This has a new significance with the Pope scandal

[vermicious knid]

I had never seen this whole thing before. I have seen clips of the crowd jeering and Sinead walking off looking broken, and that was such an innacurate partial picture. Such strength. How many people could do this?

This was two weeks after the SNL thing. Apparently the plan was to sing a different song, and this was an impromptu decision.

[Tango]

You might appreciate this very recent Q&A with Sinead:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042902200.html

[vermicious knid]

Thanks. This is unbelievable:


Sinead O'Connor: When my father was 5 he was told a story by his priest... that a boy he knew had died without having been to confession, and was sent to hell... and priest claimed how he knew this was.. his bedroom burst into flames one night... and when the fire was put out there were two little handprints in the bottom of the bed, the boy had come "screaming back from hell" to have his confession heard... when they finish investigating sexual abuse, then it will be corporal punishment.. and then psychological abuse such as my father endured >>> are these things representative of Christ> No.

[LukeA]

I guess that whole celibacy thing isn't working out for those guys, huh?

[Ghost_Tracker]

I'd just like to mention that I feel it's a mistake to stereotype any group because of a few bad apples. The Catholic church has literally hundreds of thousands of priests; it's a given that some of them are gonna be bad eggs. Yes, their handling of this has been inexcusable and they seem pretty ignorant when it comes to these things, i.m.o. But on the flip side, the only thing they've ever preached at my Mom's old church down the street is that "it would be nice if people could be nice to each other, JUST for a change," and that they would appreciate it if people would keep in mind that they're having a bake sale this coming weekend. They're actually very liberal; you'd be surprised. And I know the response would probably be, "well yeah of COURSE you wouldn't know," but everything really does seem very innocent there. And just as a precaution, no staff member or clergy person is ever allowed to be in a room alone with a minor with the door shut. They're making a very loud point that "this will NEVER happen HERE."

By the way - current Catholic "dogma" is that Adam and Eve NEVER happened, that evolution may have happened, and that the Universe was created through the Big Bang. Look into it, it's true. Don't believe everything you hear about what their positions are; they're VERY open to modern times in some ways, and not as "stuck in the stone ages" as the stereotype makes them out to be.
In general, I mean.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

By the way - current Catholic "dogma" is that Adam and Eve NEVER happened.

Without original sin, Jesus died for no reason. I find it very hard to believe the church threw out the creation story.

[nailatixela]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Without original sin, Jesus died for no reason. I find it very hard to believe the church threw out the creation story.

I don't know if it's 100% thrown out...but, GT is correct. They have acknowledged the likeliness of evolution and at the same time spoke against the complete truth of creation.

But are most Catholics even aware of this? No. Ugh.

[LikeAWillow]

From Catholic.com

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

***

As insane as the Adam and Eve story is, they've got to hold to it. When Adam and Eve go out the window, so goes the entire faith: that God created man to fill the void left by the fallen angels, that man himself then fell through the first man and woman, that God, in his mercy, sent his Son to redeem that sin, and that one day, Christ will come again to unite the kingdoms of Heaven and Earth and fulfill the original plan. I would say that it's a delicate line to walk, but that's not true-- it's an impossible one. It's interesting to see how they try to do it, though.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Without original sin, Jesus died for no reason. I find it very hard to believe the church threw out the creation story.

It says in a footnote in my Mom's Catholic Bible - this was published in 1970 by the way so assuming it's still "policy," it's been that way for some time - something along the lines of how original sin is something we're all born with, automatically, and doesn't hinge on it starting with two specific people. I suppose it would depend on who you ask, of course. I'm sure there's Catholic Priests who believe, tooth-and-nail, in the Creation story as written, and who believe that the earth is 10,000 years old. But I believe most of them, at least in America, would tell you that it's an allegory, and that church members are perfectly free to take it that way.

Here's exact quotes of two of the footnotes, to try to give the general idea:

"According to the highly artificial literary structure of Genesis Chapter 1, God's creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day of the Israelite religion."

"[This section] shows how God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos."

(In other words, "don't sweat the details - just get that he made order out of disorder.")

There's two completely conflicting creation stories in Genesis, you know. There's just no way to get around that, i.m.o. I see here that a footnote for Chapter 2 says that it's "much older than Chapter 1."

There's also a diagram of the earth the way they pictured it back then - it says, "This was the same prescientific concept of the universe as that held by the Hebrews' pagan neighbors."

Did you know that the Vatican has its own astronomical observatory? With a Jesuit Priest who's a Ph.D. in Astronomy? I've seen him asked about it, and he emphasizes how he feels that it's "the search for knowledge" that's important, and that things are the way they are "to make us ask questions." The Vatican funds his work and as near as I can make out, they don't give him any hassle at all, even though he's a "mainstream" astronomer who obviously believes in the Big Bang Theory. I think maybe overall, their reaction is "WOW isn't this COOL!? Shows just how powerful God must really be!" I've also seen him asked if he feels there's life on other planets and his answer is a simple, "We just plain don't know," which I'd say is pretty much 100% true.

Anyway certain things are dogma but I think people would be surprised what is and what really isn't, these days. The middle ages were a loonnnng time ago, and these people have cable tv too.


P.S. - I saw the posting above. Define, "impermissable." Believe it or not, the leadership of the church and the Priests - in general - DO have minds of their own. I have no doubt that the Pastor at my mom's old church down the street would tell some little old lady, "Of COURSE creation happened exactly as written," if he felt that would make her feel better. Does he believe it himself? I really, really doubt it. And I asked the other Priest there his opinion once and he said that it's considered to be an allegory. Naturally there's a lot of different opinions within the church on this, being such a large organization. And I'm sure plenty of Catholics online - including those "high up the totem pole" - are posting those opinions. They're certainly free to do so, as is the Astronomer I mentioned above, who clearly believes in the Big Bang Theory.

By the way, I haven't read it yet, but there's a book at the library that I saw - written by an Astronomer - called "The Big Bang Never Happened." I personally believe in it, myself - but I'm sure even the most hard-core Astronomer would admit that it is, ultimately, just a theory.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

It says in a footnote in my Mom's Catholic Bible - this was published in 1970 by the way so assuming it's still "policy," it's been that way for some time - something along the lines of how original sin is something we're all born with, automatically, and doesn't hinge on it starting with two specific people.

Here's exact quotes of two of the footnotes, to try to give the general idea:

"According to the highly artificial literary structure of Genesis Chapter 1, God's creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day of the Israelite religion."

"[This section] shows how God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos."

Would you be willing to post the quote of the footnote that speaks to original sin occurring without Adam and Eve? The two you posted focus on the literary aspects of the creation process, but they don't deal with Man's need for redemption. I'm really interested to see what it has to say. Thank you

There's two completely conflicting creation stories in Genesis, you know.

Would you be able to direct me to the second story here as well? I know that there are two different versions of Eve's origin (one pits her as the subservient creation spawned from Adam's rib; the other casts her in a more equal light), but I've never heard a mention of an entirely separate story.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

P.S. - I saw the posting above. Define, "impermissable."

Dude, we're both Catholic. Did "impermissable" not come right after "da-da" and right before "ma-ma" for you?

As far as I know, the Catholic.com website works to post the guidelines of Catholic dogma. I wish that the church was more accepting of varying opinions within its structure, but I think the host of democratic senators who can't receive Communion in certain churches will tell you that our form of organized religion loves to cling to a defined right and wrong.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

From Catholic.com

[. I would say that it's a delicate line to walk, but that's not true-- it's an impossible one. It's interesting to see how they try to do it, though.

Personally I feel that it's an extremely easy line to walk when you realize that it's an allegory, and that the tiny little details aren't important when compared to the whoppingly huge important concept, that man is imperfect as-is and needs help 'cause we'll NEVER make it alone.

And - just opinion of course but - it REALLY IS true that we can't. Think about the TIME FRAME of this. Some people feel that without Christianity, Rome never would have fallen. They WOULD have found the bomb sooner or later, and then you have Russia, China and Rome all with the bomb. That's "checkmate in five moves." There's another thing too - The original colonists left because of religious persecution. Okay, sure, that was bad - but they left BECAUSE of CHRISTIANITY. That led to the U.S., and the U.S. defeated Germany in WW II. Germany would have gotten the bomb too. They almost HAD it, in fact. Again, a situation with two or three evil empires - Germany, Russia (maybe), and Japan - and they all have the bomb. No way, jose.
Just give them a few paltry hundreds or thousands of years, and they'll use it, fer sure. Original sin? Who needs it when you have bombs sitting around that can blow up the whole world.... So maybe from that point-of-view, the take-home message is MUCH more important than the details - that man is imperfect and needs to trust God more than his own knowledge or what he *thinks* is true. Primordial man was arrogant to think that he could just keep on making powerful empires and stronger and stronger weapons - but that path automatically leads to the bomb, and that leads to extinction. And yes, assuming there is a God and all that, I really do feel that the bomb was a heavy player in all this - how could it NOT be?
I think there's even some indications that it is in the Bible - everywhere you look, the take-home message is, "Chill, mankind, you DON'T have all the facts and you're headed down a REALLY bad path here - TRUST me that that's true." Obviously primeval man never could have envisioned something the size of an atom being able to blow up an entire city.
Just some thoughts.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

I think the host of democratic senators who can't receive Communion in certain churches will tell you that our form of organized religion loves to cling to a defined right and wrong.

You'd almost think there's some dissention in the ranks...

With my Mom's church down the street being so "liberal," maybe it skews my percepton a little bit of the larger organization, higher-up. But I still feel that they're not AS conservative as the stereotype makes them out to be. I have a sneaky feeling that the truth is "somewhere in-between." ......


P.S. - I can also tell you that the Official policy at that church is that ANY Catholic can receive communion; unless they "feel they should not due to certain reservations or beliefs which conflict with Church teaching."
They just simply aren't that strict about it, seems to be the bottom line - anybody who has any questions about it "is encouraged to talk to a Priest about it." We actually had a little meeting about it a while back where the Priest asked our opinions about it; and he ended up deciding that if ANYONE came up to receive communion, he had no right to deny it to them.

P.S. II - Granted this church may be more "liberal" than others, but again, ANYONE is welcome there, including gays, trans-gender people, etc. Lesbian couples go there together. Some people drive for literally 35 miles to get to this place, even though there might be another place within a mile or so. And like I mentioned, as far as I know there's NO heat from the Bishops or any other higher-ups. If asked, I'm sure that the Bishops would say that they consider it to be "a large, thriving, vibrant church."

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

Personally I feel that it's an extremely easy line to walk when you realize that it's an allegory, and that the tiny little details aren't important when compared to the whoppingly huge important concept, that man is imperfect as-is and needs help 'cause we'll NEVER make it alone.
)

I appreciate your thoughts, but I can only offer a question in response: if original sin is allegorical, why did Jesus die to erase it?

That's the question that the Catholic.com response, my own belief that it's an impossible line, and the entire Nicene Creed hinge on.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

P.S. II - Granted this church may be more "liberal" than others, but again, ANYONE is welcome there, including gays, trans-gender people, etc. Lesbian couples go there together. Some people drive for literally 35 miles to get to this place, even though there might be another place within a mile or so. And like I mentioned, as far as I know there's NO heat from the Bishops or any other higher-ups. If asked, I'm sure that the Bishops would say that they consider it to be "a large, thriving, vibrant church."

It sounds like a great church, but I really think it has put you out of touch with Catholicism as a whole. Here are a few links for perspective (if you read only one, make it the first link on the investigation of American nuns):

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index...doctrinal.html

On the politics of the Eucharist:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09022705.html