Long answer – absolutely NO.

It is odd that Ireland will no longer be one of the 78 countries with full Vatican relations. Instead we will move towards countries with no relations like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the People’s Republic of China, Comoros, North Korea, Laos, Myanmar, Oman, …

YNWA!

John, its not even a pretend country !!

Exactly. It makes as much sense to have an embassy catering to Islam, Judism, Anglicanism etc.

The international community is simply humouring the CC by designating a small area in the middle of Rome as a “state”.

Actually it’s an independent state.

But it has a king, an absolute monarch.

Yeah, the idea was to merge them.

The Vatican don’t accept ambassadors to them if they are already an ambassador to another state, unlike most other countries. Which unfortunately rules out allowing the Irish ambassador to Italy to also be ambassador to the Vatican.

William, that’s nit fully correct. The Holy See most certainly dioes accept ambassadors who are also accredited to other states, with one exception – it will not accept an ambassador that is also accredited to Italy.

Good idea in my opinion.

Apologies, I had read that before actually about not accepting Ambassadors to Italy. However, the idea of having an ambassador to the Holy See that was accredited to another state would most practically mean having the Irish ambassador to Italy as the Ambassador to the Holy See. Unfortunately though they don’t allow that. And having say the ambassador to France or Switzerland also accredited to the holy see doesn’t seem much better than having the Ambassador resident in Ireland as is the case now. If an ambassador is going to have to travel to and from the Holy see they may as well be in Dublin.

That’s the vatican’s problem. If they won’t accept the Italian ambassador tough titty.

@ Steven, I fully agree. Especially in the economic times we find ourselves. Many countries have had to merge or close embassies abroad, smaller states or ones with less important links will usually be the first to go. The holy See should accept that and allow ambassadors to be accredited to both Italy and themselves, most embassies to the holy see are located outside of it in Rome anyway!

shame on those that have thumbed down the suggestion to open re-open a vital healt facility, can only assume they are elitists sitting on their pile and dont care what happens to the rest of the people

Thank you Paul I agree as I am living without that very vital service

Paul, I think you’ll find that the ten thumbs down come from Fascist Gaelers and their pets from the Labrador Party.

it has to be paid for, it will affect those who pay for everything here

The reason given for closing it was cost savings and in the current climate government costs, which means taxes in the end, does effect people.

Also I don’t want to come a cross as a pedant but you haven’t defined agnostic correctly, an agnostic believes it is not possible to know whether of not a god or gods exist. What you’re describing is a theist.

There is something fundamentally wrong when religion becomes politics. People have every right to believe what they wish but when they preach it in the public square they have not an automatic right to be taken seriously. Hating religion does not equate to hating religious people. That would be like saying that hating smoking was the same as hating people who smoke.

You sound more like an agnostic theist to me. You can’t claim to be a pure agnostic if you hold a belief. A few good reasons “why not” include…

The Vatican is in Rome and we already have an embassy there.

The Vatican isn’t a real country.

They were complicit in the abuse of vulnerable children worldwide, many in Ireland, for decades!

If you believe in an entity but don’t know what it is you are more a deist definitely not an agnostic. An agnostic doesn’t know if there is a god or not. I’m an agnostic (I don’t know) and an atheist (I don’t believe). As Paul pointed out, it will affect you, you just haven’t looked at how.

Silly comment Arantos. Course it doesn’t affect you, but it’s a total waste of money. Italian embassy is ten minutes away, use that.

(Right.. we will try to avoid the subject of abuse here for once!).
Why should we avoid it?
Having an embassy may not affect you, but rest assured that too many peoples experiences with this organisation have been swept under the carpet for long enough. Re opening an embassy lends far too much respectability, which they haven’t earned, to the Vatican.
Not to mention the pointlessness in terms of political or financial use.

Ha ha ! Another U turn Mr Gilmore ….
Did you forget that the Eucharist congress will be held here this year ???
Red faces on the world stage ….?
Under pressure from the church here?

If you’re a true catholic you believe the pope is God’s representative on Earth and is therefore infallible. By that logic, your God supports the cover up of acts of abuse committed by the church. You can’t criticise the Vatican and remain a catholic as you’re criticising your infallible God… or at least the catholic version. You can still say you’re a Christian if you want but the catholic church isn’t a democracy and you don’t get to choose what you believe and disbelieve. Personally, I think you should wake up to the fact that all religions and Gods are man-made and use your own moral judgement, which seems far better than their dogmatic one, as that’s what you’re using right now to criticise the “morals” of the church that are apparently dictated by “your” God.

“If you’re a true catholic you believe the pope is God’s representative on Earth and is therefore infallible. By that logic, your God supports the cover up of acts of abuse committed by the church. You can’t criticise the Vatican and remain a catholic as you’re criticising your infallible God… or at least the catholic version.”
Lorcan – that interpretation of Catholic belief is wrong. I know of nobody who believes that, not even the Pope.
Fair enough if you want to criticise the Church, but at least let’s try to understand what it actually teaches…

As a rabid atheist I’d just like to disagree with Lorcan. You’re misunderstanding infallibility. It applies only to doctrine not canon law. Criticise the Vatican all you want but get it right.

The pope is God’s infallible representative on Earth right? Let’s see what wikipedia has to say on the matter…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

So according to this “the pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals”. But he can still sin in his personal life and error in other things outside what the dogma covers. You can see where I got confused; I thought the matter of child abuse was a moral one. The whole “personal life” thing seems like a convenient way to back-pedal when a pope makes a mistake.

Also, I’m pretty sure the moral position of the church at this time is that any form of contraception is immoral. Therefore anyone who uses contraception cannot call themselves a catholic. Period!

Fair enough Ciaran I’ll take your word for it and stand corrected. Still though, religion is BS ;)

Lorcan – those who use contraception may (in certain circumstances) still call themselves Catholic.
The personal sins of the pope have nothing to do with infallibility. His personal sinfulness is always assumed by Catholics and indeed by the pope himself.

Just out of interest what are the “certain circumstances”? I was under the impression that the catholic church were against the use of condoms, even in aids riddled Africa. I remember reading a piece written by a priest serving in Africa arguing that the position of the Vatican was wrong as life is preserved by using condoms and not the other way around. It would make sense that if one participant is known to have HIV/AIDS they fall under “certain circumstances” (although I’m just guessing it would), however, I’d also guess that the vast majority of catholics who use contraception don’t fall into this category and I’m finding it difficult to come up with an excuse for them based on my understanding of catholicism.

Govt have taken note: surely that’s why they closed it and wont be reopening it any time soon?

You are correct I didnt read the article properly. They were considering a U turn. Good they have decided to stick with it for now at least.

Sadly this is true, keep Ze Ghermans and close the rest!!

If an individual is a little objective about these matters one will see that the Catholic Church, rightly or wrongly, has more influence in the affairs of our society than many of the far flung countries in which we continue to maintain embassies.

We also pulled out of Iran in the same week as the Vatican.

I’d have thought that when we have a conflict with another country/society/community we should encourage dialogue not stifle it.

As for moving to Rome, doubt we’d like it as a state if those countries currently with a presence here took the example of some others by simply basing their Irish Embassy in London.

(awaiting the anti-Church thumbs down!)

Winston
The RCC is neither a country, a society or a community. And the less influence it has in the affairs of our society the better. It can attend to its members spiritual needs quite effectively here without us having a embassy there.

Down with that sort of thing!

Hang it around Kennys neck

BP to use your analogy religion is the sin. Religion precedes its leaders. While the nice things Jesus said were a moral improvement on the pagan superstition that preceded it his making a virtue out of faith without evidence that has stalled the progress of humanity for the last 2000 years. The pope and all his cronies would have no power were it not for the millions of people who call themselves moderate Catholics. Moderate delusion among the masses props up the extreme delusion of the few. Apart from that religion is intellectual inexcusable in todays world.

Stalled the progress of humanity for 2000 years??
What about all of those of monks who developed pioneering approaches in agriculture and animal breeding? All of those who pioneered new building methods and who cultivated wild lands around which cities were developed?
What about the foundation of the great European universities, all of which originated from the Church? What about the preservation of learning and ancient manuscripts and the development of language? We could go on and multiply examples…
Those of religious faith have been at the forefront of progress for centuries.

Almar the developments you mentioned were not a result of religion itself but in spite of it. In this period anyone who were high up in the Church had power, money and influence and anyone who had these things control the progress of information and enquiry. That is like saying religion is good because they built hospitals and schools etc. The problem being so did the Nazis, the Taliban, Hamas, Iran and the Soviet union. During the period that religion had absolute control over society scientific progress was practically non existent and ignorant superstition reigned supreme. The developments you mentioned were a product of the era of enlightenment, a period that still has not finished. Scientific progress since then has grown exponentially and religion has for the most part declined at least in the west where most of this progress is happening. The fact that Christians started this process was merely the fact they had the money, power and resources to do it.

Do we still have a right-wing Catholic lobby? I thought they’d all gone to meet their maker in “Catholic Heaven” a long time ago.

I volunteer for the role of ambassador to the Pastafarians :)

Religion was invented by a minority as an easy means of controlling the majority. And so it remained for millenia. These days, television has taken its place.

Yep.

It’s actually reference to the mushrooms they have giant fountains in the shape of in the middle of St Peters Square..
They were known as the “gods flesh” and their final phase of growth is known as the “grail” phase, where they come to resemble a chalice and when the morning few collects in them the pigment mixed into the water resembles blood, hence “blood of the gods”.

Christmas and Easter weren’t the only pagan practices they kept..

Michael we have to stop this notion of faith being about doing good. Doing good is about doing good. If all that Jesus said was love the poor, feed the hungry and turn the other cheek and try and get along together then I would call myself a Christian. That is called ethical behaviour and is in accordance with the best scientific, sociological and psycholgical evidence on how to create happy harmonious societies. But the parts where he says I am the way the light and the truth no one can get to the father except through me is the direct opposite to all of the above. It is mean, petty ignorant and cultish and has spawned ignorant societies all around the world. It has declared war on science and progress, The part where he says those who do not believe are not blessed as was the parable with Tomas is the propagation of a view point that evidence not alone doesnt matter but even worse that it is not virtuous to ask for it. Human ethics and faith are two different things entirely one is good the other is decisvely bad. The problem being the Bible preaches both and in most cases Biblical ethics is deplorable because the desires of an invented psychotic god takes priority.

Very well said, Cyril. Very well said indeed.

In fairness, Cyril, I was not making any distinction between human ethics and Christian faith in my post, merely between Christian faith and Roman Catholocism.

Regarding the Christian Faith itself – it has, I concur, been used to control and dominate. However, that was never it’s intention.

What is written in Scripture, even in the Gospels themselves, can not be taken literally. Remember we don’t have a first-hand record of what Jesus actually said and it is quite likely that what has been written down contains bias (since that is human nature). The Gospel writers were keen to portray Jesus as being ‘divine’, ‘the Christ’ or ‘Messiah’. If we compare what is written in Matthew, Mark, Luke & John to what is contained in the ‘non canonical Gospel’ (such as the Gosepl of the Twelve, the Gospel of St Thomas) we find a much more ‘human’, approachable Jesus. As for the hebrew scriptures, they were written by many authors and each with a different agenda, the language is mythological and even today linguistic scholars are unsure of much. Again, we must look at it in the context of it’s time.

I disagree with you that faith is bad, however. Faith can be a wonderful experience and is capable of many things. It is essentially about being at peace with the world around us and with the consciousness to which our hearts are drawn (that is the only way I can explain my understanding of God).

Surely the path we take shouldn’t diminish our Humanity or our Christianity.

Best.

I don’t disagree faith can be a wonderful experience to those who have it so too are drugs and alcohol for some people but that is not to say that it is real or good for society in general. I have to take on this idea of Biblical literalists being bad/Biblical modernists good. The idea that the Bible was inspired in any way shape or form by anything other than Bronze/Iron age humans who were largely ignorant of everything is simply insane. This is not just an intellectual objection it is also a threat to our existence. So called every day Catholics have not read the Bible they know the minority of happy clappy warm things Jesus said and are completely oblivious to everything else that is deranged in the bible such as edicts that girls who are not virgins on their wedding night should be stoned to death by the village folk at her fathers door step. The problem is people say Jesus changed this where he tells the people who has not sinned to throw the first stone but in another breath in Matthew he tells that he has not come to change the laws of the prophets. Is god really this indecisive that he changes his mind after the ritualistic slaughter of his only begotten son.? That just about sums the Bible up. It is a book full of contradictions that can be used to justify whatever ethical and political views that people may take. Faith is just too easy an excuse for not having to justify ones beliefs on the basis of evidence. It provides the incentive for religions such as Islam that have not learned to ignore their crazy religious texts to act on 7th century literature to the detriment of their countries ability to govern themselves. Any regime religious or secular that shows distain for open and honest inquiry or who claim a right to be offended when people ask for evidence or seek to censor those who would criticise or mock such behaviour is simply bad. Dogma without evidence is not good. People will always wish to believe such things and should be free to do so just so long as decision making processes are based on rationality and science. The Vatican embassy is not necessary for people who wish to engage in their religious fantasies it is simply giving them pseudo-political and intellectual credibility.

Cyril, here’s ten more up-thumbs than the site will let me give you.

Cyril,
Faith is a ‘real’ experience to those for whom it is a reality. Just like drugs or alcohol, faith influences an individual on a conscious and subconscious level. Whether a person’s expression of his/her faith is good or bad depends entirely on the nature of the faith held. I cannot answer for cradle Catholics whose faith may be based on superstition, nor can I answer for Muslims who refuse to engage in a theological study of the texts they read; I, as an individual, can only answer for my own. My faith causes no difficulty to general society, nor does it pose any threat to existence.
The Bible itself is a very unique book and offers great wisdom. The Judaic laws, however, were probably composed while the Israelites were exiled in Babylon and were a direct prohibition of the perceived immorality that was taking place about them. You are right in saying that Jesus did not come to change the law, on the contrary, he came to fulfil the law. In other words, he came to offer a new way that was not dependant on laws, nor was it subject to the old traditions.
You can-not, in fairness, judge what the Scriptures contain by to-days standards. Events can only be judged by the societal norms of the day.
I agree that religion and faith should be open to discussion and subject to reason, however I totally disagree with your view that critics of religion have the right to ‘mock’ others for their conviction. Not only is that deeply wrong from a human perspective but it is also extremely bad manners. Every individual is entitled to respect, regardless of whether he/she hold a religious faith and regardless of what that faith happens to be.
Likewise, a person is free to hold an opinion that is neither rational nor scientific, provided said opinion does not interfere with the rights or freedom of others. After all, man may be a rational animal, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that all of his thoughts, words and action will be rational deductions of the facts. Indeed, I doubt that would be desirable. If every life is based on scientific rationale, then where will the beauty come from? The art? The literature?

Michael you are saying that one shouldn’t judge scripture on modern day values? By your own rationale the creator of the universe is behind the times and modern human reason supersedes him/her. So the god you believe in makes the pronouncement that it was ethical to keep slaves to homo sapien primates 4000 years ago but now every civilised person would abhor the practice. Why was the creator of the universe so averse to eating shell fish 3000 years ago but is ok with it now? We can explain the principles of beauty at least through science. The human brain through natural selection evolved to assess the set of genes most likely to have the best chance at successful reproduction hence attraction to boobs and hips etc. This is a similar reason why babies and puppies also look cute and innocent as the attention of a caring individual will be more likely to enhance their survival. A mans best friend used their genes to produce an innate likeability from its master and this greatly enhances its chances of survival. This does not in anyway detract from the joy of these things in terms of subjective experience but we know this begins and ends with the human brain. The brain is still a very mysterious organ but making up childish stories is not the solution it is an evolutionary vestige from our primitive past where curiosity would be an advantage to survival but being without science man had to make up stories to satisfy that curiosity.

As for saying it is bad manners to mock religion why is it not bad manners to mock David Icke or Scientology in the way most Catholics would? Why is it not bad manners for proponents of global warming to mock those who don’t believe in man made global warming? Why is it not bad manners for Fianna Fail to mock Fine Gael?You say it is bad manners, the religious leaders say it is bad manners but never give a valid reason. As for respect I respect people too much to let them off the hook when they believe things that are not justified. We mock things that are said without due regard for evidence. I would put it to you that it is extremely arrogant for religious leaders to hijack the school system, the political system and the media and propagate myths like these and not expect to be held to account by rationalists. I have due respect for everyone and that includes religious people but some ideas are not worthy of respect but outright ridicule. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect you as a person but I do not respect your religion nor that of anyone else.

Labours way is the USSR way.

In that case we’ll need to open hundreds of embassies or poor old Liechtenstein might be upset…

who needs an embassy there, couldn’t we just have a pray if we needed to talk directly to their boss. ;-)

You’re right Rob. We should reopen the Vatican embassy if only to keep an eye on a group of misogynist bigots known in underground circles as ‘the frocks’. There are rumours of another gang of mind terrorists hanging out there called ‘the croziers’

People are voting with their feet by leaving the church or are we to gather as a mob and tear the church down in a form of direct action. This would only prove what we have not learned from their way of how not to do things.
The church has taken the heart of the people and abused it for long enough so by not attending the church you don’t give it away.
The only form of protest that is left is to turn your back and walk away from them as they, the church cannot see their failing in this matter let alone Confess to those they have abused.

“you confess to almighty god, to you my brothers and sisters that you have sinned through your own fault, by your thoughts and your words for what you have done and WHAT YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO.. Why did you not STOP the abuse?
Answers on a post card please.

I am personally not a catholic so to be honest with you this should we or shouldnt we does not affect me , what i am saying is that the notice of closure on this embassy is purely fiscal and has nothing in any way linked to the abuse inflicted upon the Irish. May I also add that with being a member the catholic church you are either in or out so dont sit on the fence and say i am voting with my feet and then start quoting from the bible with the next breath,The problem in Ireland is we are all talk and no action and this attitude has helped to create the mess we are in today in many ways

Great point!

Is trade and revenue the only thing that matters? Is humanitarian work to one of the world’s most poorest nations (Malawi) unworthy too? Our embassy in Malawi is key to continuing this effort, and is one all Irish people should be proud of.

I’ve been to Malawi and there’s no embassy there. The embassy in Tanzania is tiny and looks after the majority of east Africa at little expense.

Should be opening embassies in Thailand and consulates in china.

There is an embassy in Malawi the address is given on the Dept. of Foreign Affairs website. http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=5493

No problem Josef I voted no also lol