Messages

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.

[You're just rambing now for the sake of it.]

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.

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.

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. 

[You're just rambing now for the sake of it.]

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?

[his]

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.

[so as you are a firm, non wavering, fundamentalist catholic]

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're just rambing now for the sake of it.]

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.

...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.

[Catholic]

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.

...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.

Dinny Cahill is the new Antrim Hurling manager according to the BBC

Good man Dinny. I take it we can expect Antrim to win the AI before 2013?

[I was not referring to six individual cases in NI, rather, I was referring to the (former) general situation in NI and the (present) general situation in SA, that's all.]

I was not referring to six individual cases in NI, rather, I was referring to the (former) general situation in NI and the (present) general situation in SA, that's all.

In each of these incidents the RUC knowingly shot dead six unarmed men who could have been arrested. You allege this was an attempt to stop violence from escalating when it's obvious to all impartial observers that they were nothing more than revenge/reprisal killings by the state which could only escalate into more violence.

That is how you characterise it, I would do so differently.

Now what exactly are the similarities with the article you have posted about South Africa?

I suspect it is your closeness to the situation in NI which is preventing you from "seeing the wood for the trees". Of course there are many differences between NI and SA; however, on this particular topic there may also be said to be certain parallels.
At least, that's my opinion; or is this another* instance where other people are not allowed to deviate from the Party Line, as determined by Donagh? 

* - Derry Priests leaving the Church to marry being just the latest one...

I assumed when you posted it on a thread about the six Armagh murders that you believed there was some relevance to those incidents. My mistake then.

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.

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.

[their]

Who says she's Estranged or in difficulties with the church?

She's Catholic and divorced/separated, so is obviously experiencing pastoral difficulties.

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".

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.

How is a priest supposed to change the churches stance on her divorce?

As above

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.