Former president of Ireland says early baptism breaches “fundamental human rights”

mary mcaleese

Roman Catholic abortion supporter Mary McAleese

This woman isn’t an “independent,” she’s a full-blown proggie.

Mary McAleese was president of Ireland from 1997 to 2011. She’s an “independent” and according to Wikipedia, “holds liberal views on homosexuality” and “remained popular and her Presidency is regarded as successful.”

The former president (a practicing Roman Catholic) voted yes in Ireland’s abortion referendum last month and stated “she has not gone to confession after voting Yes in last month’s abortion referendum and has “no intention whatsoever” of doing so.”

Now she’s suddenly concerned about the human rights of babies, those who actually get the chance to be born.

From Irish Times: Babies baptised into the Catholic Church are “infant conscripts who are held to lifelong obligations of obedience”, according to former president Mary McAleese.

Saying that early Baptism breaches fundamental human rights, she said: “You can’t impose, really, obligations on people who are only two weeks old and you can’t say to them at seven or eight or 14 or 19 ‘here is what you contracted, here is what you signed up to’ because the truth is they didn’t.”

The current model of Baptism “worked for many centuries because people didn’t understand that they had the right to say no, the right to walk away”, she declared.

“But you and I know, we live now in times where we have the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and freedom to change religion. The Catholic Church yet has to fully embrace that thinking,” she told The Irish Times.

She said conscience was “supreme” where Catholics were concerned.

“My human right to inform my own conscience, my human right to express my conscience even if it is the case that it contradicts the magisterium [teaching authority of the church], that right to conscience is supreme.”

She said many things down the centuries were taught “with great passion that quietly now have been abandoned by the very magisterium that taught them”.

She instanced examples such as its condemnation of Gallileo or, more recently, the description in 1930 by Pope Pius XI of those who advocated emancipation and equality for women as “false teachers”.

Mrs. McAleese said she did not intend to attend any World Meeting of Families events in Dublin in August because it had “become a political rally rather than a religious and spiritual experience”.

The meeting, which will be attended by Pope Francis, is a forum “for the reinforcement of orthodoxy”, she said.

She will, however, be taking part in the Dublin Pride Parade next Saturday (this was published June 23) “under the BeLongTo banner” and with “the members of our own family, straight and gay, young and old, we’ll all be there”.

DCG

30 responses to “Former president of Ireland says early baptism breaches “fundamental human rights”

  1. From my study in the Episcopal Church we were told they baptized at a early age because of the over running of villages and the children being killed in the attack they worried that the children were not baptized so they figured if they did and they got killed they would make it to heaven. As for this nut job she is like the rest of the Pharisees out there spewing the verbiage for satan. Plenty of evil in the church and because of what the Episcopal church is now preaching I left that church for said reasons that they are pushing the social view point of the day. They are for gun control and for letting homosexuals become priest and bishops. And other things I will not go into but drives me nuts when I see this garbage. Sorry my views on the church today.

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Of course she does…. but having sex with them is ok… Pure Evil !!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Where to begin there is sooo much wrong with what this false Catholic says, 1st off the conscience is not supreme! God almighty in the Father Son and Holy Spirit is SUPREME.
    2nd regarding conscience, she has it all twisted, a Christian needs a properly formed conscience in order to discern what God is telling you and this only happens if we form a lifelong relationship with him. It is the evil one who operates in her conscience and if people listen to her it will be the same for them…….end rant

    Liked by 4 people

  4. traildustfotm

    Sad to see my ancestral land includes such idiots.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Ireland has gone helter-skelter to the dark side.

    BTW, Mary McAleese looks like a man!

    Liked by 2 people

    • That she does! A Tranny?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Been that way a lot longer than one might think, actually, Dr. Eowyn, considering the ruckus and splitting that the order of hybernian creeps and the freemason “orange men” creeps. Though Ireland has been a mess for a long time, after all, lest we forget the Irish were subjected to a synthetic famine, and also utilized for slavery in decades past. I doubt they escaped unscathed by the jacobin agent provacateurs, either.

      A sad thing for such a lovely country.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. I have friends in Dublin who can verify that Ireland isn’t what it used to be. Neither is The Church. This woman (?) should be excommunicated immediately. How can she call herself “Catholic” and hold heretical views?

    Everything is political and now we have Pope Francis front and center stirring the pot instead of calming the waters. I never thought I’d live to see the day.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Kevin J Lankford

    Sad that there are many who do not understand the place for ‘baptism’. As we understand it today it was began by John the baptist as symbolic of the acceptance and belief in the coming of the Kingdom of God and the Messiah. But baptism was really nothing new, as baptism only means bathing, which was demanded of the priests of the tabernacle before they could enter.

    Baptism is a part of the Kingdom Gospel and applied only to the Hebrews. Unfortunately they denied Christ and the Kingdom Gospel is now on hold, for the fulfillment of the Church and Gospel of Grace. Paul, as the Disciple of the gentiles, makes it clear that water baptism is not a part of the Gospel of Grace. True faith alone in the death, burial, and resurrection, alone is all that we need for our salvation, as we are baptized by the Holy Spirit.

    I know it may offend those raised with in the roman catholic church, but it is my opinion that the roman catholic church has presumed itself to be the fulfillment of the Kingdom Gospel. The vatican functions as its own city, and just recently I believe I read that they had their own judicial system and prison. And besides, just how can a new born child need Baptism as so many believe its purpose now, being that they are the most innocent among us.

    Like

  8. Man is born in sin, and baptism is to provide a way to heaven. Infant baptism is usually followed years later with confirmation of a person after being is sufficiently well informed of baptism’s meaning. Any objection to infant baptism is indication that the one opposed to it must understand that there is power and meaning in that rite. If atheists object to infant baptism, let them tell us why. In any case, children belong to those who by nature love them more than anyone else and not to a communist state.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Commie.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. DCG- here’s another gal who looks like she’d be fun at parties! LOL

    Liked by 4 people

  11. I am confused, how can she be a practicing Catholic and have the beliefs and actions that she does? It would seem she is more anti-Catholic.
    I have seen Ireland go left the last decade or so and it makes me sad. I always looked to Ireland as being deeply entrenched in their church, family and love of land and now, I see little evidence. I see unhappy people that seem a little lost.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. It sounds to me like Mrs. McAleese has been influenced by the Fundamentalist belief regarding baptism, which challenges the Catholic belief in infant baptism. The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism is a sacrament for the remission of original sin (and other sins if you are converted and baptized as an adult). As a Bible Thumpin’ Catholic myself, I am here to tell you that there is nothing in the Bible that excludes infants from baptism. Baptism was referred to as the “new circumcision”. (Only infants were circumcised under the old law). The Bible mentions stories of people who were baptized as adults, but they were people who converted as adults. It also mentions that a convert’s entire household was baptized. That would include any children in the family. If infants had been excluded from baptism there would also be stories of Christian children being baptized after they reached the age of reason. Such stories are just not there in the Bible.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Baptizing an infant does absolutely NO harm. However, I do feel this way about the bris…now that is a human right’s violation!

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Excepting the filth that has infiltrated the Vatican. I find Irish heretics the most offensive, No Mary Mc despite your attack on the family they have the right to baptise their child. They don’t have the right to kill it in the womb as you espouse you feckless runt.

    Like

  15. @ Kevin Lankford
    You bring up some good points. I don’t know what sources you trust but certainly the Christ says at the end of the Gospels go out and baptise all nations, so not just for the Hebrews. From memory I thought it was Peter who had the experience with the “what I have declared clean you must not call unclean” three times before being sent to the Roman’s household to preach the Gospel where the Holy Spirit came down on the whole household leading him to declare “How can we deny the baptism of water to these after the the holy spirit has baptised them.” Maybe it was Paul, or maybe you are referring to something else in scripture. Still maybe I am not as holy as that Roman household and if the Messiah has asked for baptism, it is not a difficult or painful thing, unless I disliked him why wouldn’t I do this?

    Don’t look for the Church in the Vatican they are not identical and sometimes as with Peter denying Christ in the courtyard of Ciaphas there is not a great deal of overlap. Look to the deposit of faith, which is true, The teachings pronounced by the full church in communion with the heirs to Peter, the writings of the Saints, try Teresa of Avilla or Padre Pio for a start, the simple people that go to church and worship God. Here you find the church that, as promised by the Christ, the gates of Hell will not prevail against. There is nothing simple about a God who in love, sacrificed his beloved son to crucifixion. I don’t wish to be so presumptuous as to pretend I am as good a man as Peter upon whom Jesus built his church, who when the mob was there and the sweat and shouting and the crucifixion for himself before his eyes had difficulties before later achieving his great victory. I’m not as great as Peter, far from it, but with the grace of the baptism of the spirit as you like to call it perhaps I can avoid many trials and be victorious in those that I must go through. It all remains confusing to me, but Jesus did plainly and simply rise from the dead, this is the belief of the Christian, death was conquered by Christ and that is no small deal. Best wishes to you in your searching.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Given that acceptance of Christ is what saves anyone, I never saw a point in baptizing babies, by any denomination, given such young children cannot rightfully choose Christ anyway, so any baptism would be moot until they could make the choice of their own free will. It is also a bit short-sighted of those denoms as God isn’t going to just look at whether someone got dunked as a baby as grounds to save someone, nor is He so ignorant as to damn a child on death for not being dunked, (Apparently some think this.) that’d be silly, and very pharisaic. I do see what the former irish “prez” is up to though, she thinks she can take aim at what she thinks is an easier target… probably to sneak in further criminalization of religion, with a focus on demonizing Christianity in particular. One wonders, who is she working for?

    Like

  17. @ Seumas
    a) “Given that acceptance of Christ is what saves anyone” and b) given that Christ requested people be baptised why would you ever deny baptism to your very own children of all people? The Messiah asked for all to be baptised in his name, now you will exclude your own children?

    Liked by 2 people

    • If by “requested baptism” you mean John 3, (I note this is not given as a commandment, here at least.) this might be interesting to read: http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/baptism.html If what you are thinking of is elsewhere, please do point it out.

      As far as “my own children” go, I haven’t got any… but I do think that baptism for them, if I did have them, would carry no benefit at such an age, (and potentially be a health risk as well, if it was a full dunk, or involving a river, as some denoms advocate.) given the child in question is not making a conscious choice to accept Christ, (A child of that age doesn’t even know words typically, let alone the Gospel… and as I understand it, God isn’t a machine that just looks at “baptized” or “not baptized” as a guarantee for salvation, subsequently having to “obey” that regardless of other factors. It seems as though the way that baptism is used by some denoms is an attempt by people to force God to save someone, regardless of other factors, however, we know that mankind is incapable of forcing God to do anything.) and salvation is not conferred by water, or ceremony… neither does God violate free will, which He conferred on every person.

      I would also note that the “Christ And” arguments are dangerous business, as it presumes to say that what Christ did was insufficient for salvation, a position that really opens a can of worms, as the saying goes.

      Not that what this so-called former “prez” is trying to do isn’t wrong, mind you, as her remark etc. is clearly is aimed at being a direct attack on Christianity in particular.

      Like

  18. I looked up liberal in the dictonary and it had a picture of her.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Baptism is a free gift given to us by God: we receive the forgiveness of sins plus the receiving of the Holy Spirit through Baptism. Who would deny a child a such a gift? We give babies all kinds of gifts even though they can’t understand or make a decision whether to accept the gift or not…same for Baptism. Does this woman want to forbid babies getting any sort of gift until they can decide for themselves if they want it or not?

    I’ll pray for this woman who is so mislead.

    Acts 10:47 – Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

    Acts 22:16 – And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

    Romans 6:4 – Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    Colossians 2:12 – Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

    Romans 6:3 – Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

    Acts 2:38 – Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. I just don’t know what to comment about this—-as this baptist/anabaptist furor was “solved” over 300 years ago in our country, the USA, when religious societies ( Quakers, Amish, Mennonite, Brethren, Dunkards, Moravians, etc…..) argued, split into differing sects of the same ordered religious organizations over this same question/argument. In effect, they agreed to disagree and kept the peace, went their own ways and didn’t lambaste anyone else. It’s still working here to keep the peace and people like Mary M. out of our faces about our religious choices/rituals to celebrate OR NOT–according to our own spiritual choices— for our child when we give birth to a baby. On this count, she is centuries out of order/behind.

    Of course then—-as noted on some of the posts…..she doesn’t support the birth of a child if abortion becomes an option for the “mother” —even if it’s JUST FOR BIRTH CONTROL…..and is subsequently chosen as a “medical treatment.” Hell no…..not only does THAT child or parents or Mary M NOT have to worry about their “baptismal” future “rights”…..MOOT POINT….b/c the child’s life is aborted/ended by choice ,by medical means (which, I might interject, transgresses the Hypocratic Oath—“do no harm,” that all physicians take upon entering a licensed practice of medicine)—-he/she has NO RIGHTS to life according to Mary let alone a right in baptismal choices. This woman is fundamentally without a locus of reasonable thought when she can advance the “rights of the newborn” in the issue of baptism, but support the taking of the right to life by the unborn and “nearly-born.” CRAZY MAKER!

    Liked by 4 people

    • As a Catholic, she cannot claim to be Catholic and hold heretical beliefs. She has clearly stated that she does. So, in order to preserve orthodoxy the Church is obligated to excommunicate her. That means she cannot share the Eucharist with other Catholics or claim that she is Catholic unless, or until, she reverses herself and atones.

      I understand that “other confessions” believe differently. I won’t get into that now. It is enough that she professes to be Catholic and isn’t. Catholic means “universal”. These are our beliefs as Christians and she is free to reject them. She can’t have it both ways, however.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Thanks lo—I understand that the term “catholic” means, “universal” b/c even non-catholics profess in the “holy catholic church.” Here’s another “universal,”……..

        Just a story, as I am wont to relate so often here: When my youngest was 2-1/2 yrs old, we moved West & into a temporary (a month) quarter. So, we didn’t unpack our goods, living amongst boxes ’til successfully settled on a home. Meanwhile, the temp. place hadn’t been lived in for awhile & had some fall field mice roaming though, One day, my 2-1/2 year old innocently/gently approached one of these mice, & was able to pick it up into his chubby little hands. When it squirmed, he gripped it, not able at his age to gauge strength or force or grip…& , holding it so tightly while he came to show it to me, the little mouse died in his hands. He was immediately AWARE of this death….this lack of life, & what caused it. He became hysterical &, as a very early talker….actually verbalized that he had caused a death…….he was inconsolable, & thereafter, we had to be very careful at home/in any restaurants about the appearance of our food…..he could eat a hamburger….but not a lobster (this, too, caused a sorrowful outburst when my husband ordered lobster at a restaurant one time)….anything that looked like a lifeform….he could not eat or suffer to see anyone else to eat or harm…….

        What I want to know is….how can a 2-1/2 year old child understand the sanctity of life, in many or all forms..or…if even lacking that—at least RECOGNIZE the existence of life in many forms….& mourn the premature end of such…& a “mother” &/or “father” of a mature age—co-creators of a human life, not only do not recognize this, but, conversely, elect/cause the end of such lives through abortion?

        “A little child shall lead you.” I understood that parable then and there.

        Liked by 4 people

      • “As a Catholic, she cannot claim to be Catholic and hold heretical beliefs…. So, in order to preserve orthodoxy the Church is obligated to excommunicate her.”

        Alas, the Church doesn’t, or Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and other countless other lesser known nominal Catholics who openly are pro-life abort, are still not declared heretical and are not denied the Eucharist.

        Liked by 3 people

  21. Sister Mary of the Order of the New World?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s