allow priests to marry?
Imagine the need for funds if instead having a priest to support we had a priest, the mrs and the childer.
This is the real reason for the celibacy rule. It was a enrichment process.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 16, 2009, 04:30:29 PM
Imagine the need for funds if instead having a priest to support we had a priest, the mrs and the childer.
This is the real reason for the celibacy rule. It was a enrichment process.
Well you'll be fine in a few years time when a load of the 80 year old plus priests are gone to their eternal reward, you'll have no one to pay your stipend to, plus most parishes have a great big monolith of a parochial house to support anyway.
My local Mass is so boring
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 16, 2009, 01:50:54 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8362046.stm
Fair fcuks to him
Fcuk me even the priest is getting more than me.... >:( >:(
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on November 16, 2009, 06:44:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 16, 2009, 01:50:54 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8362046.stm
Fair fcuks to him
Fcuk me even the priest is getting more than me.... >:( >:(
Theres priests the country over getting more than all of us! Thats nothing new
Good for him.
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 16, 2009, 04:30:29 PM
Imagine the need for funds if instead having a priest to support we had a priest, the mrs and the childer.
This is the real reason for the celibacy rule. It was a enrichment process.
Do all priests not have a paid housekeeper? You also assume that a priest wouldn't marry a woman with her own job? If the priesthood included marriage you'd have boys beating a path to Maynooth.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 16, 2009, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on November 16, 2009, 04:30:29 PM
Imagine the need for funds if instead having a priest to support we had a priest, the mrs and the childer.
This is the real reason for the celibacy rule. It was a enrichment process.
Do all priests not have a paid housekeeper? You also assume that a priest wouldn't marry a woman with her own job? If the priesthood included marriage you'd have boys beating a path to Maynooth.
True, it wouldnt be a bad job!
a gentleman, a great gaa follower and a tyronie to boot. I wish you well Sean.
Quote from: Take Your Points on November 16, 2009, 07:47:47 PM
Quote from: redcard on November 16, 2009, 07:26:47 PM
a gentleman, a great gaa follower and a tyronie to boot. I wish you well Sean.
Too true. Actually, a great loss to the church.
Only a loss because of some stupid idiotic rule which says that priests must be celibate. When will the Church ever learn?
why do priests have to be celibate anyway? does it mention it in the bible, I have no idea
Quote from: Square Ball on November 16, 2009, 08:43:10 PM
why do priests have to be celibate anyway? does it mention it in the bible, I have no idea
It means more women to go round the rest of us.
Quote from: johnneycool on November 16, 2009, 04:14:13 PM
With the Dublin diocese struggling to fill each parish with a priest is it not about time El Benedicto held a vatican council or whatever it is to allow priests to marry?
There is as much chance of Benedict allowing priests to marry as there is of George Dubya and Osama Bin Laden performing together on
Celebrity Strictly come dancing.
Apparently this is the second case in Derry city in very recent times of a priest running off with a woman.
The women in Derry must be deadly - you could see a few more priests who might be delighted to get sent there !! :D :D
Quote from: Square Ball on November 16, 2009, 08:43:10 PM
why do priests have to be celibate anyway? does it mention it in the bible, I have no idea
I think it was the early Church in the third or fourth century that brought this in to being, before and after this Popes had wags and childer by the dozen.
The thought was I believe for them to live like Jesus did, i.e. in celebacy.
Earlier comments about Sean are 100%. He is a very sound fellow. Am not at all surprised he was so honest and spoke to the congregation like that. Good luck to him... one of the good guys.
Shame that the good guys are being pushed out through outdated ideas.
Quote from: Square Ball on November 16, 2009, 08:43:10 PM
why do priests have to be celibate anyway? does it mention it in the bible, I have no idea
No it does nt of course. Christ just instructed his apostles to travel light. Hard to do with a bit of high maintanance on board. It was Gregory VII in the eleventh century that laid down[pun intended] the law regarding celibacy. You can see where he was coming from[no pun intended] He realised there would be dynasties of clerics where sons would inhehit bishoprics from their Dads. It would probably have caused an earlier Reformation as it was largely abuse of nepotism that brought the church down. But instead of dodgy nephews it would have been sons ruling the roost and mammies would have made sure of it. They would have been the Church matriarchs from noble families and the whole Church/fuedal connection would have been even more suffocating than it was. In Medieval Europe the power brokers were the warlords/killers - kings, barons, knights etc, who handed on the works to the eldest son in the fuedal tradition. As it was anyway it was often the second or illigitimate son of a Baron who ended up a Bishop and you can be sure if it were allowed he would have married a spare lady daughter of a local tyrant. Greg tried to keep the church - the other big player, free from dynastic rule cause he probably believed in his stuff and realised the poor peasants were being screwed enough[apologies] by the killers without a parasitic clergy muscling in as well, as of course they did, with their fake relics and indulgences and burnings. Prior to Gregory priests were married. Mac An tSaggairt[Taggert] is self explanatory. For fellas like Gregory the church was about Christ and laughable things like justice and salvation and nice things like that. He would have realised how important their faith was to the people who genuinely believed in the stuff. Men like JuliusII, Leo X and HenryXIII and others understood it was only a pawn in the greater scheme of things.
Quote from: moysider on November 17, 2009, 01:20:09 AM
Quote from: Square Ball on November 16, 2009, 08:43:10 PM
why do priests have to be celibate anyway? does it mention it in the bible, I have no idea
No it does nt of course. Christ just instructed his apostles to travel light. Hard to do with a bit of high maintanance on board. It was Gregory VII in the eleventh century that laid down[pun intended] the law regarding celibacy. You can see where he was coming from[no pun intended] He realised there would be dynasties of clerics where sons would inhehit bishoprics from their Dads. It would probably have caused an earlier Reformation as it was largely abuse of nepotism that brought the church down. But instead of dodgy nephews it would have been sons ruling the roost and mammies would have made sure of it. They would have been the Church matriarchs from noble families and the whole Church/fuedal connection would have been even more suffocating than it was. In Medieval Europe the power brokers were the warlords/killers - kings, barons, knights etc, who handed on the works to the eldest son in the fuedal tradition. As it was anyway it was often the second or illigitimate son of a Baron who ended up a Bishop and you can be sure if it were allowed he would have married a spare lady daughter of a local tyrant. Greg tried to keep the church - the other big player, free from dynastic rule cause he probably believed in his stuff and realised the poor peasants were being screwed enough[apologies] by the killers without a parasitic clergy muscling in as well, as of course they did, with their fake relics and indulgences and burnings. Prior to Gregory priests were married. Mac An tSaggairt[Taggert] is self explanatory. For fellas like Gregory the church was about Christ and laughable things like justice and salvation and nice things like that. He would have realised how important their faith was to the people who genuinely believed in the stuff. Men like JuliusII, Leo X and HenryXIII and others understood it was only a pawn in the greater scheme of things.
Did it not have to do with priests being landlords and passing on their ownership to their offspring. Didnt villagers have to pay taxes to him and then the celibacy rule was brought in to stop the conflict when the priest passed away. I could be wrong but I thought it was a land issue?
Either way it had nothing to do with God or religion so should be abolished.
Fair play to the man I say.
Someone asked whether the church will ever learn, they probably will some day but it will be too late then.
Also, the man may have left the church but he isn't dead! He obviously is a decent sort and joined the church out of wanting to do some good. I would argue he can still do good outside the church and indeed he can do more good outside the church as he is not bound by their silly rules.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 16, 2009, 06:49:20 PM
Theres priests the country over getting more than all of us! Thats nothing new
What's that based on?
McTaggart is a fairly common Derry name...yer man Fr.Sean might only be following tradition :P
I thought Priests had Housekeepers for that sort of thing?
Oh yeah, I remember now:
(http://www.thedailyspud.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mrsdoyle.jpg)
(http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/wk-ecasey.jpg)
And
(http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00083/priest1_83961t.jpg)
and Lord only knows who else.
Some fairly typical Gaaboard responses on this thread. In the rush to slap the priest on the back and stick the boot into the Church no one has considered the possibility of a very serious abuse of position and breech of trust by this priest. Would a teaching shagging his pupil, or a doctor a patient get the same reaction? I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Some fairly typical Gaaboard responses on this thread. In the rush to slap the priest on the back and stick the boot into the Church no one has considered the possibility of a very serious abuse of position and breech of trust by this priest. Would a teaching shagging his pupil, or a doctor a patient get the same reaction? I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
YESWOULDN'T BOTHER ME, AS LONG AS IT WAS CONSENTUIAL
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Some fairly typical Gaaboard responses on this thread. In the rush to slap the priest on the back and stick the boot into the Church no one has considered the possibility of a very serious abuse of position and breech of trust by this priest. Would a teaching shagging his pupil, or a doctor a patient get the same reaction? I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
Are they estranged because of this, or was that already something that had happened?
Theres a huge difference in Teacher- pupil relationships, compared to this and your other example.
Hes a man. Its naive of the church to believe that these kinds of things wont ever happen. Infact - I dont believe that the church thinks it wont happen.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Some fairly typical Gaaboard responses on this thread. In the rush to slap the priest on the back and stick the boot into the Church no one has considered the possibility of a very serious abuse of position and breech of trust by this priest. Would a teaching shagging his pupil, or a doctor a patient get the same reaction? I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
Did it not say she's seperated from the husband. While it may be a massive storm in an tea cup locally its no big deal. Man shags woman. The world hasnt ended. And in other news cat miaows.
Quote from: Zapatista on November 17, 2009, 08:47:23 AM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 16, 2009, 06:49:20 PM
Theres priests the country over getting more than all of us! Thats nothing new
What's that based on?
The law of averages
The fact that I am getting none
Past history and form
The fact that preists are men - not super heroes with no sex drive
Its a bit like saying only the managers we know about are getting paid.
Its happened in the past, its happening right now, and its going to happen in the future.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Quote from: longrunsthefox on November 17, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Er, I wasn't being serious. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, you know, pointing out that the "woman's husband and father of the children" might be two different people.
To whom should I apologise?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:29:08 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on November 17, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Er, I wasn't being serious. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, you know, pointing out that the "woman's husband and father of the children" might be two different people.
To whom should I apologise?
Jesus
Quote from: ziggysego on November 17, 2009, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:29:08 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on November 17, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Er, I wasn't being serious. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, you know, pointing out that the "woman's husband and father of the children" might be two different people.
To whom should I apologise?
Jesus
D'ye have the number, or is he in the book?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on November 17, 2009, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:29:08 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on November 17, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Er, I wasn't being serious. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, you know, pointing out that the "woman's husband and father of the children" might be two different people.
To whom should I apologise?
Jesus
D'ye have the number, or is he in the book?
I thought you lot had a direct line to the big man upstairs :D
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
Some fairly typical Gaaboard responses on this thread. In the rush to slap the priest on the back and stick the boot into the Church no one has considered the possibility of a very serious abuse of position and breech of trust by this priest. Would a teaching shagging his pupil, or a doctor a patient get the same reaction? I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
And if we had put the boot into the priest you'd be calling us all anti church. Would ya ever give it a rest and stop talking rubbish. How is it a serious abuse of position for a man to form a relationship with a woman. The woman has divorced her husband so what he thinks is irrelevant. Are you some sort of fundamentalist catholic?, you weren't so quick to criticise the church when we were debating their abuse of children and subsequent cover up - instead you blamed the government. Or maybe that is your problem, protect the mechanics of the church but not the people who "belong" to it, is that it. Do you consider yourself a republican too?
Quote from: ziggysego on November 17, 2009, 04:44:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on November 17, 2009, 04:40:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:29:08 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on November 17, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Er, I wasn't being serious. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, you know, pointing out that the "woman's husband and father of the children" might be two different people.
To whom should I apologise?
Jesus
D'ye have the number, or is he in the book?
I thought you lot had a direct line to the big man upstairs :D
"You lot"? Well maybe it's just me, but everytime I talk to God, I find I'm talking to myself. I never thought of looking upstairs.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
Are they estranged because of this, or was that already something that had happened?
Theres a huge difference in Teacher- pupil relationships, compared to this and your other example.
Hes a man. Its naive of the church to believe that these kinds of things wont ever happen. Infact - I dont believe that the church thinks it wont happen.
No there's not. The teacher, doctor and priest are all placed in a position of trust by virtue of their positions. They are expected not to use their influence over the vulnerable or impressionable. This is not a question over the Church's celibacy rules but a flagrant breach of trust by someone who should know better. If he was a doctor he'd be struck off and possibly fired if he was a teacher. What do they do in Derry, they give him a fecking standing ovation! Been watching too many Hollywood rom-coms up there - the man should have been hounded out of the parish.
Quote from: maddog on November 17, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it not say she's seperated from the husband. While it may be a massive storm in an tea cup locally its no big deal. Man shags woman. The world hasnt ended. And in other news cat miaows.
He's a priest. His duty in such situations would be to provide pastoral care and guidance to the woman, not get her into bed.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on November 17, 2009, 04:49:15 PM
And if we had put the boot into the priest you'd be calling us all anti church. Would ya ever give it a rest and stop talking rubbish. How is it a serious abuse of position for a man to form a relationship with a woman. The woman has divorced her husband so what he thinks is irrelevant. Are you some sort of fundamentalist catholic?, you weren't so quick to criticise the church when we were debating their abuse of children and subsequent cover up - instead you blamed the government. Or maybe that is your problem, protect the mechanics of the church but not the people who "belong" to it, is that it. Do you consider yourself a republican too?
It's not an abuse of position for a man and woman to form a relationship but it is for a priest for reasons I've outlined in previous posts. Now if you haven't the confidence in your position to debate an issue on it's merit without getting personal, I'll leave you to it.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
Are they estranged because of this, or was that already something that had happened?
Theres a huge difference in Teacher- pupil relationships, compared to this and your other example.
Hes a man. Its naive of the church to believe that these kinds of things wont ever happen. Infact - I dont believe that the church thinks it wont happen.
No there's not. The teacher, doctor and priest are all placed in a position of trust by virtue of their positions. They are expected not to use their influence over the vulnerable or impressionable. This is not a question over the Church's celibacy rules but a flagrant breach of trust by someone who should know better. If he was a doctor he'd be struck off and possibly fired if he was a teacher. What do they do in Derry, they give him a fecking standing ovation! Been watching too many Hollywood rom-coms up there - the man should have been hounded out of the parish.
You need to get a grip on reality Donagh, honestly.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:55:39 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 03:16:37 PM
Are they estranged because of this, or was that already something that had happened?
Theres a huge difference in Teacher- pupil relationships, compared to this and your other example.
Hes a man. Its naive of the church to believe that these kinds of things wont ever happen. Infact - I dont believe that the church thinks it wont happen.
No there's not. The teacher, doctor and priest are all placed in a position of trust by virtue of their positions. They are expected not to use their influence over the vulnerable or impressionable. This is not a question over the Church's celibacy rules but a flagrant breach of trust by someone who should know better. If he was a doctor he'd be struck off and possibly fired if he was a teacher. What do they do in Derry, they give him a fecking standing ovation! Been watching too many Hollywood rom-coms up there - the man should have been hounded out of the parish.
You're absolutely wrong. If a Doctor has a relationship with a patient - while the patient is in care of the hospital - that is wrong.
Doctors and patients are quite free to see each other outside of the hospital setting.
Unless you're suggesting that this affair was going on "inside" the actual grounds of the church - these two are totally different.
Im actually dismayed at your stance on this.
"Flagrant breach of the rules by someone who should know better"?
This is a man who fell in love with someone. I am sure this man has done more soul searching about this than any of us can imagine
"He should be hounded out of the parish"?
Jesus H Christ - I assume you'd be outside his door with your pitchfork and lantern then? By all accounts - this is one of the good men out there. Its a shame that he isnt strong enough to be your kinda priest.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:00:52 PM
You need to get a grip on reality Donagh, honestly.
Case closed then ::)
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:57:08 PM
Quote from: maddog on November 17, 2009, 03:16:51 PM
Did it not say she's seperated from the husband. While it may be a massive storm in an tea cup locally its no big deal. Man shags woman. The world hasnt ended. And in other news cat miaows.
He's a priest. His duty in such situations would be to provide pastoral care and guidance to the woman, not get her into bed.
Maybe he did give past oral care.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:55:39 PM
No there's not. The teacher, doctor and priest are all placed in a position of trust by virtue of their positions. They are expected not to use their influence over the vulnerable or impressionable. This is not a question over the Church's celibacy rules but a flagrant breach of trust by someone who should know better. If he was a doctor he'd be struck off and possibly fired if he was a teacher. What do they do in Derry, they give him a fecking standing ovation! Been watching too many Hollywood rom-coms up there - the man should have been hounded out of the parish.
I've just read the original news report and there's nothing in it to indicate that the woman is even a Member of his congregation. She might have been a supermarket checkout operator, or someone he met on holiday, or even the local Prostitute. Hell, she might even have been a Protestant! :o
Anyhow to be serious, all we know is that he is a Priest and she is a woman who was already married, but had separated. Consequently, all I would assume is that he probably did not break his vows and embark on such a course lightly and she is most likely not a vulnerable or impressionable "victim".
There are worse things in this world than falling in love; there are
far worse things in Derry! ;)
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:03:48 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:00:52 PM
You need to get a grip on reality Donagh, honestly.
Case closed then ::)
I am happy enough with that, you have nothing constructive to offer to this discussion, your archaic views are the primary reason the Church is struggling in modern society yet you see yourself as a champion of the Catholic church. You really do not have a clue on this one.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:01:00 PM
You're absolutely wrong. If a Doctor has a relationship with a patient - while the patient is in care of the hospital - that is wrong.
Doctors and patients are quite free to see each other outside of the hospital setting.
Unless you're suggesting that this affair was going on "inside" the actual grounds of the church - these two are totally different.
"Flagrant breach of the rules by someone who should know better"?
This is a man who fell in love with someone. I am sure this man has done more soul searching about this than any of us can imagine
"He should be hounded out of the parish"?
Jesus H Christ - I assume you'd be outside his door with your pitchfork and lantern then? By all accounts - this is one of the good men out there. Its a shame that he isnt strong enough to be your kinda priest.
The man is a Catholic priest. She is a divorced/separated Catholic. As a divorced/separated person the woman is obviously in estranged or in difficulties with the Church. In those circumstances, the duty of the priest is to provide for her spiritual well-being and guide her in such a way so as she can reconcile herself with the Church. So just like the doctor/patient comparison, the priest has a clear duty in such circumstances and that duty is most definitely not to be shagging her.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:57:08 PM
He's a priest. His duty in such situations would be to provide pastoral care and guidance to the woman, not get her into bed.
Of course you could be jumping to conclusions as much as Evil Genius (with his speculation on paternity). I presume that you know for a fact that the woman was a signed-up catholic parishioner of his. What evidence do you have that they met through his exercising any Church duties at all? Maybe she is a protestant he met at his local bridge club?
Because my understanding is that he should not be administering sacraments (but maybe guidance) to a separated lady anyhow? I say this because Bishop Willie Walsh spoke out against this policy on RTE last saturday:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1114/religion.html
And even if he was in dereliction of his duty, then surely resigning is the correct course of action? Would he better confessing to the local bishop, covering it up and heading to Rome for reprogramming (ala Eamon Casey).
There are better ways for the catholic church to handle succession/inheritance rights than enforcing celibacy under the guise of something spiritual. So rather than "sticking the boot in", I'd see it as constructive criticism.
/Jim.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:07:31 PM
I am happy enough with that, you have nothing constructive to offer to this discussion, your archaic views are the primary reason the Church is struggling in modern society yet you see yourself as a champion of the Catholic church. You really do not have a clue on this one.
So when someone disagrees with your cosy world-view you dismiss them as " nothing constructive" to offer. I have simply presented and opinion, it may not even be my personal opinion and all you can do is throw personal insults. Is that what passes for constructive debate of Gaaboard these days?
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
The man is a Catholic priest. She is a divorced/separated Catholic. As a divorced/separated person the woman is obviously in estranged or in difficulties with the Church. In those circumstances, the duty of the priest is to provide for her spiritual well-being and guide her in such a way so as she can reconcile herself with the Church. So just like the doctor/patient comparison, the priest has a clear duty in such circumstances and that duty is most definitely not to be shagging her.
Who says she's Estranged or in difficulties with the church?
Is this based upon the working assumption that once you are divorced the church asks you not to have communion? That the church thinks you are tainted in some way?
If so - how can you become reconciled with the church - if your estrangement from them is based solely on
their stance on
your divorce?
How is a priest supposed to change the churches stance on her divorce?
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on November 17, 2009, 05:15:24 PM
Of course you could be jumping to conclusions as much as Evil Genius (with his speculation on paternity). I presume that you know for a fact that the woman was a signed-up catholic parishioner of his. What evidence do you have that they met through his exercising any Church duties at all? Maybe she is a protestant he met at his local bridge club?
Because my understanding is that he should not be administering sacraments (but maybe guidance) to a separated lady anyhow? I say this because Bishop Willie Walsh spoke out against this policy on RTE last saturday:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1114/religion.html
And even if he was in dereliction of his duty, then surely resigning is the correct course of action? Would he better confessing to the local bishop, covering it up and heading to Rome for reprogramming (ala Eamon Casey).
There are better ways for the catholic church to handle succession/inheritance rights than enforcing celibacy under the guise of something spiritual. So rather than "sticking the boot in", I'd see it as constructive criticism.
/Jim.
Just going on what I read in the paper Jim and yes I am making assumptions, just like everyone else on this thread. Of course he did the right thing by resigning, I don't disagree but that is the least that should be expected.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:16:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:07:31 PM
I am happy enough with that, you have nothing constructive to offer to this discussion, your archaic views are the primary reason the Church is struggling in modern society yet you see yourself as a champion of the Catholic church. You really do not have a clue on this one.
So when someone disagrees with your cosy world-view you dismiss them as " nothing constructive" to offer. I have simply presented and opinion, it may not even be my personal opinion and all you can do is throw personal insults. Is that what passes for constructive debate of Gaaboard these days?
Constructive debate? Do me a favour.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
Who says she's Estranged or in difficulties with the church?
She's Catholic and divorced/separated, so is obviously experiencing pastoral difficulties.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
Is this based upon the working assumption that once you are divorced the church asks you not to have communion? That the church thinks you are tainted in some way?
No based on the assumption that the Church forbids divorce. I have no idea if that makes one "tainted".
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
If so - how can you become reconciled with the church - if your estrangement from them is based solely on their stance on your divorce?
No idea, you may have to ask a priest that one, or even a Catholic.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
How is a priest supposed to change the churches stance on her divorce?
As above
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:22:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:16:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:07:31 PM
I am happy enough with that, you have nothing constructive to offer to this discussion, your archaic views are the primary reason the Church is struggling in modern society yet you see yourself as a champion of the Catholic church. You really do not have a clue on this one.
So when someone disagrees with your cosy world-view you dismiss them as " nothing constructive" to offer. I have simply presented and opinion, it may not even be my personal opinion and all you can do is throw personal insults. Is that what passes for constructive debate of Gaaboard these days?
Constructive debate? Do me a favour.
If you've nothing further to offer Doogie then you should avoid clicking that 'reply' button beside my posts.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:25:40 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:22:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:16:25 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on November 17, 2009, 05:07:31 PM
I am happy enough with that, you have nothing constructive to offer to this discussion, your archaic views are the primary reason the Church is struggling in modern society yet you see yourself as a champion of the Catholic church. You really do not have a clue on this one.
So when someone disagrees with your cosy world-view you dismiss them as " nothing constructive" to offer. I have simply presented and opinion, it may not even be my personal opinion and all you can do is throw personal insults. Is that what passes for constructive debate of Gaaboard these days?
Constructive debate? Do me a favour.
If you've nothing further to offer Doogie then you should avoid clicking that 'reply' button beside my posts.
I think after your ramblings today you will find a lot of people following that advice Donagh, goodnight.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
Who says she's Estranged or in difficulties with the church?
She's Catholic and divorced/separated, so is obviously experiencing pastoral difficulties.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
Is this based upon the working assumption that once you are divorced the church asks you not to have communion? That the church thinks you are tainted in some way?
No based on the assumption that the Church forbids divorce. I have no idea if that makes one "tainted".
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
If so - how can you become reconciled with the church - if your estrangement from them is based solely on their stance on your divorce?
No idea, you may have to ask a priest that one, or even a Catholic.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
How is a priest supposed to change the churches stance on her divorce?
As above
1. Large assumption
2. I am sure when your marriage falls apart - the fact that the archaic nature of the church "forbids" it - isnt the biggest thing on someones mind
3. Arent you a catholic? Even though your post seems to suggest that you dont believe that I am.
4. As above I guess.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
If so - how can you become reconciled with the church - if your estrangement from them is based solely on their stance on your divorce?
How is a priest supposed to change the churches stance on her divorce?
He is not to change the church's stance. He is to refuse sacraments to the sinner.
Unfortunately for this lady and priest, there is no honourable way out. She can only really be estranged, not resigned (although: http://www.countmeout.ie/) from the church.
Fortunately for me I am exempt from all that tosh as my own mother got estranged from the Diocese of Limerick before they got to wet my head. This was due to her objection to then mandatory "Churching" post my arrival in the world.
Another aspect of the catholic church's obsession with all things sexual (retrospectively dressed up as something else).
I hope these two individuals find happiness in their relationship and aren't "run out of town" by anyone.
/Jim.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:29:09 PM
1. Large assumption
2. I am sure when your marriage falls apart - the fact that the archaic nature of the church "forbids" it - isnt the biggest thing on someones mind
3. Arent you a catholic? Even though your post seems to suggest that you dont believe that I am.
4. As above I guess.
Puckoon, a lot of people who have been around here long enough know my religious opinions and unlike Doogie they know better than to make unwarranted assumptions about my personal beliefs of the basis of something which challenges their cosy world view. The opinion I have presented is that of a Catholic not an 'à la carte Catholic' as they have become known. As this man is a Catholic priest who vowed obedience to Church teaching and doctrine, then I feel it is appropriate to present this view. Of course if that view is uncomfortable for some to take then so be it but not only has this man broken his vows but he has also undermined his Church and his fellow priests who struggle to keep theirs. I acknowledge he has done the correct and honourable thing by resigning but it remains that he has damaged his Church and the authority of his fellow priests by breaking his vows.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on November 17, 2009, 05:15:24 PM
Of course you could be jumping to conclusions as much as Evil Genius (with his speculation on paternity).
I will repeat that I was NOT being serious with what was just a throwaway remark.
I accept it may not have been funny, but it was inspired (if that's not too pretentious a term) by the old Alabama 'joke' about the man who introduced a friend to his wife, sister and daughter.
There was only one woman in the room at the time...
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 05:48:21 PM
I will repeat that I was NOT being serious with what was just a throwaway remark.
I'm aware of that. I was making reference to the reactions to the comment rather than the comment itself.
/Jim.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
The man is a Catholic priest. She is a divorced/separated Catholic. As a divorced/separated person the woman is obviously in estranged or in difficulties with the Church. In those circumstances, the duty of the priest is to provide for her spiritual well-being and guide her in such a way so as she can reconcile herself with the Church. So just like the doctor/patient comparison, the priest has a clear duty in such circumstances
Do you know she is Catholic? And even assuming she is, which is she, divorced or separated? The news report describes her as "separated" not divorced.
Since the former may be tolerated by the RC Church in certain circumstances, but the latter may not ever be, then her being separated should clearly cause many fewer personal and religious difficulties than if she were divorced.
And as for his duty to "provide for her spiritual well-being etc", how do you know that he has not advised her to speak to another Priest, in order to help her deal with her situation?
If the man is decent enough to own up to the affair, renounce his vows and lose his job etc, rather than pursue the Bishop Casey "Brush it under the Carpet" option, I would suspect he wants the best possible outcome for her.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
...and that duty is most definitely not to be shagging her.
How do you know they have been "shagging", as you so delicately and sensitively put it? All we know to date is that he has announced his intention to leave the Church and marry this woman.
Anyhow, I'm off to consult a Bible over this matter. I could have sworn there was something about "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" in it somewhere... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:29:08 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on November 17, 2009, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:46:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
I wonder what the woman's husband and father of the children thinks about it all.
At a wild guess I'd say the woman's husband is hopping mad, but the father of the children is keeping his head down, especially if he (father) is also the Priest (Father)?
a very wild guess alright as you have no idea of the circumstances :-\
Er, I wasn't being serious. It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, you know, pointing out that the "woman's husband and father of the children" might be two different people.
To whom should I apologise?
Oh! Mickey Harte
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
The man is a Catholic priest. She is a divorced/separated Catholic. As a divorced/separated person the woman is obviously in estranged or in difficulties with the Church. In those circumstances, the duty of the priest is to provide for her spiritual well-being and guide her in such a way so as she can reconcile herself with the Church. So just like the doctor/patient comparison, the priest has a clear duty in such circumstances
Do you know she is Catholic? And even assuming she is, which is she, divorced or separated? The news report describes her as "separated" not divorced.
Since the former may be tolerated by the RC Church in certain circumstances, but the latter may not ever be, then her being separated should clearly cause many fewer personal and religious difficulties than if she were divorced.
And as for his duty to "provide for her spiritual well-being etc", how do you know that he has not advised her to speak to another Priest, in order to help her deal with her situation?
If the man is decent enough to own up to the affair, renounce his vows and lose his job etc, rather than pursue the Bishop Casey "Brush it under the Carpet" option, I would suspect he wants the best possible outcome for her.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
...and that duty is most definitely not to be shagging her.
How do you know they have been "shagging", as you so delicately and sensitively put it? All we know to date is that he has announced his intention to leave the Church and marry this woman.
Anyhow, I'm off to consult a Bible over this matter. I could have sworn there was something about "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" in it somewhere... ::)
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a
Catholic priest.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
The man is a Catholic priest. She is a divorced/separated Catholic. As a divorced/separated person the woman is obviously in estranged or in difficulties with the Church. In those circumstances, the duty of the priest is to provide for her spiritual well-being and guide her in such a way so as she can reconcile herself with the Church. So just like the doctor/patient comparison, the priest has a clear duty in such circumstances
Do you know she is Catholic? And even assuming she is, which is she, divorced or separated? The news report describes her as "separated" not divorced.
Since the former may be tolerated by the RC Church in certain circumstances, but the latter may not ever be, then her being separated should clearly cause many fewer personal and religious difficulties than if she were divorced.
And as for his duty to "provide for her spiritual well-being etc", how do you know that he has not advised her to speak to another Priest, in order to help her deal with her situation?
If the man is decent enough to own up to the affair, renounce his vows and lose his job etc, rather than pursue the Bishop Casey "Brush it under the Carpet" option, I would suspect he wants the best possible outcome for her.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
...and that duty is most definitely not to be shagging her.
How do you know they have been "shagging", as you so delicately and sensitively put it? All we know to date is that he has announced his intention to leave the Church and marry this woman.
Anyhow, I'm off to consult a Bible over this matter. I could have sworn there was something about "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" in it somewhere... ::)
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:29:09 PM
1. Large assumption
2. I am sure when your marriage falls apart - the fact that the archaic nature of the church "forbids" it - isnt the biggest thing on someones mind
3. Arent you a catholic? Even though your post seems to suggest that you dont believe that I am.
4. As above I guess.
Puckoon, a lot of people who have been around here long enough know my religious opinions and unlike Doogie they know better than to make unwarranted assumptions about my personal beliefs of the basis of something which challenges their cosy world view. The opinion I have presented is that of a Catholic not an 'à la carte Catholic' as they have become known. As this man is a Catholic priest who vowed obedience to Church teaching and doctrine, then I feel it is appropriate to present this view. Of course if that view is uncomfortable for some to take then so be it but not only has this man broken his vows but he has also undermined his Church and his fellow priests who struggle to keep theirs. I acknowledge he has done the correct and honourable thing by resigning but it remains that he has damaged his Church and the authority of his fellow priests by breaking his vows.
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on November 17, 2009, 05:39:59 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:17:17 PM
If so - how can you become reconciled with the church - if your estrangement from them is based solely on their stance on your divorce?
How is a priest supposed to change the churches stance on her divorce?
He is not to change the church's stance. He is to refuse sacraments to the sinner.
Unfortunately for this lady and priest, there is no honourable way out. She can only really be estranged, not resigned (although: http://www.countmeout.ie/) from the church.
Fortunately for me I am exempt from all that tosh as my own mother got estranged from the Diocese of Limerick before they got to wet my head. This was due to her objection to then mandatory "Churching" post my arrival in the world.
Another aspect of the catholic church's obsession with all things sexual (retrospectively dressed up as something else).
I hope these two individuals find happiness in their relationship and aren't "run out of town" by anyone.
/Jim.
Arent we all sinners?
Even the saints fall seven times a day....?
QuoteHow can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
I imagine that anyone divorced by someone else is in the clear unless they fornicate.
Also in some cases people have had marriages annulled.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:06:32 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
The man is a Catholic priest. She is a divorced/separated Catholic. As a divorced/separated person the woman is obviously in estranged or in difficulties with the Church. In those circumstances, the duty of the priest is to provide for her spiritual well-being and guide her in such a way so as she can reconcile herself with the Church. So just like the doctor/patient comparison, the priest has a clear duty in such circumstances
Do you know she is Catholic? And even assuming she is, which is she, divorced or separated? The news report describes her as "separated" not divorced.
Since the former may be tolerated by the RC Church in certain circumstances, but the latter may not ever be, then her being separated should clearly cause many fewer personal and religious difficulties than if she were divorced.
And as for his duty to "provide for her spiritual well-being etc", how do you know that he has not advised her to speak to another Priest, in order to help her deal with her situation?
If the man is decent enough to own up to the affair, renounce his vows and lose his job etc, rather than pursue the Bishop Casey "Brush it under the Carpet" option, I would suspect he wants the best possible outcome for her.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:12:03 PM
...and that duty is most definitely not to be shagging her.
How do you know they have been "shagging", as you so delicately and sensitively put it? All we know to date is that he has announced his intention to leave the Church and marry this woman.
Anyhow, I'm off to consult a Bible over this matter. I could have sworn there was something about "Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged" in it somewhere... ::)
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
I already said in a previous post I was making similar assumptions as those who'd already posted.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:00:41 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on November 17, 2009, 04:49:15 PM
And if we had put the boot into the priest you'd be calling us all anti church. Would ya ever give it a rest and stop talking rubbish. How is it a serious abuse of position for a man to form a relationship with a woman. The woman has divorced her husband so what he thinks is irrelevant. Are you some sort of fundamentalist catholic?, you weren't so quick to criticise the church when we were debating their abuse of children and subsequent cover up - instead you blamed the government. Or maybe that is your problem, protect the mechanics of the church but not the people who "belong" to it, is that it. Do you consider yourself a republican too?
It's not an abuse of position for a man and woman to form a relationship but it is for a priest for reasons I've outlined in previous posts. Now if you haven't the confidence in your position to debate an issue on it's merit without getting personal, I'll leave you to it.
Where have I got personal? I pulled you up on your views nothing else. You are taking a very hard line against this priest while anyone that knows the man on here has nothing but good to say about him. I suggest you are against the man because he broke the rules of the catholic church - a rule which has nothing to do with the word of Jesus or God as far as I can see. Now I compare this to your failure on the "clerical abuse" thread to condemn bishops, priests and others who covered up the horrific abuse of little children. Indeed you proclaimed that a priest who knew about such actions taking place would not come out and speak if the bishop told him not to. You showed great understanding to such a priest (if such things ever happened) and you instead spread the majority of the blame to the government. It appears to me, like many a bishop, you are more concerned about keeping the catholic church in a position of power than you are of caring about the people within the church. Not very religious in my opinion and most certainly not the view of a republican.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 06:44:47 PM
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
I'm not.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on November 17, 2009, 07:28:14 PM
Where have I got personal? I pulled you up on your views nothing else. You are taking a very hard line against this priest while anyone that knows the man on here has nothing but good to say about him. I suggest you are against the man because he broke the rules of the catholic church - a rule which has nothing to do with the word of Jesus or God as far as I can see. Now I compare this to your failure on the "clerical abuse" thread to condemn bishops, priests and others who covered up the horrific abuse of little children. Indeed you proclaimed that a priest who knew about such actions taking place would not come out and speak if the bishop told him not to. You showed great understanding to such a priest (if such things ever happened) and you instead spread the majority of the blame to the government. It appears to me, like many a bishop, you are more concerned about keeping the catholic church in a position of power than you are of caring about the people within the church. Not very religious in my opinion and most certainly not the view of a republican.
I'm not against the man because he broke the rules of the Church. I am "against" him, if that's the right phrase because he broke
his vows. Those vows allowed him to be elevated to a certain level of trust in
his community so by breaking the vows he has undermined
his Church and his fellow priests who took the same vows.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
I already said in a previous post I was making similar assumptions as those who'd already posted.
Ah, so it's
their fault that you blithely accept their (unsustainable) assumptions and use them to support your case?
And you accused me of "rambling"?
OK, I'll make it even easier for you.
Do you still think it safe to accept any of the five assumptions I listed above, "Yes" or "No"?
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:34:51 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on November 17, 2009, 07:28:14 PM
Where have I got personal? I pulled you up on your views nothing else. You are taking a very hard line against this priest while anyone that knows the man on here has nothing but good to say about him. I suggest you are against the man because he broke the rules of the catholic church - a rule which has nothing to do with the word of Jesus or God as far as I can see. Now I compare this to your failure on the "clerical abuse" thread to condemn bishops, priests and others who covered up the horrific abuse of little children. Indeed you proclaimed that a priest who knew about such actions taking place would not come out and speak if the bishop told him not to. You showed great understanding to such a priest (if such things ever happened) and you instead spread the majority of the blame to the government. It appears to me, like many a bishop, you are more concerned about keeping the catholic church in a position of power than you are of caring about the people within the church. Not very religious in my opinion and most certainly not the view of a republican.
I'm not against the man because he broke the rules of the Church. I am "against" him, if that's the right phrase because he broke his vows. Those vows allowed him to be elevated to a certain level of trust in his community so by breaking the vows he has undermined his Church and his fellow priests who took the same vows.
Oh, his vow. Are you against everyone as ferverently that broke a vow. I took a vow once never to drink till I was 18 along with 90% of the country and I broke it numerous times. What about the vow of the cardinals and bishops and even the popes to protect the people within the church (like children). I think they broke that vow many times. I believe you thought £1 would be compensation enough for the victims of child abuse from the church, perhaps if the priest gave £1 into the bishop that would change your opinion of him?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
I already said in a previous post I was making similar assumptions as those who'd already posted.
Ah, so it's their fault that you blithely accept their (unsustainable) assumptions and use them to support your case?
And you accused me of "rambling"?
OK, I'll make it even easier for you.
Do you still think it safe to accept any of the five assumptions I listed above, "Yes" or "No"?
Your questions are irrelevant. The man has broken his vows and as a result has damaged his Church and the standing of his fellow priests. What point are you trying to make?
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
I already said in a previous post I was making similar assumptions as those who'd already posted.
Ah, so it's their fault that you blithely accept their (unsustainable) assumptions and use them to support your case?
And you accused me of "rambling"?
OK, I'll make it even easier for you.
Do you still think it safe to accept any of the five assumptions I listed above, "Yes" or "No"?
Your questions are irrelevant. The man has broken his vows and as a result has damaged his Church and the standing of his fellow priests. What point are you trying to make?
Damaged the church? No one gives a shite if he goes out with a woman, in fact he's probably helped the church showing that decent men are involved and if he's decided a priest's life is no longer the life for him then so what? That's his business.
If the woman is divorced what makes you think she cares what the church thinks of her, what makes you think she is vulnerable either?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on November 17, 2009, 07:45:17 PM
Oh, his vow. Are you against everyone as ferverently that broke a vow. I took a vow once never to drink till I was 18 along with 90% of the country and I broke it numerous times. What about the vow of the cardinals and bishops and even the popes to protect the people within the church (like children). I think they broke that vow many times.
If your vow exalted you to a position of trust and influence in your community and you then broke it, then yes it would be a similar situation. However as a vow is a pledge between a person and God, then if it's a priest making the vow then it should carry more weight - it's his business after all. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that a priest breaking a vow is sacrilegious in itself, so I'd imagine breaking the solemn vows of Holy Orders is even more serious.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 07:55:39 PM
Damaged the church? No one gives a shite if he goes out with a woman, in fact he's probably helped the church showing that decent men are involved and if he's decided a priest's life is no longer the life for him then so what? That's his business.
If the woman is divorced what makes you think she cares what the church thinks of her, what makes you think she is vulnerable either?
The Church and practising Catholics care. I would probably care if my wife had gone to him for marriage guidance or confession. If he can't be trusted to keep his vows of Holy Orders, can he be trusted to keep the secrets of confession?
Whether the woman is divorced or not is irrelevant as the Church wouldn't recognise it, I was simply using that as an indicator of what a priests duty should be in such cases - to offer her direction and pastoral care.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
I already said in a previous post I was making similar assumptions as those who'd already posted.
Ah, so it's their fault that you blithely accept their (unsustainable) assumptions and use them to support your case?
And you accused me of "rambling"?
OK, I'll make it even easier for you.
Do you still think it safe to accept any of the five assumptions I listed above, "Yes" or "No"?
Your questions are irrelevant. The man has broken his vows and as a result has damaged his Church and the standing of his fellow priests. What point are you trying to make?
That last part [
emboldened] is only one of the points you have sought to make.
Since you have tried to distance yourself from the above false assumptions by blaming others, or calling them irrelevant, and are so evidently wriggling away from various other criticisms which you based upon them, we may safely assume that you now accept you were talking bollox earlier.
Progress, I suppose...
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 07:55:39 PM
Damaged the church? No one gives a shite if he goes out with a woman, in fact he's probably helped the church showing that decent men are involved and if he's decided a priest's life is no longer the life for him then so what? That's his business.
If the woman is divorced what makes you think she cares what the church thinks of her, what makes you think she is vulnerable either?
The Church and practising Catholics care. I would probably care if my wife had gone to him for marriage guidance or confession. If he can't be trusted to keep his vows of Holy Orders, can he be trusted to keep the secrets of confession?
Whether the woman is divorced or not is irrelevant as the Church wouldn't recognise it, I was simply using that as an indicator of what a priests duty should be in such cases - to offer her direction and pastoral care.
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 07:55:39 PM
Damaged the church? No one gives a shite if he goes out with a woman, in fact he's probably helped the church showing that decent men are involved and if he's decided a priest's life is no longer the life for him then so what? That's his business.
If the woman is divorced what makes you think she cares what the church thinks of her, what makes you think she is vulnerable either?
The Church and practising Catholics care. I would probably care if my wife had gone to him for marriage guidance or confession. If he can't be trusted to keep his vows of Holy Orders, can he be trusted to keep the secrets of confession?
Whether the woman is divorced or not is irrelevant as the Church wouldn't recognise it, I was simply using that as an indicator of what a priests duty should be in such cases - to offer her direction and pastoral care.
Does your wife have something big she's trying to keep a lid on?
A vow is made at a point in time to be maintained with the best will in world. However, "to err is human" etc. so just because he has broken that vow after many years of, apparently sterling, service shouldn't sully the work he has done, nor does it make him a bad man overnight.
As Pints says it actually shows the public that priests are normal, they have a heart and aren't all predators preying on innocent young boys and girls.
Sounds like a loss to the Church but good luck to them.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 08:10:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 07:38:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
You're just rambing now for the sake of it. See my previous posts on the duties of a Catholic priest.
Oh, so when the questions get difficult, your best retort is to accuse the questioner of rambling? ::)
OK, since you have based your case on certain assumptions, I shall address those directly:
1. Do you know the woman in question is Catholic?
2. If "Yes", do you know for certain she is/was a member of his Congregation?
3. Do you know her exact marital status? (Your posting a contradictory description of her as "Divorced/Separated" clearly suggests you don't)
4. Do you know that the Priest continued to advise her spiritually after their relationship began?
5. Do you know that he and she are "shagging"?
You know, for one who demands such high standards of evdence and burden of proof etc on other issues, you're playing remarkably "fast and loose" with the facts of this particular topic.
Perhaps the Priest is not the only hypocrite in this affair... ::)
I already said in a previous post I was making similar assumptions as those who'd already posted.
Ah, so it's their fault that you blithely accept their (unsustainable) assumptions and use them to support your case?
And you accused me of "rambling"?
OK, I'll make it even easier for you.
Do you still think it safe to accept any of the five assumptions I listed above, "Yes" or "No"?
Your questions are irrelevant. The man has broken his vows and as a result has damaged his Church and the standing of his fellow priests. What point are you trying to make?
That last part [emboldened] is only one of the points you have sought to make.
Since you have tried to distance yourself from the above false assumptions by blaming others, or calling them irrelevant, and are so evidently wriggling away from various other criticisms which you based upon them, we may safely assume that you now accept you were talking bollox earlier.
Progress, I suppose...
EG, your constant need for attention by expecting people to reply every time you spew out the most pointless shite that comes into your head is extremely tiresome. I thought you would have learned by now. If you wish to make a point, please make it succinctly and I will address it directly. Otherwise, as before, don't expect a response from me.
Strictly speaking,Donagh is absolutely correct and is reflecting the official position of the Church. There may be an absence of charity in this view, just as there often is in priestly condemnations of lay people who break their marriage vows. But tyhat does not alter the fact, that he broke the rules, and resignation was the only honourable course open to him. The rest is between him, his conscience and God, and none of us should presume to judge him
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:29:09 PM
1. Large assumption
2. I am sure when your marriage falls apart - the fact that the archaic nature of the church "forbids" it - isnt the biggest thing on someones mind
3. Arent you a catholic? Even though your post seems to suggest that you dont believe that I am.
4. As above I guess.
Puckoon, a lot of people who have been around here long enough know my religious opinions and unlike Doogie they know better than to make unwarranted assumptions about my personal beliefs of the basis of something which challenges their cosy world view. The opinion I have presented is that of a Catholic not an 'à la carte Catholic' as they have become known. As this man is a Catholic priest who vowed obedience to Church teaching and doctrine, then I feel it is appropriate to present this view. Of course if that view is uncomfortable for some to take then so be it but not only has this man broken his vows but he has also undermined his Church and his fellow priests who struggle to keep theirs. I acknowledge he has done the correct and honourable thing by resigning but it remains that he has damaged his Church and the authority of his fellow priests by breaking his vows.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 06:44:47 PM
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
I'm not.
You just said you were?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 08:19:05 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:29:09 PM
1. Large assumption
2. I am sure when your marriage falls apart - the fact that the archaic nature of the church "forbids" it - isnt the biggest thing on someones mind
3. Arent you a catholic? Even though your post seems to suggest that you dont believe that I am.
4. As above I guess.
Puckoon, a lot of people who have been around here long enough know my religious opinions and unlike Doogie they know better than to make unwarranted assumptions about my personal beliefs of the basis of something which challenges their cosy world view. The opinion I have presented is that of a Catholic not an 'à la carte Catholic' as they have become known. As this man is a Catholic priest who vowed obedience to Church teaching and doctrine, then I feel it is appropriate to present this view. Of course if that view is uncomfortable for some to take then so be it but not only has this man broken his vows but he has also undermined his Church and his fellow priests who struggle to keep theirs. I acknowledge he has done the correct and honourable thing by resigning but it remains that he has damaged his Church and the authority of his fellow priests by breaking his vows.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 06:44:47 PM
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
I'm not.
You just said you were?
In fairness he's on record as saying the missus is a Catholic whereas he isn't.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 17, 2009, 08:14:23 PM
Does your wife have something big she's trying to keep a lid on?
A vow is made at a point in time to be maintained with the best will in world. However, "to err is human" etc. so just because he has broken that vow after many years of, apparently sterling, service shouldn't sully the work he has done, nor does it make him a bad man overnight.
As Pints says it actually shows the public that priests are normal, they have a heart and aren't all predators preying on innocent young boys and girls.
Sounds like a loss to the Church but good luck to them.
If she does that would be between her and her priest not between her, her priest and his girlfriend.
I didn't say it makes him a bad man, but certain standards are expected from priests and that's what allows them into a position of trust. That he has failed to live up to those standards has caused damage to his Church and undermined the authority of other priests.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 17, 2009, 08:22:28 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 08:19:05 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 05:41:13 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 05:29:09 PM
1. Large assumption
2. I am sure when your marriage falls apart - the fact that the archaic nature of the church "forbids" it - isnt the biggest thing on someones mind
3. Arent you a catholic? Even though your post seems to suggest that you dont believe that I am.
4. As above I guess.
Puckoon, a lot of people who have been around here long enough know my religious opinions and unlike Doogie they know better than to make unwarranted assumptions about my personal beliefs of the basis of something which challenges their cosy world view. The opinion I have presented is that of a Catholic not an 'à la carte Catholic' as they have become known. As this man is a Catholic priest who vowed obedience to Church teaching and doctrine, then I feel it is appropriate to present this view. Of course if that view is uncomfortable for some to take then so be it but not only has this man broken his vows but he has also undermined his Church and his fellow priests who struggle to keep theirs. I acknowledge he has done the correct and honourable thing by resigning but it remains that he has damaged his Church and the authority of his fellow priests by breaking his vows.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 06:44:47 PM
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
I'm not.
You just said you were?
In fairness he's on record as saying the missus is a Catholic whereas he isn't.
Oh, OK.
The priest deviated from his duties/vows.
At a wild guess he is not the first priest to deviate from his vows. Afaia deviating from his strict vows in the catholic church is not enough to have a priest in the pastoral doghouse. Should the said priest still be resolved to continue as a priest then he does some form of confession, is forgiven and carries on.
The circumstances surrounding his thoughts to resign, his contact with the woman and his final decision to resign are not known.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:25:59 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 17, 2009, 08:14:23 PM
Does your wife have something big she's trying to keep a lid on?
A vow is made at a point in time to be maintained with the best will in world. However, "to err is human" etc. so just because he has broken that vow after many years of, apparently sterling, service shouldn't sully the work he has done, nor does it make him a bad man overnight.
As Pints says it actually shows the public that priests are normal, they have a heart and aren't all predators preying on innocent young boys and girls.
Sounds like a loss to the Church but good luck to them.
If she does that would be between her and her priest not between her, her priest and his girlfriend.
I didn't say it makes him a bad man, but certain standards are expected from priests and that's what allows them into a position of trust. That he has failed to live up to those standards has caused damage to his Church and undermined the authority of other priests.
This is a nothing story in terms of damage to the Church in comparison to the abuse scandals.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 08:30:08 PM
Oh, OK.
Puckoon, I'm simply putting the Catholic position as I see it and to be honest I can see the logic of that position. I may not agree with the rules of the Church but I take a keen interest in them and debate them with the wife. In doing so, I can now that my previous Marxist interpretation that they were were invented by hermits with too much time on their hands in order to subjugate people is wrong and that there is a certain logic and moral honesty in them. I also see that to the faithful, the Church and it's teachings are treasured and they are deeply hurt when the Church is betrayed by one of it's own - whether it be the breaking of vows in this case, the child abuse scandals or merely the conceitedness displayed by many Irish Bishops.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 06:44:47 PM
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
Puck I think they only way they can become reconciled with the Church is if they seek an annulment of the marriage. I am not a big fan of these as I think they are thrown out left right and center much too easily but that's for another topic.
In fairness I think Donagh is only taking the official Church stance here and I tend to agree with him. I am a firm believer - you are either in or your not, no 'a la carte' or 'pick and mix', its all or nothing.
With that said I have actually met the Priest in question and as was remarked before he was/is a decent man. He did the wrong thing in breaking his vows, in abusing his position but he also did the right thing in resigning and I tip my hat to him for that.
I don't for a second believe that Maynooth would be building an extension to house trainees if Priests were allowed to Marry. It isn't just a job its a vocation. This is a huge topic that will certainly not be solved on a GAA board. I have a lot of friends who are priests and I have asked them all and discussed it extensively with them and only one would have loved to have been married.
Most of these arguments are about our own definition of "Roman Catholic" or "Christian". We all have different definitions to suit ourselves. The only definition that matters at the end of the day though is the Church's definition. You can dance around it and huff and puff as much as you like - if you are not following the Church's teachings or at least trying to then you are not a Roman Catholic. As one poster put it though it isn't up to us to judge - it's between you and God and your conscience.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
I agree but that said do you think someone should be expected to stay in a unhappy marriage?
Should that person leave the marriage or is it a case of "tough"?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
Do people get divorced when they get tired of everyday life together? The Church basically forced previous generations of women to stick by their man no matter what was thrown their way. Women who were abused and could take no more left their husbands in times gone by. What did they get from the Church and its medieval ways? Treated like a leper, that's what.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
I agree but that said do you think someone should be expected to stay in a unhappy marriage?
Should that person leave the marriage or is it a case of "tough"?
That's a very complicated question in all fairness, it depends on what you mean by unhappy - if it's a case of being tired of your partner's habits etc then tough sh!t
OTHO, if it transpired that one party didn't live up to their commitments to the marriage, and it could be proven, (there are other reasons I am unsure of) then an annulment could be obtained, but only in extreme circumstances
Quote
OTHO, if it transpired that one party didn't live up to their commitments to the marriage, and it could be proven, (there are other reasons I am unsure of) then an annulment could be obtained, but only in extreme circumstances
Annulment can't be obtained if someone is cheating or abusive can it?
Quote from: The Iceman on November 17, 2009, 08:56:04 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 06:44:47 PM
OK - Thats what I am asking. You said to ask a catholic - so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic, I thought Id ask you.
Q. How can anyone who is divorced become reconciled with the church, on the basis that their irreconciliation lies firmly at the churches stance on their divorce, and not any fault of their own (other than god forbid - their wife/husband divorced them)?
Thats what I wanted to know - you said to ask a catholic, so here I am, asking one.
(I realise I may have made up a word there).
Puck I think they only way they can become reconciled with the Church is if they seek an annulment of the marriage. I am not a big fan of these as I think they are thrown out left right and center much too easily but that's for another topic.
In fairness I think Donagh is only taking the official Church stance here and I tend to agree with him. I am a firm believer - you are either in or your not, no 'a la carte' or 'pick and mix', its all or nothing.
With that said I have actually met the Priest in question and as was remarked before he was/is a decent man. He did the wrong thing in breaking his vows, in abusing his position but he also did the right thing in resigning and I tip my hat to him for that.
I don't for a second believe that Maynooth would be building an extension to house trainees if Priests were allowed to Marry. It isn't just a job its a vocation. This is a huge topic that will certainly not be solved on a GAA board. I have a lot of friends who are priests and I have asked them all and discussed it extensively with them and only one would have loved to have been married.
Most of these arguments are about our own definition of "Roman Catholic" or "Christian". We all have different definitions to suit ourselves. The only definition that matters at the end of the day though is the Church's definition. You can dance around it and huff and puff as much as you like - if you are not following the Church's teachings or at least trying to then you are not a Roman Catholic. As one poster put it though it isn't up to us to judge - it's between you and God and your conscience.
Many people see teaching, nursing, farming as a vocation rather than a job. They're allowed to marry. Allowing them to marry would hopefully normalise the priesthood and the creeps would eventually see it was no place for them. By practicing what they preach with regards to marriage and family and the challenges they both bring people would have more respect for what they say.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 09:30:47 PM
Quote
OTHO, if it transpired that one party didn't live up to their commitments to the marriage, and it could be proven, (there are other reasons I am unsure of) then an annulment could be obtained, but only in extreme circumstances
Annulment can't be obtained if someone is cheating or abusive can it?
I think it can though I am not 100% on that...
An aunt of mine works in the office that deals with it, will ask her next time I am talking to her and get back to you
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 17, 2009, 09:25:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
Do people get divorced when they get tired of everyday life together? The Church basically forced previous generations of women to stick by their man no matter what was thrown their way. Women who were abused and could take no more left their husbands in times gone by. What did they get from the Church and its medieval ways? Treated like a leper, that's what.
Tony, I think these days people do get divorced because they are tired of their partner - their ways or personality or whatever excuse they use
I know in previous times the Church was more regimental about this but it has softened its approach to annulments when the cases they are looking at are genuine ones
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:44:15 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 08:30:08 PM
Oh, OK.
Puckoon, I'm simply putting the Catholic position as I see it and to be honest I can see the logic of that position. I may not agree with the rules of the Church but I take a keen interest in them and debate them with the wife. In doing so, I can now that my previous Marxist interpretation that they were were invented by hermits with too much time on their hands in order to subjugate people is wrong and that there is a certain logic and moral honesty in them. I also see that to the faithful, the Church and it's teachings are treasured and they are deeply hurt when the Church is betrayed by one of it's own - whether it be the breaking of vows in this case, the child abuse scandals or merely the conceitedness displayed by many Irish Bishops.
Agree wholeheartedly - but also believe these rules are somewhat unascertainable for the majority of men. I know that priests are a particular breed, but with the vocational numbers dying out, the scandals, and the basic fact that men are of their very nature - I think that the logica and moral honesty may be better placed elsewhere (in this particular instance).
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 09:30:47 PM
Annulment can't be obtained if someone is cheating or abusive can it?
In themselves they wouldn't be grounds for an annulment because it would be expected you could forgive and mend the relationship. However if one party never intended on being faithful from the start or if the abuse was prolonged and causing harm or danger to the life of the other party, then there are grounds for annulment.
Alternatively, if you've plenty of money you shouldn't have too much bother getting an annulment off the Catholic Church
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:41:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 17, 2009, 09:25:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
Do people get divorced when they get tired of everyday life together? The Church basically forced previous generations of women to stick by their man no matter what was thrown their way. Women who were abused and could take no more left their husbands in times gone by. What did they get from the Church and its medieval ways? Treated like a leper, that's what.
Tony, I think these days people do get divorced because they are tired of their partner - their ways or personality or whatever excuse they use
I know in previous times the Church was more regimental about this but it has softened its approach to annulments when the cases they are looking at are genuine ones
While you may be correct about people becoming less tolerant in a marriage, and not working at it enough - there are cases when you end up divorced with no choice at all in the matter.
Does that mean you automagically should get the shaft from the church?
No woman should have to stay with an abuser, the first time a man lifts his hand to the wife or GF should be the last because she should be gone. If I did that to mine she would either A. Leave my arse or B. Hit me over the head with a baseball bat when I am sleeping, probably B.
As for the Priest, I agree with Donagh, all the backslapping for this man is unbelievable, he let a lot of people down no matter what way you cut it, that said I wish him well and all involved well.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 10:44:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:41:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 17, 2009, 09:25:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on November 17, 2009, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on November 17, 2009, 08:11:29 PM
But maybe she doesnt want direction or pastoral care donagh. Most seperated or divorced people these days don't care what they church think of them and don't look to the church for anything.
Maybe she's perfectly happy, was perfectly happy when she started going with him. You're making awful big assumptions to condemn the man.
Maybe, but sometimes a sick person may not want healed. That would be the view of a Catholic and as such the duty of a Catholic priest would be to attempt to give her guidance.
I'm not condemning the man, simply pointing out that by expected standards, his actions were wrong.
A lot of Catholics think that would be nonsense. I mean is there many out there who would expect someone to stay in a unhappy marriage? and I'd include priests in that. It may be the official church policy but I don't see or hear of it in practice too often, not this century anyway.
pints, you know I am a practicing Catholic. As such, I think the sacrament of marriage has to be respected, it's not simply between man and woman, they take oaths before God to promise various things, depending on the rite they choose. Marriage is a life-long committment, not to be ended when one party gets tired of the hum-drum of ordinary-day life.
Do people get divorced when they get tired of everyday life together? The Church basically forced previous generations of women to stick by their man no matter what was thrown their way. Women who were abused and could take no more left their husbands in times gone by. What did they get from the Church and its medieval ways? Treated like a leper, that's what.
Tony, I think these days people do get divorced because they are tired of their partner - their ways or personality or whatever excuse they use
I know in previous times the Church was more regimental about this but it has softened its approach to annulments when the cases they are looking at are genuine ones
While you may be correct about people becoming less tolerant in a marriage, and not working at it enough - there are cases when you end up divorced with no choice at all in the matter.
Does that mean you automagically should get the shaft from the church?
To be honest puckoon, I don't know enough about it to be able to answer that definitively without first knowing the individual circumstances - to give an off the cuff example, I don't think that a single instance of domestic violence would be enough to trigger an annulment
What Im asking is - what are your options - if your wife comes home some day (god forbid) and tells you that shes divorcing you? Youve been married in good faith, and most annulment criteria wont fit?
If you want to stay in swing with the church - what on earth can you do about it?
Also - can both, or only one party get granted the annulment?
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 11:07:02 PM
What Im asking is - what are your options - if your wife comes home some day (god forbid) and tells you that shes divorcing you? Youve been married in good faith, and most annulment criteria wont fit?
If you want to stay in swing with the church - what on earth can you do about it?
Also - can both, or only one party get granted the annulment?
What you could do in those extreme circumstances is to talk to your partner and try and resolve matters in another way. If she is asking you for a divorce because your farts smell bad and you don't use deodorant, chances are you wouldn't get an annulment for that
One time years ago my wife told me that if I was going to have an affair with another woman, I should tell her before embarking on it.
As I didn't (dare) ask for clarification at the time, that request has stayed in the doesn't make sense zone.
Maybe she had some emergency plans, a secret course of action mapped out in her brain, sourced from some Soap she was watching at the time, exactly on how she should deal with that news.
Quote from: Puckoon on November 17, 2009, 03:18:17 PM
The law of averages
The fact that I am getting none
Past history and form
The fact that preists are men - not super heroes with no sex drive
Its a bit like saying only the managers we know about are getting paid.
Its happened in the past, its happening right now, and its going to happen in the future.
If it's based on the law of averages then the fact that priests are men and priests would suggest they are getting less.
It's like saying that the managers we know that are getting paid are getting paid more than your average Joe while the majority of managers who probably don't get paid are probably paid more than the average guy too. It's doesn't make sense.
I can see both sides of the arguement about priests getting married, but I do think that they should be allowed to.
The number of priests is dying out, and the vow of celibacy is one of the factors causing the decline in numbers. I know of several friends who have all said that they had seriously considered the priesthood but didn't go that route because they did not want to be celibate!
On the other hand, we asked the nuns in school about it, why they felt it was still relevant in this day and age. Their answer was simple - when a man chooses to devote his life to God, he needs to be able to put all his energies and focus into it. It becomes his life. If a priest was to marry, then this effectively becomes a "distraction". He cannot have his entire life revolving around the church, he has to become a husband and potentially father as well.
In saying that, any woman who would marry someone in the church would have to be very understanding. She would always take second place - not many women would be prepared to accept that!
As things stand now the former Priest has broken his vows and was involved in a sexual relationship whist being a Catholic Priest, he has let down his congregation and further harmed the reputation of the Catholic Church if that is even possible nowadays. Then when discussed on here people give him pats on the back and say fair play to him and to me that is dead wrong.
All that aside, Priests should marry and will need to be able to marry in the future as the numbers of priests continues to decline due to the Churches issues on several fronts, one being the abuse cases worldwide and the other being the fact that they are asking too much of men nowadays in terms of the archaic rules surrounding celibacy.
Quote from: stew on November 18, 2009, 06:09:51 PM
As things stand now the former Priest has broken his vows and was involved in a sexual relationship whist being a Catholic Priest, he has let down his congregation and further harmed the reputation of the Catholic Church if that is even possible nowadays. Then when discussed on here people give him pats on the back and say fair play to him and to me that is dead wrong.
All that aside, Priests should marry and will need to be able to marry in the future as the numbers of priests continues to decline due to the Churches issues on several fronts, one being the abuse cases worldwide and the other being the fact that they are asking too much of men nowadays in terms of the archaic rules surrounding celibacy.
He's only human. priests maybe prominent figures in their communities but that doesnt mean they arent lonely as f**k. you're right about the catholic church needing to allow priests to marry. its not fair on them :-\
Priests make a vow of celibacy. They know exactly what they are getting into when they have Holy Orders conferred on them
In my opinion, that should remain. To do anything else would mean diminishing the role of the priest. That's not something practicing Catholics would want. Not that I would worry too much about this ever becoming possible while Pope Benedict XVI is at the helm :)
Quote from: Alco Pup on November 18, 2009, 09:55:43 AM
I can see both sides of the arguement about priests getting married, but I do think that they should be allowed to.
The number of priests is dying out, and the vow of celibacy is one of the factors causing the decline in numbers. I know of several friends who have all said that they had seriously considered the priesthood but didn't go that route because they did not want to be celibate!
On the other hand, we asked the nuns in school about it, why they felt it was still relevant in this day and age. Their answer was simple - when a man chooses to devote his life to God, he needs to be able to put all his energies and focus into it. It becomes his life. If a priest was to marry, then this effectively becomes a "distraction". He cannot have his entire life revolving around the church, he has to become a husband and potentially father as well.
In saying that, any woman who would marry someone in the church would have to be very understanding. She would always take second place - not many women would be prepared to accept that!
There's a number of jobs/careers with big demands and where family life come second. IN fact, what hours does a priest work exactly? f**k all I'd say.
If presidents and prime ministers can get married and have children then I think a priest could manage it too!
All these other jobs Pints get compensated for their hours.
You can't seriously compare presidents and priests......???
Quote from: The Iceman on November 18, 2009, 07:25:23 PM
All these other jobs Pints get compensated for their hours.
You can't seriously compare presidents and priests......???
I'm not trying to compare, I'm saying that there are jobs wiht far greater demands on people's time and with far greater responsibilities than a priest would have. The people in those jobs have family lives, why couldnt a priest? Other religions allow the equivalent of priest's to marry, why can't the catholic church?
Quote from: Take Your Points on November 18, 2009, 07:44:00 PM
Not arguing for or against celebacy but being allowed to marry hasn't created an unending stream of recruits to any of the Protestant churches. In most cases the vast majority of recruits to ministry in the Protestant churches are now women!
Aye but there are a half a billion Catholic men and there would be in all probability at least one hundred thousand new recruits if the Church did allow priests to marry.
Look we cannot just throw out these wild numbers without anything to back them up. Its all assumptions.
If Priests were to Marry then the job description would have to seriously change. The Protestant equivalents people have mentioned here do not have the same level of service required of them as their Catholic counterparts. Priests would also have to be paid at least 3 times what they are currently paid in order to support a family. With that said, what people are proposing is less work for three times the money?
The Church is changing. People want change but few people are prepared to do anything about it themselves. As the number of Priests decline then the number of Lay people who assist and volunteer at the Church should increase. Married Deacons can increase. My own parish here in America has 3 Married Deacons. They also have ton of people who sit on committees for everything under the sun and manage things i suspect Priests still manage in Ireland.
So of all the people shouting for change, how many of you are involved with your Church? How many of you read at Mass, or help with any form of Stewardship, how many give of your time or would be prepared to give of your time to take the burden of some tasks off your Priest?
If Priests were allowed to Marry would you start going to Mass then?
Half of yous give off about something that has no effect on you.
If you want change you need to change yourself.
See yous at Mass ;)
Thread is pointless without pictures of the lady in question.