Good arguement Brendan, but there is already a Church of Ireland, perhaps Irish Community Church would do?

Thats my point, most people’s beliefs are very much in line with Church of Ireland teaching, I don’t think there’s a need for another offshoot.

Spot on Brendan. I believe a substantial proportion of Irish who call themselves catholic are in fact protestant. Unfortunately the grip of catholicism on education and social traditions either prevents or dissuades them from realising or admitting this.

“But why claim to still be Catholic, and get the institution to conform to your views?”

Probably because the alternative has a “whiff of being English about it”…

Surely nationalism should have no place in any christians beliefs?

It shouldn’t if you take your religion seriously, but Catholicism is mainly a cultural identity to many

Yes, that’s right, that well known Protestant, Rev Ian Paisley is so much more liberal than Catholics. There is as much intolerance in most major world religions as there is in Catholicism

Orla what do any of these comments have to do with liberalism or intolerance? We were talking about mistaken identity

Brendan, did I misunderstand your point? I took your post to suggest that because so many Catholics in the survey were espousing liberal views that they sounded like Protestants. My point is that Protestantism and other religions can be as intolerant and extreme as Catholicism can be.

@Orla, do you think this makes it alright then.

no, my argument was that a lot of Protestant faiths hold these exact views.

Ciara, the declaration of independence by the leaders of 1916 included Ireland becoming a Republic as a central tenet of the declaration. They stated their belief that they were speaking for all the people of Ireland, therefore they were declaring Ireland to be a republic at that time. It hardly warrants calling someone a sap, does it? Subsequent events eventually led to Ireland becoming recognised internationally as a Republic albeit with 6 counties missing. And don’t forget we were recognised internationally as a Republic with Articles 2&3 of the Constitution claiming the territory of Ireland was 32 counties. I don’t log on here much so have no idea why you dislike this woman so much but perhaps the discussion would be enhanced by playing the ball and not the person.

Michael, make what alright? Liberal Catholic views or intolerance in religions? If you’re not Catholic why do you care so much what religion a person claims to be, and what gives you the right to be so dogmatic about what religion they declare for? What is not alright is where the State does not uphold its secular status, that is my only real concern when it comes to the religious beliefs of any group of people.. I disagree strongly with the Government’s stance on a range of issues, the central governing body of this State, but that doesn’t make me less of an Irish person or a citizen of this Republic.

Jaysus Orla, you having a bad day, it is an assumption of yours that I am not catholic, where have I said that?
I just can’t stand pious religous zealots who ram things down your throat…

Like the religious zealot Catholics interviewed for the survey? I haven’t had that experience of any religion in the last 25 years, although the lack of schools for non Catholics is the biggest issue which the State has to address when it comes to separation between it and the Church.

You’re not the only one…

Absolutely William. Also, the fact that most comments on The Journal tend to be liberal, progressive etc reflects a trend in Irish public opinion that has been evident for quite some time now, especially among younger age groups..I would suggest any unreasonable ‘bias’ lies elsewhere.

@ Brendan…snap

@Gavin………………..I for one am not a Protestant, nor am I a Roman Catholic.

I am an Anglo Catholic. i.e. I am a member of the Church of England, both baptised and confirmed as such.

However, my faith is personal to me.

Live and let live. We should all try to “rub along” together, irrespective of any religous belief.

Just sayin. :)

Noted Gavin ;)

Niall,

That’d be like asking a lifelong FFer to vote FG (or vice versa). It has nothing to do with “belief”…

Why should the teachings of the Church be determined by a poll?

@ AlMar Because the contents of the bible were decided by a committee and god wasn’t on the committee.

The pope doesn’t need to listen to anyone because he talks to god in person. If you don’t believe this, you’re not a catholic

If I wandered around the place saying god was talking to me I’d be medicated but because a pack of lads had a vote and Ratzinger wears a big hat we should believe him? hmmm

On the nail. But hell will freeze over before that happens. It’s a very effective political organisation…

And don’t forget why priests aren’t allowed marry, it’s not a religous thing, it’s protection of assets.

good grief, imagine a country with no priests!

Ye who will RTE ring in a locality when someone gets shot or creamed on the roads??

you make it sound as if ending up with no priests would be a bad thing…..

@Mark Mac

Yes, it’s a wonderful thought.

Those of you who said it wouldn’t be a bad thing if they were gone. One day you yourself will need the assistance of a priest, and he will be there for you regardless of your ignorance.

…I’d sooner the assistance of Tom Cruise and his wonky scientology…

Why would anyone ever NEED a priest…bloody charlatans…

Just as a matter of interest… Who christened and confirmed you/your children? Who was the one who made your marriage official . Who will be there at your death bed when you are in your final hours? A priest that’s who! They are an integral part of every community in Ireland. I am glad I was brought up with involvement of the catholic church, I am by no means a holy joe but I do know that having no faith is a terrible thing.

Then they need to reinstate the ‘Count me out’ site. Why did the church change Canon law so that people couldnt formally leave the church? What are they afraid of? Mass defection I reckon!

Ciara,

Canon Law only applies to adherants of Roman Catholicism.

You CAN formally leave the R. C. Church.

1. Write to the priest of the Church you were baptised / confirmed in and ask your name be struck from the register. Enclose a S.A.E. and ask for confirmation that it has been done.
2. CC the letter to the bishop of the respective diocese.
3. If you do not receive a reply, visit the presbytery in person and demand to see your name be struck off the register.

Correct me if i am wrong, but my theory of why so many Irish people count themselves as Catholic has more to do with the history of the English occupation and wanting to belong to a Irish identity than believing in a German pope and the deluded beliefs they espouse.

Would like to enlighten what they are then

@ Creatively, yes, actually, Buddhism is a feeling. Buddhism, unlike Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism, etc. is not a religion. In Buddhism there are no deities, angels, supernatural forces, etc. Just a belief in self-improvement by meditation. There is no scripture or doctrine to follow. In some countries, however, (such as Thailand, Tibet, Vietnam, etc.) Buddhism has been combined with pre-existing belief systems to incorporate an element of religion, i.e. belief in some form of supernatural. There are Buddhists who view Buddha as a sort of demi-God. But these are local beliefs and not actually part of proper Buddhism. In Buddhism there is no pre-life or afterlife. There are no souls. There is no creation myth. There is no Church authority. It is quite possible to be both Christian and Buddhist at the same time. Christian for spirituality (belief in God and Jesus and the teachings of the Bible), and Buddhist for self-improvement.

Point taken.
However, I think Buddhism is generally included as a religion. I’m mainly familiar with the Tibetan version. It is self-improvement for the “sake of all beings” (higher schools) through both meditation and action. There is Samsara and the 6 realms of existence which is kind of an afterlife, but the idea is to exit this and reach the state of Buddha-hood thereby helping all beings. There are deities, but I think these are mainly to help focus meditation.
There is also scripture but not doctrine. Unfortunately the Chinese burnt much of the older scrolls. Also, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the head of the religion, however the emphasis of this system of belief is that it is up to each individual to reach a state of complete Wisdom & Compassion.
While I agree that I can call myself whatever I like, it’s a bit of a stretch to call Buddhism a feeling. Also, I think if you delve deeper into Catholicism and Buddhism there are many conflicting views of the world.
So I guess you are implying that Catholicism is more than a feeling?… how so?… what’s the definition?

Well I for one said you could no longer describe yourself as Catholic if you disagreed with most of the teachings that the Church currently expresses. I think thats fair, just because people call themselves Catholic doesn’t mean I have to respect that any more than they have to respect me if I call myself a woman.

And as for the Church being made of many voices, it’s not. The Occupy movement has many voices, workers unions have many voices, and early Republicans had many voices, namely Pro and Anti-Treaty. Church authorities have no patience for discussion and consensus, it’s based on papal authority; what the Pope says goes, and he only has one voice. If you don’t agree with papal authority you can’t reasonably call yourself Catholic, and just because you decide to do so anyway doesn’t make the points people are making above any less valid.

It makes you even more brainwashed Kevin. You know something isnt right but too hooked to Catholic authority to take action.

You’ve missed the point, if you want to be a Catholic you have to follow their rule. Their rules state the Pope is infallible, if you don’t believe that and don’t go along with the his teachings on the likes of pre-marital sex, divorce then whether you like it or not you are not a true catholic.

So Brendan by your logic any member that would disagree with something Enda Kenny said would have to leave FG?

No Sean, because political parties (since they’re democratic by nature) are one of my examples that have many voices. Fine Gael isn’t planning a gay marriage referendum because Enda wants it, its because their members want it. Maybe they want it for moral reasons or because they think it will win them voters, but it’s definitely not because Enda personally wants gay marriage legalised.

@Brendan your example doesn’t work nor would any other comparison. There are certain elements that are required for you to define yourself as a woman that I assume you don’t currently possess. What it means to be Catholic is defined in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds. I fully believe in all the elements that are set down in those texts and as such I consider myself a Catholic.

In relation to there only being one voice in the church well the results of this survey and the existence of The Association of Catholic Priests seem to refute that claim.

@ Cyril . No. I understand that nothing created by humans can be perfect including the Church. Unlike you, however, I also believe that despite my disagreement with some areas of teaching the Church does a lot of good in the world and is the church created by one of Christ’s apostles (all but one of whom was married by the way). I can also accuse you of being brainwashed because you have become obsessed with the idea that religion is to blame for most of the world’s problems, that religion will some day be eradicated by pure rational argument and that the result will be a utopian world. None of these things are true.

@ Richard I haven’t missed the point at all I just haven’t look at it in a simplistic manner. Whether you like it or not these kind of debates are going on all over the world among both lay members and clergy. Just as debates have occurred on many areas including papal infallibility which was only added to church doctrine in the 19th century. Debating some areas of church teaching does not make me any less Catholic

“There are certain elements that are required for you to define yourself as a woman that I assume you don’t currently possess.”

And Kevin there are certain elements necessary to Catholic faith that people highlighted in this survey don’t currently possess. And since the Apostle’s and Nicene Creed are used by many non-Catholic denominations, inlcuding Lutherans, the very first non-Catholic Christians, defining your Catholicism by them probably isn’t the best idea. If you believe in all the elements set down in those you should consider yourself Christian, and nothing more specific than that.

And as far as the Church as an institution is concerned, those voices don’t count. The Church will never formally accept homosexuality or any of what’s mentioned above, sure it took them until 1991 to admit that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Thanks Brendan. Let me rephrase then. I believe in Catholic theological interpretation of and teaching in regards to the statements within the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds. And there you will find differences although the main Lutheran churches and the Catholic church are a lot closer these days than they once were. I believe that Christ appointed his apostle Peter to spread his teachings and that the Catholic church is the result of that (however flawed and human it may be).

I don’t share your pessimism in the Church’s ability to change in keeping with the teachings of Christ. But in the end I guess we will both have to wait and see. As for heliocentrism well that’s a somewhat disingenuous view given there were attempts by the Catholic hierarchy to ban books that disagreed with Galileo’s theories two centuries ago but then again it’s always easier to promote the simplistic view (like leaving out the fact that although he came to the right conclusion Galileos reasoning was flawed, unscientific and rejected by many contemporary scientists).

So what Catholic teaching stems from them then? Catholics are the only ones who fully support the idea that Peter personally set up the Catholic Church but surely that’s not enough to consider yourself Catholic? I’m sure a lot of Muslim or Jewish historians might come to the same conclusion. Hell I might if the evidence presented itself.

Regarding your optimism that that the Church will change in keeping with the teachings of Christ, maybe Galileo was a bad example but the Church was never really on the same page as Christ, to this day the Catholic Church outlaws divorce even though Christ said it was ok in the case of adultery, the second most common reason for divorce in Western culture. And he said nothing about homosexuality or contraception either.

Agree with Richard & Brendan – the definition of Catholic seems to be very stretched here.

51% my eye. The mass attendance figure in dublin alone is only 12%

You just can’t have a fair honest debate with some people, when the findings of a survey suit their mindset they are fact, when they don’t suit you discard the facts.
There are parts of this survey that I’m not happy with but I’ll except the results

this survey was only done with 1000 people. the one done last year or maybe the year before was a larger test base so i would consider that one more reliable than this one.

Hi David, This survey was not done with the general public like the one you quote. At the beginning of it’s findings it clearly explains the demographics, one being: Those who defined themselves as anything other than Catholic were screened out early in the Survey.
So 51% attendance a month by Catholic is plausible, I did not claim 51% of entire population.

Agreed! -

In this instance the association is not speaking for anyone, but merely carrying out a survey to determine the opinions of Irish catholics and publishing their findings. If they don’t speak for you, does that mean you think it was wrong to carry out the survey? Or do you doubt the results? Or do the opinions of 1000 Irish catholics not matter to you?

A tired and dated agenda Fergal?
Compared to the Catholics church’s tired and fatal agenda (i mean fatal – the church’s stance on contraception has been devastating in Africa, not mentioning all the other bloodshed in history in the Catholic church)
You dont believe in your own priests? Men you call Father?
The Catholic church is doomed

@Fergal:

That is so sad on so many levels…

how about because it is utter nonsense based upon a lie…that’s a good reason for vitriol for me.

You may find it rather difficult to prove what Jesus said to be a lie, Gavin, unless you also deny the existence of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Eh virgin birth…that’s a lie…that’s the start of the “jesus” story.

I don’t believe there is ANY historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth….it’s all made up.

Fully agree. I found myself serioulsy at odds with the church’s stance on many issues and, just as you describe, I formally defected. If anything, it had a very positive impact on my spirituality. We should all allow people to adhere to their own faiths and not expect anyone else to follow it. The basic rules of human decency – do unto others and you have them do unto you – are probably the only principles we need to hold onto. Everything else strikes me as pious additions but not something that should be foisted on people of different faiths and, indeed, no faith. We should all be equal citizens irrespective of our religious affiliations.

@ Michael Oh but Jesus DID agitate and his agitation led to his death. He challenged the political & religious elites. He wasn’t a mild and meek person by any stretch of the imagination and he was a supporter of the death penalty for those who abuse children and for those who cause children to be abused. He mentioned ‘millstones’ and ‘deepest ocean’ for those people. Have you heard any big splashes recently from the Vatican or from the Irish hierarchy?

If Jesus were to appear in the Vatican today he would be physically restrained and turfed out.

Andrew,

Jesus challenged the perception of the Mosaic Law and, in doing so, aroused the ire of the priests and Pharisees for whom the law was immutable. He committed no offense other than question the status-quo, however in a politically volatile era it was his very questioning of the status-quo that led to his gruesome death.

As for the death penalty, I think you are taking what he said out of context. Never did he condone the taking of life but rather said: “let him without sin cast the first stone”.

I do, however, share your outrage at the Roman Church’s crimes, particularly child abuse and concur that the Vatican, in all its glory, is so far removed from the Christian ideal that Jesus would find no home there.

Gavin,

The virgin birth is an article of faith but doesn’t form any part of Jesus’ own message. There are two explanations given by scholars and historians.

The first is the mistranslation of maiden to virgin in the Greek translation. Secondly, the authors of the Gospels may have been inclined to embellish the facts in order to promote the idea of Jesus being the Messiah. In doing so, they may have applied certain ‘conditions’ associated with Greek and Egyptian deities, such as virginal birth.

Before condemning, however, bear in mind the context in which the Gospels were written – namely to provide spiritual sustenance for a persecuted people.

As for historical evidence being invented……………you can’t expect me to take you seriously on that one.

Because Michael- Christianity is based on the Bible, which in turn introduces the story of Jesus. The King James Bible is by no means a “word of God” as it was decided by men- there have been hundreds of different Bibles; some portraying Jesus as just a Teacher; others as Son of God and others as a good man with good principles but nonetheless… man. Constantine
Id research both the First and Second Council of Nicaea if i were you in which they decided what was to be believed- that doesnt sound divine to me?
That is why I have a problem with Christianity in general as all of it is based on the “Bible” which was only created because Constantine needed an official consistant doctrine to which his citizens would have to follow.
Christianity, fundamentally has as much factual credibility as Ancient Egyptian Gods, Greek/Roman Pantheon or the old Gods of the Celts in pre-Christian Ireland and as such I just cant see why it should be believed?

Fiachra

Christianity, from the word “Christ”, is based on the the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is divided into the hebrew (old) and Greek (new) Scriptures. The Council of Nicea was used by Constantine, after he adopted Christianity as the state religion, to ‘regulate’ the Christian Faith. Unfortunately, the resultant Creed was doctrinal in nature and too much was excluded. The ‘Canon’ of the New Testament was ‘set’ which left out many wonderful Gospels, such as that of Thomas, Mary of Magdela and the Gospel of the Twelve.

The language of Scripture is mythical and can only be understood by putting what is written into context. Jesus, himself, frequently used metaphors and spoke in parables in order to communicate his message to the audiences of the day.

The point I’m trying to get across is that, for the most part, the message of Jesus Christ is grossly misunderstood by so many. The Bible itself was written by many, many authors and each author will have written from a particular point-of-view. As a book, however, it tells a very human story – the story of hope conquering fear.

Exploring Spirituality and Faith is a worthwhile endeavour. But do not explore as though you are exploring a scientific reality…………….what the senses don’t comprehend, faith supplies.

Good point

So you advocate a form of censorship by only allowing one article per day about the church. Are you afraid of discussion about the church? How do you respond to the results that the vast majority of these practising catholics want to see priests being allowed marry and for the ordination of women. Also that 60% disagree with the churches stance on homosexuality.

Michael – I hardly think Alice is in favour of censorship.

The Journal is free to run whatever stories it wants. But the bias is clear – only negative or controversial stories about the Church are ever published. You will never find a story here reporting in the good that Catholics do or reporting on speeches from the pope that would be generally popular. It’s only ever controversy and only ever slanted one way.

This is of course an understandable over-reaction against the past. But it still remains an over-reaction.

Alice, we don’t just run stories to annoy practising Catholics, as you seem to be suggesting. It’s up to all readers and commenters to shape the way that the discussion goes beneath articles. We can help at our end by making sure that the Comments Policy is followed and removing any comments which are abusive or insulting or deliberately antagonistic, but there’s a limit to what we can do, frankly.

If you feel strongly about this, as you seem to, it would be great if you could leave a comment with your thoughts on the survey to help get a good discussion going about its findings and head off at the pass the kind of things you’re criticising.

Also, we’ve run a number of stories about the Catholic Church lately to do with the Eucharistic Congress but we don’t run lots of them every day. It would have been fairly remiss if we hadn’t covered this survey, which is a major piece of research.

AlMar: It’s not an exact sample or anything but in the past week alone these are a few of the stories we’ve run related to the Catholic Church:

Pope Benedict’s Easter urbi et orbi address
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin’s Easter homily tells Catholics they should not fear ‘bringing Jesus’s message into the world
Almost 2,000 people volunteer for the Eucharistic Congress
Organisers of the Eucharistic Congress announce ‘crash courses’ in the Christian faith

Not saying we’re perfect. Far from it. But sometimes certain perceptions of bias take hold and I think it’s worth looking at the evidence before making your mind up about something. Also if there’s ever something that you think we should be covering, do throw us an email. The address is tips@thejournal.ie.

Christine – it is true that there have been more general news stories without a slant or controversial basis this week, probably because of Easter. The Journal deserves praise because of that. But the past week is the exception.

Now, what will balance the Not Cardinal Brady columns that you have run on a weekly basis for well over a year now?

@AlMar . We could equally decide that all your comments are bias and one sided over the last few stories. The problem for the media in general and i speak for myself in this as well , is that many stories come back to religion and the incredible discrimination it preaches . For example , two of the topics i am debating tonight on the show come back to religion . Should the state be paying for communion or any religious ceremony for low income family’s and why should a Gay teacher have to hide his sexuality in the classroom because the church has a veto on the laws of basic discrimination .
How is it possible not to have an agenda in the second topic for example when the veto in law is against basic human rights for homosexuals and Lesbians in the industry . This would never be allowed in any private company and if it was people would be outraged !!!
I think the Journal just reports the stories and they seem very balanced when it comes to the church . The priests themselves are standing up against the Vatican and only last weekend the Vatican sent out a clear message to any priest who tries to stand up and change things .
That message was a clear “shut up!!! ” or get out .. You can really see they like to debate and please the followers .
The organisation (not the faith) have clear agendas and policy’s that are outdated and dangerous in a modern society , so i suggest AlMar that you really have a good look at the organisation you support and i hope none of your children ever come to you for support if they are gay and if they do i would like to think you would support them and not try change them as people .

Sure it was Alice who thought Ireland became a republic in 1916! Sap!

Er, this doesn’t make any sense. The article is about how Catholics themselves disagree with their own hierarchy’s teaching on various issues. Are you claiming that its Catholics themselves that are the “church hating crowd”?

P.

AlMar and Alice, the catholic defence front, yeah lets not say bad things about the catholic church, boo hoo! Free speech means you have to take criticism with the propaganda and as for ‘good catholic stories’, there isn’t a day goes by when the bloody Eucharistic congress is not mentioned or some ‘sorry’ bishop isn’t bleating or forgiveness. Suck it up Alice and get used to it because the worm has well and truly turned with regards to Irish people’s attitude towards the Roman church. The Journal is doing a a great service in providing an outlet for those of us who find our opinions censored by the apparatchiks who staff the Roman establishment papers like the Independent and the Irish Times. keep up the good work Christine and the Journal and don’t let the censorship mob get you down, Ireland was run by bishops for years and had some of the most ludicrous censorship laws in the world making the country a laughing stock! No more Rome rule!

@niallateshow: I agree with what I perceive you opinion to be on the State payments for First Holy Communion. It is quite frankly ridiculous and certainly has little or nothing to do with Catholicism. I doubt that anyone in the Church would object if it was dropped. By the way, I am also of the view that the practice of giving money to children who make their first Holy Communion is also crazy.

Alice is just another auto-defender of the RC church, no matter what they do. Her posted views have nothing to do with its “message” and everything to do with in-group versus out-group rivalry. They read like they were written by a defensive 12-year old. Why engage with her? It’s clearly a waste of time.

What does it matter? Would your playing have changed if he had a collar on.

If you’re wary of the way the comments may go on this one then please do leave a comment with your own thoughts about the survey. It would be great to get a good discussion going about this report – there was a whole rake of interesting things in it.

Thank you for your beneficial contribution,

Cue the religous zealots defending this archaic institution.

There are plenty of online publications available to you elsewhere, the Irish Independent is a great place to start, they run regular contributions from members of the Iona Institute that I know you will simply adore.

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/

“The Iona Institute promotes the place of marriage and religion in society. We defend the continued existence of publicly-funded denominational schools. We also promote freedom of conscience and religion”

But not the freedom to be homosexual, have children out of wedlock etc etc etc

Want acceptance? Crave tolerance and understanding? Well Learn to accept and tolerate others and the world might reciprocate. Giving Sean Brady the boot would get you guys off to a good start.

…

Dear oh dear. The Catholic Church in Ireland allowed the physical and sexual torture of children and women, it’s bishops and superiors facilitated these psychotic abusers and placed the institution of the Church above the health and safety of the most vulnerable in society.

Tertullian…
You deserve thumbs down on your remark.
And here is another one from me.

Cue the usual persecution mentality from Tertullian and all the other ‘martyrs’ to the catholic cause who conveniently see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil where that discredited institution is concerned. Grow up and take it like an adult and stop your sacred heart bleating!

I’m going to provide SEVERAL examples of the kind of think that know-it-all Catholic authorities have been teadhing about sex and about women in particular over the centuries, beginning with THIS from “Tertulian’s namesake :

”Do you not realise that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You are the devil’s gateway, you desecrated the fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child’s play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die!” 
[Tertullian, Disciplinary, Moral and Ascetical Works (New York, 1959), translated by Rudolph Arbessman, Sister Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A Quain, SJ, and quoted in Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, p 58.]


Sorry for the mistakes in my prior post, so allow me to CORRECT IT:
I’m going to provide SEVERAL examples of the kind of doctrine that know-it-all Catholic authorities have been teaching about sex and about women in particular over the centuries, beginning with THIS from “Tertulian’s namesake :

“Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You are the devil’s gateway, you desecrated the fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child’s play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die!” 
[Tertullian, Disciplinary, Moral and Ascetical Works (New York, 1959), translated by Rudolph Arbessman, Sister Emily Joseph Daly, and Edwin A Quain, SJ, and quoted in Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, p 58.]


2nd post about the ORIGENS of many of the Catholic Church’s dubious ideas about sex and/or woemn, i.e. the “Fathers and/or Doctors of the Church” :
St. Ambrose (339-397), Bishop of Milan and one of the four early “Doctors fo the Church”, wrote treatises extolling virginity and demanding that people have as little sex as possible. At the time, priests were still allowed to marry and Ambrose demanded that they should give up sex. They had, according to him, to refrain from intercourse with their own wives. The rest of the population should be reminded that the purpose of sex was procreation. Having sex with one’s pregnant wife was unacceptable. In fact, Ambrose called for his congregation to ‘either emulate the beasts or fear God’. Animals, he explained, are only ‘animated by the urge to preserve their kind, not by the desire for sexual union. For, as soon as they perceive that the womb is gravid, they cease to indulge in sexual intercourse.’ If his audience was not convinced by the parallels to the animal kingdom, Ambrose exhorted them to ‘Control your lust and look upon the hands of your Creator, who fashions a human being within the maternal body. If he be at work, will you profane the peaceful sanctuary of the maternal body with carnal desire?’ He also considered it shameful for older people to have sex.

3rd post about the ORIGINS of many of the Catholic Church’s dubious ideas about sex and/or women, i.e. the “Fathers and/or Doctors of the Church” Here is the way St John Chrysostom, one of the most highly regarded of the Doctors, whose nickname meant “golden tongued”(preacher) viewed women:
 
    ” What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature painted with fair colours!” 

[St John Chrysostom in his homilies on the Matthew gospel, written around AD 390 (Matthew 19:10), explaining why it is not good to marry, cited by Malleus Maleficarum, Pt I, q6.]

@Tertullian

And your predictable humourless whinging about any opinion that differs from yours.

Fair point Liam, but if christ was to establish his church today I doubt what the vatican has become would be what he’d have in mind.

Jesus never intended to start a Church or a new religion. St paul did that. The Jesus of the Bible legend was anti clerical on more than one occasion, if he were around today he would run a mile from Rome and all it represents.

Ken,
You cite Paul and his letter to the Corinthians as Jesus answer to questions of sexuality. Paul wrote this at least 57 years after Jesus died, and who said Paul had all the answers? Also Paul’s letter has been translated and interpreted by countless people since then (with all sorts of different agenda) , so there is no guarantee Paul actually said that in the first place
Its a poor argument.
Jesus said Love one another as I have loved you.
End Of.

Dave,
Thanks Dave for the reply. It is true I cited the letter of Paul to the CONGREGATION of Christians in Corinths BUT I DID NOT INTERPRETED THE BIBLE I just quoted directly what the Scriptures says. As regarding the scriptures 2 TIM 3:16-17 (“ALL” scriptures are INSPIRED BY GOD…) Please kindly read also Romans 1:24-27 / 1 Timothy 1:9-11 / Jude verse 7 and Please tell me what is your opinion on the bible scriptures?. ( Please include to your reading Matt 19:8,9. ) After reading those scripture – on your opinion what will be Jesus stand regarding sexuality?
As 1Cor 11:3 said the HEAD OF THE CONGREGATION IS THE THE CHRIST…Do you think Jesus is not aware when Paul wrote 1 Cor. 6:9-11 to the Congregation of Corinths?
Thanks And God Bless

Hi Kenneth,
Did you not read my reply?
The bible is a mess of badly translated text which was mostly written hundred years after Jesus died.
Jesus was a good man and had a good message, but most of what was said after that, especially the stuff about sexuality is just plain bullshit.
Open your eyes man.
Jesus said : love one another as i have loved you. He also preached forgiveness.
I think that means dont go around judging everyone else, and love people for what they are

Dave, If you only know I do RESPECT and Give HONOR to people with different Sexual orientation actually my brother is a Gay! Base on your “reply you already pre-judge me”. My brother Respect my bible base knowledge. I have 10 friends who are gay and I do protect them if someone will try bully them.
I don t believed that BIBLE IS TRANSLATED BADLY BECAUSE I DO COMPARE 4 VERSION OF TRANSLATION INCLUDING GREEK AND HEBREW AND ALL OF THEM SPEAK “SAME” STANDARD REGARDING SEXUALITY—NOT BEEN CHANGED!

SOMETIMES PEOPLE TRY TO LOOK MISTAKE AND WATER-DOWN BIBLE TRUTHS JUST TO SATISFIED THIER OWN DESIRES REGARDING MORALITY.

Did you not read the article?
3/4 of catholics disagree with you.
end of

Sorry Kenneth,
You are a hypocrite if you truly believe those bullshit scriptures you quote and say you have gay friends.

So what if I have gay friends and brother and aunt. because That is called TRUE RESPECT AND HONOR JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION I DO NOT FORCE MY BELIEFS I JUST DRAW A LINE. I AM NOT HYPOCRITE, MAY BE YOU ARE? BECAUSE I LOVE THEM AS A FAMILY A BROTHER AND AS A FRIEND! NOW LOOK I YOU YOUR PREACHING LOVE BUTT DO NOT KNOW TO RESPECT OTHERS SAYING “BULLSHIT” TO OTHER PEOPLE AND PRE JUDGING OTHERS. LOOK FIRST THE RAFTERS IN YOUR EYES!

Ah Kenneth,
you say I am preaching, yet you quote bible scriptures.
You say i don’t respect your beliefs yet you don’t respect mine.
You quote bible scriptures who say the worst things about homosexuality yet you say you love and respect your family and friends who are gay.
I dont think you are thinking this through.
Anyway, the article is about how 3/4 of catholics dont agree with the teachings of the church in regard to sexuality.
With respect, i ask what you think of that?