Roman Catholicism

In some very large and popular charities, very little actually gets through to the supposed beneficiaries. I cannot give details, as I signed the Official Secrets Act. I can say that the CEO's of some well-known charities have large salaries and sometimes free or subsidised accommodation.
I prefer to support small charities or Medicine sans Frontieres.

Does that mean, greatnan, that if you told us you would have to kill us?!!

...with your bare hands...

You don't actually have to sign the Official Secrets Act for it to apply to you. (It applies to everyone in the country.) Signing just reminds you about secrets that you are supposed to keep. Why they are to do with charities is anybody's guess.

When I became a government employee in 1990 I did have to physically sign the OSA. I am not going to risk losing my pension by blabbing! (No, I don't think they could take my pension really).

Greatnan I realise lots of people who worked (or currently work) for the Government were expected to sign the Act – and you didn't have to be 007. Nevertheless the Act, like every other law, does cover everyone in the country, regardless of whether we have signed it.

If the activities of charities have to be covered by the OSA, something cannot be right.

Forgot the [bad taste emoticon]

Every account with which I dealt was covered, as the 'client' confidentiality had to be respected.

I've signed it more than once. Would they shoot me twice?

Interesting list vampire but kind of peters out in the 20th c . For hundreds of years the RC church was a massive global superpower that far outgunned individual nation states, so it is not surprising that during all that time, some of its members did useful things.
Most people recognise that the catholic war in Spain, that drove out the arab culture in Andalucia, set back science and medicine immeasurably. (And I'm not sure the people that lived in the americas would view Ferdinand and Isabella's sponsorship of Columbus in an entirely positive light. )
This was not the only war that was conducted with the vatican's backing against non- catholics. The crusades of course and the war against the cathars in south of France.

Martin Luther and Henry viii, for different reasons, challenged the superpower just at a time when kings were becoming reluctant to lead armies into expensive wars on the instigation of the pope, the tide turned a bit and we saw the end of the vatican somewhat modified in its dominion.
It appears to be a church that has got bogged down through having over-elaborated theology and rule book. The obsessions with other people's sex lives is fairly recent. It was an unfortunate response to the invention of scientific contraception etc. And appeared cynical in the eyes of outsiders - contraception will cause membership to dwindle - can't have that! Ironic that the Italians now have such a low birth rate. It is distressing to me that educated RCs pick and mix on issues like divorce and contraception while the poor in 3rd world have in some areas had their access to contraception, condoms for HIV prevention too, deliberately limited by the power of the church. The product of an all male celibate power structure with, still, huge power and wealth.

Thanks, jess. Wish I could have put it so well.

Hear, hear - I am sometimes reluctant to voice all my criticism because I have been accused of being hostile to individual catholics, which is entirely untrue.
A discussion on Sunday, on Radio 4 just now, about Jeremy Hunt and the attempt to lower the abortion cut-off time to 12 weeks (and of course many women do not know they are pregnant at that time). It was suggested that the decision should be entirely on medical grounds and that his own religious views should not play any part in the debate. On Breakfast, an anti-abortion campaigner repeated the lie that a foetus had been aborted because it had a cleft palate, and that another had been aborted because it had a club foot. I believe in both these cases those defects were just a small part of the overall health issues. The trouble with lies like these, is that if they are repeated often enough people begin to believe them. I do not think any doctor in the UK would agree to an abortion on such grounds. (I know there are certain doctors who will agree to abort a female foetus, but that is a separate issue).

This a very interesting article on abortion which is now legal in much of the world. I think it is a mistake to assume that what an Archbishop or even the Pope says in a public statement about birth control or abortion has much effect any longer on public policy. And for individuals, as Mice said, individual conscience is the final decision-maker. It seems to me that one of the major problems for women in the Third World is getting access to any kind of medical advice or care, including contraception. .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law.

Tell that the the Irish liliygran . Abortion illegal there unless mothers life in danger, so thousands of women have to pay to cross the Irish sea, and pay again for a private abortion here. Even if they are under age girls who have been raped - the law in ireland is clear, and it is also clear why they have this stance - they are obeying the pope.

Lilygran I agree with you absolutely.

Jess M I don't want to get into a convoluted discussion about Ireland and I would be the last to defend so much of what has happened in that beautiful but troubled country. But - the reason why the RCC in the past, and to some extent now, has assumed such a powerful position, is the legacy of the way Ireland and the Irish people have been treated by the English and the British. When people are oppressed and exploited by a ruling colonising power they will band together and cling to the one unifying organisation which gives some sort of solace, unity and resistance to the oppressor.

I happen to think, and I do not think I am untypical of the great majority of Catholics, that church and state should be separated. I'm pretty sure that will happen in Ireland before much longer.

Tony Blair chose to convert to Catholicism but not until he had ceased to be Prime Minister. I really don't understand why he didn't feel he could follow his conscience and convert during his time as Prime Minister. I can't believe that the populace or MPs would have risen up against him. In fact, I don't think it would have been an issue if he had already converted before 1997. Actually, I don't think anyone really cares one way or the other. A Prime Minister of another faith, such as Islam or Sikhism, might prove a step too far for the great British public, but almost all Christian sects are seen as acceptable, I think.

I suppose it might have something to do with the established church, but even that seems quite a minor consideration. I don't think that there is a constitutional issue like there is with royal marriages, but could, of course, be wrong. Has anyone else any ideas or thoughts about this as it has puzzled me for a long time?

He is not naive, is Tony Blair. By staying as an Anglican, but letting it be known that he was very sympathetic to his wife's Catholicism, he kept both groups on side. I wish I knew how he squares his conscience with the tens of thousands of deaths his lying about Iraq has caused and his new faith.

I didn't realise that catholics could now 'pix and mix' which bits of the church's teachings to follow. Don't you have to confess the sin of using contraception?

As for the argument that it is the fault of those pesky English invaders - what was the point of substituting one dictatorship for another? (And at the time, my own English forebears were being oppressed by the rich and powerful. Fascinating programme last night about the lives of domestic 'slaves' and how the righteous middle classes abused them.)

I don't know how he squares his conscience about that either Greatnan. However, I am still puzzled because I don't think it was particularly necessary to keep both groups "on side" as this level of religious affiliation doesn't seem to play much of a role in British politics. Very different when JFK became the first Catholic president of the USA or even in contemporary America. (It will be interesting to see if Romney's beliefs become a central issue, but that is another matter – and another thread – all together.)

Just a few short comments before I go to Mass!

I don't know what TB has to do with this. His choices are a matter for him. I detest the man but it's not my business to make a judgement on the state of his conscience.

I keep saying it, but the church in 2012 is not the same as it was in the 1940s or the 1840s or the 1540s nor is it the same as it was in mediaeval times. Memories of what what the church was like in a particular parish fifty years ago cannot be compared with today. And if someone has not been in a parish for many years they can have no conception of change or the reality of parish life. As for confession. That is a service offered to those who request it. Not many do, but as in the C of E it can be of enormous help to some.

And as for Ireland, although it is perfectly true that our working class foremothers were exploited and oppressed by the ruling classes, it is not the case that the entire British nation was invaded and oppressed to an appalling degree as happened in Ireland.

Surely no Catholic can take communion without having been to confession? Have the rules changed so much in the last 30 years?

That has never been the case. I have no idea where that one came from.

There is to be a huge conference to discuss the legacy of The Second Vatican Council. I follow the activities of Rome carefully, and I do not see the present pope as any kind of reformer or moderniser. What a pity the judge in the 'butler' trial did not allow much to be revealed about the contents of the letters he stole.
I am glad that local catholic churches are more liberal-minded, but it does not appear to be affecting the hierarchy, which still has medieval attitudes to homosexuality, women and sex.
Princess Caroline of Monaco was granted an annulment so she could have another catholic wedding and other rich people have been similarly privileged. To me, that is not much different from the selling of indulgences.

It used to be that, strictly speaking, Catholics must have been to confession since committing their last mortal sin, but generally speaking everyone used to go to confession just in case. You had to be in a state of grace to receive the eucharist otherwise you were committing a very grave sin indeed. When I used to go to mass 30 years ago, there were queues outside the confessionals on Saturdays and at Easter they shipped in a whole load of extra priests on Good Friday.

Doesn't the RCC have 'general confession'? It's in the Anglican service which is very like the Mass. Some Anglican churches use the RC missal.