Boy is refused confirmation after he expresses support for gay marriage

I made a three-part response to The Commentator but only the first appears below, which therefore leaves the one shown incomplete. A few weeks ago, I decided to stop posting on ICentral because some of my comments, having been published by ICentral at first (after preview), were subsequently dropped, changing the tone of the discussion. I changed my mind later and now think I should change my mind again. Irish Central is not Twitter, where one-line comments are de rigueur; it is a debating forum where short, not so short and long-winded comments (like mine!!) make up the mix. Whether this dropping of previously posted comments is deliberate policy of ICentral’s editors or a gremlin at work in ICentral’s computer systems I don’t know but it certainly makes me want to change my mind again. What gives, oh esteemed (not!) editors??

'Clericalism' defined: "a policy of supporting the influence and power of the clergy in secular or political matters." This definition, from wordnet search, is the mildest definition of 'clericalism' I've ever seen. It applies to Jacers' many many words below, in which he defends the behavior of priests and bishops making pronouncements about political matters, such as whether gays should have equal rights under the law. He also defends clerics excluding people like Lennon from sacraments of his Church simply because the priests disagree with Lennon's political position. I don't think Jacers realizes he is defending interference by clerics in politics and law or the view that religious law is superior to and should determine civil law. I don't think he realizes that every American who values the US Constitution, including the first amendment's protection of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, must reject the suggestion that religious education gives priests authority in matters of civil law.

Sorry, late in getting back to The Commentator’s comment of Nov 20, 01.11pm. I think your earlier comment IS narrow-minded because it clearly displays lack of knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am very privileged to be a lay member of, despite the enticements of other Christian and non-Christian Churches. I am a true Dublin-born Irishman, living in Ireland, much travelled internationally, reasonably well-educated, experienced in much of life (but not all of it) and lots of what it throws at us. I do not know anything of the Lennon “no Confirmation” case other than what I researched online. I did lapse from the RCC one time but was saved from that huge mistake by a Negro woman in a Catholic Church in NYC without her ever knowing so and without either of us ever speaking with each other (that’s another story). Your imaginary scenario - of “all church hierarchy being completely honest and resigning because they didn’t believe everything in the written Bible” - is a total no-no. (More…)

Jacers, you're always good for a laugh! When a fallacy of logic is so obvious that no one can miss it, it's what we call a joke. I'm rolling on the floor laughing at your joke: First you insisted that Lennon is too young to know the truth. When I pointed out that a person's age is irrelevant to the truth of his or her words, you replied to me, "you must be in your dotty years." You doubled down on your ad hominem fallacy. Lennon's too young to know, and I'm too old to know. So tell me, which of my many birthday celebrations should have been a dementia party? If I reached the age of dementia somewhere along the way, I became too stupid even to know I was stupid, right? so I need your help. After all, you, Jacers, must be ... uh, let's see now, ... older than Lennon since you know he's too young to know the truth, and younger than me, since you know I'm too old to know the truth, you're probably about the same age as the pope-- who is a glorious font of holy wisdom and speaks only the truth-- right? So, I'd guess you're about 85, a mere adolescent by my reckoning from the hither side of the century mark!

To jacersagain: If the boy declined to be confirmed, that obviously is his choice, but even if he did it appears he intention was to be confirmed and the article above states that "LaMoine told the press he had no comment but later denied that Lennon was denied confirmation." I did not comment on the mental capacity of a 12 year old to fully comprehend the catholic Church dogma. I agree with you in that aspect. So based on that premise you have stated; it seems that the Catholic Church is so anxious to increase their fold that they don't care that the children do not have the capacity to comprehend what they are doing when they go through confirmation. I do not have the detailed information about the incident other than the article above. You seem to be a member of this church or at least are familiar with this priest. I stand by my comment about the church hierarchy. Although some of the hierarchy may have not been pedophile priests, many of them protected the pedophiles or stood by and did nothing. The basic principles of most religions are about the way we should live and treat our fellow man and are absolutely all that is right and just. The issues are with the "translations" and writings by various people through the ages. Now and in the past religious leaders have "interpreted" or written "rules" for the parishioners to follow. Unfortunately many of these "ideas" have not kept pace with our society. I did not say that the Church was narrow minded, only that there are some religious zealots who blindly espouse radical positions and are not the mainstream rational parishioners who adhere to the Catholic faith. How can the Catholic Church maintain their male only position for priests. This is not the dark ages when men are in absolute control and women and children are subservient.

Commentator's comment is nonsense. The Church is far from narrow-minded and its teachings, based on Christ's, are full of freedom-leading exhortations, if people would only see through what it is saying. @ eiriamach...jeeze you must be in your dotty years if you believe what you wrote below; you use Sophocles’ ancient fictional thespians to support your argument. Common sense alone would tell you that no boy or girl of age 12 or so would have the same outlook or learned wisdom of a priest like Fr. LaMoine. (I’ve since learned that Lennon is 17 yrs old… more likely to have a smattering of common sense than a 12yr old if he lived by it. It turns out that Lennon himself made the decision not to make his Confirmation; Fr. LaMoine did not ever refuse the Sacrament of Confirmation to Lennon. Incidentally, Lennon’s father supports the Church’s teaching on marriage). It seems YOU, eiriamach, have lost some common sense and YOU are wrong to even think a 12 or even 17-yr old has the learned sense of an adult priest in matters such as gay marriage. Gawd help ya, dotty woman… J/K! :-)

Imagine if all the church hierarchy were completely honest and resigned from their positions because they didn't believe in "all" that is written in the Bible. There would be nobody left. When the church hierarchy are challenged on aspects of their conduct, they usually resort to the cop out of penance. They say that if they repent they will be forgiven and able to go to "heaven". This story is another example of the church hierarchy being self righteous. Funny how there are bible stories of all types of sinners being accepted. Just a comment about the same sex issue. There are many examples of same sex sex in the animal kingdom. We are supposedly part of the world made by God, so how can a behavior common with man and animal be bad. Remember that the written word is something composed by men and reflect their views, not God's. The narrow minded religious zealots should worry about themselves and not dictate to others how they should live.

I am a devoted Catholic that believes in Birth Control and also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Does that confirm that I should'nt be able receive the sacraments. (ps every Catholic I know also feels the same way!)

Jacers, you could not be more obviously wrong in your belief that a young man cannot know the truth and a mature man is old enough to know it: "Some are saying a 12 yr old boy ... knows better than a highly trained, educated adult priest? And a lot of posters below think Lennon’s more right than the priest? Good God...." Age has nothing to do with whether a person's beliefs are right or wrong, good or bad. More than once a young person has instructed a mature person in the way of truth and wisdom. As Sophocles wrote almost five centuries before the birth of Jesus, "But if I seem young, look less to my years and more to what I do." Haemon the young man was replying to his father the king, who shouted in anger, "So, men of our age, we're to be lectured, are we? -- schooled by a boy his age?" Logicians call the king's mistake the ad hominem fallacy-- the mistaken bias that some circumstances of life make it impossible for a person to be right about an important matter. The tragic end of Sophocles' drama, "Antigone," makes clear the folly of thinking one has the maturity of years essential to wisdom. You, Fr LaMoine, and Creon the king-- you're all wrong and Lennon is right.

One may disagree with the Church and it's teachings but any religion reserves the right not to accept non-believers. Let him find a religion more akin to his beliefs.

(…more) However, I cannot but challenge the ignorant, vile attacks by those posters below - who were indelibly baptised Catholics as infants, recognised by the Church as ready to receive our Christ’s Body in Holy Communion at 7 yrs of age (and enjoyed the occasion!) and at ard 12 yrs of age “confirming” themselves to believe and trust in Jesus Christ, to believe and trust in His appointed Apostles, in His Nuns (His Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, Sarah, Thecla and many other now-saint women), to believe in His unbroken centuries-old lineally ordained Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes who were ultimately based in and out of the Italian city of Rome and elsewhere - the posters below who now viciously attack what they originally proclaimed and confirmed their belief to be in, at the incredible “Lennon-sensible age”. Shucks!! Shiver me timbers and shake me out of their ignoramus’ lies, please…?

(…more) If ever I was to defect from the RCC (God grant me the wisdom not to!) the Coptic Church would most likely be the one I might give my allegiance to; if not possible to practice through it in Ireland, otherwise, I’d go with the Greek Orthodox Church. Anyways, Pope Pius X decreed that, if a single, if even perhaps an unusually-holy, 7-yr old could know who was present in the Holy Eucharist, then all 7-yr olds would know. And so we have the practice of First Holy Communions at 7 yrs of age today throughout the RCC. I admit that I don’t know the age at which the Sacrament of Confirmation was “made” after the age of 12 in those days. Alas! The iggerance of me in all of that too…! However… (more…)

(… more) I think other Christian Churches (mainly Greek, Russian, Maronite and similar Christian Churches etc (but not the Egyptian Coptic Church) and probably most of the hundreds of Protestant Churches) still hold to those ages; I stand to be corrected on that… and on this: I think it was the RCC’s St. Pope Pius X (the tenth) who decreed that 7-yr olds could receive Holy Communion at age 7 after he met a seven-yr old who, in an impromptu meeting, in answer to the Pope’s impromptu question to him as to whom is received in Holy Communion, the boy replied “the Body of Jesus Christ”. Pope Pius X therefore decreed (not infallibly) that all 7-yr olds could make their First Holy Communion… not necessarily a wise impromptu decision IMHO. I’ve seen the Coptic Church allowing baptised infants-in-arms to receive the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of bread and, yes, even for infants, wine... I’d love to learn more about the why of that, especially as the Coptic Church is said by many to uphold the most stringent practices of the earliest Christians. Info, anyone? (more..)

(..more) As a matter of fact, as a Catholic in this day and age, I personally don’t agree that children of age 7 should make Holy Communion with Christ for the first time (I’d go for 12-14 yrs of age) and I think the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administered at 18 yrs of age to those who are ready, of their own volition, not of “inductive programming” by any Christian Church, to commit to accepting and living by Christ’s teachings. Of course, they would not know of Christ without being taught about Christ’s teachings through their growing years, which might sound like I’m defeating my own argument… but you get the point. Apparently, First Communions were originally made at age 12 in the early Christian and later Roman Catholic Church (of which I consider myself to be very blessed and privileged to be still a member of, despite the horrors of child and other abuses by a few thousands, including lay people, of its over-a-billion members). (more…)

(...more) As a matter of fact, as a Catholic in this day and age, I personally don’t agree that children of age 7 should make Holy Communion with Christ for the first time (I’d go for 12-14 yrs of age) and I think the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administered at 18 yrs of age to those who are ready, of their own volition, not of “inductive programming” by any Christian Church, to commit to accepting and living by Christ’s teachings. Of course, they would not know of Christ without being taught about His parable teachings through their growing years, which might sound like I’m defeating my own argument… but you get the point. Apparently, First Communions were originally made at age 12 in the early Christian and later Roman Catholic Church (of which I consider myself to be very blessed and privileged to be still a member of, despite the horrors of child and other abuses by a few thousands, including lay people, of its billion members). (more…)