to think that the catholic church are bloody immoral and need to be made answerable to the shit they seem to get away with?

[cupcakesandbunting]

I am referring to this; www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296

and yes, I am totally aware that the police and government are to blame too but we expect governments and to an extent police, to be corrupt.

I am saying this as a RC too. I am fucking shocked at the amount of revolting crap that the church seem to get away with. Covering up paedophiles/abusers, bombers and who knows what else.

Why are they never made accountable?

Hey dp, just turn the other cheek. Isn't that in your rule-book?

For the record, though, seeker, it's getting a bit tiring. Can't we just talk about the subject now, I'm sure we're all aware of dp's posting history by this point...

Somebody asked what they think they should do, seeing as their faith's important to them. Well, I'd consider the wisdom is gleaning one's faith from such an obviously flawed institution for a start. If people want to believe, that's their affair, but tying said belief to an organisation that has, throughout history, constantly and consistently shown itself to be about power and influence rather than humbly representing the word of Jesus seems like a wrong move. It's almost as if there's a lack of faith going on and only being tied to the big, scary, mother church will bolster up their belief system. What's the need for organised religion? Surely it's all there in that book of yours?

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Freddo, you sound like a nice person. But if you think about that particular sentence in any context other than accepting it as, er, gospel, can you not see that it can, and indeed has, been used as self-justification for all sorts of nonsense? Believing that you are right simply BECAUSE you believe (and for no other logical reason) can sometimes be a misguided and possibly even dangerous attitude to have.

Seeker, thank you for your attempt to save me from my better nature. As it turns out I have a fairly good idea of DP's political sympathies and some of her other views, and yet, contrarian republican socialist feminist Catholic that I am, I choose to support her right to post and her right not to have posters express a wish that she had never been born, and her right not to have posters make crude, derogatory remarks about her parents. I value civility. (Threads such as this are a constant source of dismay for me as a result).

I simply do not understand why anyone would feel such fierce animosity towards any church, or the Catholic Church specifically, if those organisations have apparently done absolutely nothing to harm them personally, ever. How can people get so exercised about art or music or culture or science and the alleged strangulation at birth of all of the above by the Catholic Church? Really -- where is the red hot anger coming from? What is biting you all?

Why refer so sneeringly to the cornerstone of someone's faith (the faith of millions actually, both Jews (Torah) and Christians) as 'that book of yours'? The 'book' includes a reference to the building of a church organisation, and implicit acknowledgment of the idea of a temple and the necessity thereof. Hence organised religion. You don't have to join up if you don't want to. Why sneer at those who do?

'Righteousness' does not mean 'being right' or feeling that you are 'right', HouseOfBamboo. Righteousness involves many virtues, probably chief among them should be humility.

For those of you who have alleged that the Catholic Church is all about power and influence down through history, no doubt you are aware that that is the reason for continued discrimination against Catholics and continued suspicion of Catholicism in many protestant dominated countries even today? From Al Smith to JFK to Tony Blair, the old charge against the Catholic Church has been trotted out and used against Catholics aspiring to high political office. (And no, my mentioning of them does not imply any support for them as political candidates or admiration for their policies or the way some of them conducted their personal lives) It's a holdover from hundreds of years ago, probably the days of the Spanish Armada. Time to move on? It's not the 1500s any more.

Mathanxiety - yes I can see that 'righteousness' isn't literally meaning righteous as in self-righteous or correct, here. Would righteousness be more 'what we (as believers) believe that God decrees as the right kind of behaviour'?

That's clumsily worded on my part, I know.

I think my original point still stands though, especially as there will be many who - in their heads - will be happy to fudge the meanings of 'righteous' and 'right' to justify their own behaviour.

No, I don't think that would cover it. Conflating the notion of 'right' in any sense or context with 'righteousness' is going to confuse the matter and mislead. Righteousness is not behaviour, it is a state of mind or a type of consciousness, a matter of relationships with God, people and material things. Any attempt at self-justification, coming up with excuses for one's behaviour by appeal to God or scripture, would be the opposite of righteousness, as righteousness implies a virtuous way of looking at things (including humility).

I don't think there are that many people who will naturally be inclined to confuse the terms. After all, not everyone who is or ever has been a Catholic speaks English, where the two terms share one syllable ('right') but have different meanings. The limitations of the English language can be overcome if you look elsewhere for clues to an adequate definition -- one of the French terms for 'self-righteous' is 'pharisaique' (i.e., 'like a Pharisee'). Any intelligent person can come up with a reasonable and rational motivation or reason for doing or saying or believing something, but it takes a righteous person to 'walk humbly with God' (Micah).

Part of the problem or confusion of righteousness with rightness, I feel, lies with Luther and the doctrine of justification by faith and faith alone through God's grace. If God has predestined you to salvation just through belief, how can you ever be in the wrong? Justification/righteousness came entirely from God, according to Luther. People did not go about the business of following Christ in co-operation with God, he taught, but only by the action of God, as his earthly instruments and vessels. (From the Smalcald Articles: "All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23?25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us ... " ) The Catholic Church disagrees with this, insisting on works as an adjunct to faith, and on confession and penance for sins.

"Seeker You come across at best as tedious and self righteous, and at worst completely intolerant and rigidly dogmatic."

I have never - with one exception - made any personal references to individual Catholics.

But I do get very angry about the role that organized religion plays in society - and has played throughout history. I feel about religious people the way I feel about smokers. I want to breathe air without smoke in it. I don't mind at all if people smoke in their own homes, just so long as they don't smoke in mine or in any public space. I want clean air - they want to add something to it. It is therefore for them not me to find a way to smoke without impinging on my air.

Religious people are free to do whatever they like in their own homes and in their own familiies. But I want the schools, political systems and so on that I use to be free from religion. Religious people want to add religion to these things. They are the ones who want to add something to my metaphorical "clean air" As I have said many times, but it's a good example, it is impossible to send your child to a State school in this country where religion is not practiced. That seems to me to be shameful - my needs and wishes for a faith-free environment for my children, "clean air' if you like, is completly ignored, and the needs and wishes of religious people take precedence. How is this justifiable?

because there are many religious people who think differently to you, and it has been part of our culture for years. Sounds like you want some kind of clean, pure Lebensraum, but life isn't like that. You have to accommodate the wishes of others.

Sorry, "Punk". Damn typos.

"You have to accommodate the wishes of others."

But why do the wishes of religious people carry more weight?

Using the school example. religious people can pray with their children for the entire 18 hours when they are not at school. I can't "unpray" with mine!

snobear you are hardcore and I can't help likin it!

Just a few points!

DaftPunk - You should be able to post anywhere you want, this is mumsnet not communist China. Probably a stupid question, but have you considered name changing to avoid all this?

Heracles - It was me that asked what people whose Catholic faith is important to them are supposed to do (about 50 pages ago ) - thank you for responding.

You say, '' it's almost as if there's a lack of faith going on and only being tied to the big, scary, mother church will bolster up their belief system. What's the need for organised religion? Surely it's all there in that book of yours?''

Well I would in one sense agree, everyone with faith experiences doubts sometimes and being a member of the church does help bolster my beliefs sometimes (although to me it's not 'scary'!). The reason it does that is because I see so many good people and intelligent people involved in it, both today when I go to Mass and through history (saints from a thousand years ago).

I think it's much more natural to act and celebrate as a member of group than alone, it's just human nature.

Also, No, it is not all there in the Bible. That's a big mistake people make about Catholicism, we go on the bible and Church teaching (which is mostly contained in the Catechism). Church teaching has been developed by many great minds over the last two thousand years and it mainly applies and develops scripture with respect to the world we live in now. Personally, I find it a very good moral guide, I do not act on it like an unthinking sheep but I try to think about what it says properly, and usually find I agree!

HouseofBamboo - 'Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness' - I refer to what Jesus would have meant by righteousness (as it was Him that said it!), ie. behaving in a Christlike manner. Anyone who uses it in any other context is talking rubbish imo

Seeker - I'm puzzled to know why religion bothers you so much, we live in quite an atheist society and religion is pretty avoidable imo. I thought there was very little religion in state schools now? And if it is there, isn't it just talking about basic non-controversial morals which you most likely agree with anyway? I think comparing religion to smoking is a bit unfair as it's not like the very presence of religion is causing you harm (as passive smoking does). You might say it's causing you psychological harm, but I could come back and say the presence of atheists is doing the same to me!! [I don't think that btw]

"But why do the wishes of religious people carry more weight?"

probably because there are more of them. The majority probably want to maintain our Christian traditions, our hymns and our Christmas carols.

If this wasn't the case, then the progressives would waste no time in trying to abolish faith schools; anything to get a few more votes. But instead, the Catholic progressive Tony Blair and the progressive Gordon Brown want to maintain our Christian heritage and are full of praise for it

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263057/Gordon-Brown-hails-Christianity-conscience-country--claims-Labour-Good-Samaritan.html

also Seeker, isn't having some kind of Christian instruction at school giving your children the chance to see what Christianity is like and ultimately choose for themselves whether they want to be religious or not?

Claig, how deluded to feel believers are in the majority in this country. Many studies have demonstrated otherwise.

38% believe in God if you if you take the time to read through this

this study states 66% of UK residents do not belong to any church, less than 40% believe in god

again, the 38% figure is used

You are speaking nonsense. Then again, you quote the Mail so it's no surprise.

snotbear
the only thing statistics prove is that
statistics prove nothing

unfortunately FreddoBaggyMac, many among us hate Christianity with a vengeance, they are desperate like little devils to get rid of it. They don't hate Buddhism or Daoism in the same way, their ire is directed solely at Christianity. They want to topple it and to abolish it. That's what the progressives secretly want, but they know that the lumpen masses don't agree with them, and that's why they despise the lumpen masses. The progressives agree with their mentor, Marx, that "religion is the opium of the masses". They want to destroy it, so that people worship the Great Leader instead, and queue up at Lenin's tomb. They want power over our minds and the Church is their enemy, since many of us believe its teachings. They don't want the Church preaching the sanctity of life and standing up for the poor and the dispossessed, because they don't believe in these things. They want to have the power of life and death over us, they want to ship us to gulags if we don't believe in their progressive communist/socialist religion. That's why they butchered priests and ransacked churches in any country where they imposed their communist Marxist religion. They hate religion, and the Catholic church is the major opponent of Marxism, that's why they hate Catholics and want to smear and destroy them at every available opportunity.

Well, there are probably more religious than non-religious people in the US, but public schools still manage to be secular, and yet organised religion thrives -- I agree with Seeker that there should and indeed could be at least a secular option in the UK.

In the US, those who choose to send their children to a parish school or other religious school can still do that, and they pay to do so. Parishes run religious education programmes out of school hours for children whose parents wish to have them exposed to the religious education element that they would miss in the public schools.

It has been my observation that Catholic families generally take more care to take their children to Mass, involve them in parish ministries (food pantries, meals and shelter for the homeless, etc.) and do their utmost to ensure the practice of religion than they might if they were taking for granted that the children would somehow pick up religion in school or from the general Christian atmosphere.

Snobear - your post backs up mine - we live in an atheist society!

mathanxiety - you sound just like my DH - he has the same view about faith schools as you exactly (you're not my dh are you....??)

I very much doubt it

Claig - are you actually serious about the all atheists are Marxists thing? Or is it just 'progressive' atheists (whoever they might be)? (Sorry if you're being ironic or something and I've missed the point.)

not all the atheists. Many atheists haven't got a clue about the politics involved. However, many of our opinion formers are progressives, they control much of our so-called intellectual media and broadcasting networks. They influence people by what the information they propagate. The Catholic church control no media and are always on the back foot due to the machinations of the progressives who run our most influential media outlets.

Also, Snobear, I'd really like a response to my 7.59am post if you have the time in between abusing DP...