Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

MrPudding · 11-06-2012 3:24pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Do you honestly think that our government, the EU, or the UN will treat any membership figures provided by the Catholic church (or any church) as accurate? They will rely on the figures provided by the CSO, which in terms of demographics in this country are the only figures that count. I would suspect that the church itself also largely relies on the census figures.

The CSO figures? Where do you think I am getting the 84% from? Look, the point I am trying to make is this, there needs to be a difference made between what people think they are, based on some kind of "I'm catholic because I'm Irish" mentality and I'm catholic because I follow the tenants of that religion.

If you consider yourself catholic, for whatever reason, but you don't believe in any of their rules or rituals then how can that organisation speak for you?

If you consider yourself catholic approve of contraception and the morning after pill then how can you be happy with the catholic church trying to block the supply of morning after pills to victims of gang rapes in war torn areas? I can see how an observant catholic might be happy with that, but not someOne who thinks it should be available to anyone that wants it. How can you be happy with that situation?

And this is where these figures get us. This is now the church lobbies and gets itself special status in the likes of the UN. By pointing to a country like Ireland and say "look. 84% of the population is catholic."

MrP

Benny_Cake · 11-06-2012 4:56pm

MrPudding wrote: »

The CSO figures? Where do you think I am getting the 84% from? Look, the point I am trying to make is this, there needs to be a difference made between what people think they are, based on some kind of "I'm catholic because I'm Irish" mentality and I'm catholic because I follow the tenants of that religion.

If you consider yourself catholic, for whatever reason, but you don't believe in any of their rules or rituals then how can that organisation speak for you?

If you consider yourself catholic approve of contraception and the morning after pill then how can you be happy with the catholic church trying to block the supply of morning after pills to victims of gang rapes in war torn areas? I can see how an observant catholic might be happy with that, but not someOne who thinks it should be available to anyone that wants it. How can you be happy with that situation?

And this is where these figures get us. This is now the church lobbies and gets itself special status in the likes of the UN. By pointing to a country like Ireland and say "look. 84% of the population is catholic."

MrP

Ok, there may be a little confusion here between the census figures and any figures that the Catholic Church compiles. We don't seem to know one way or another whether the church compiles such figures, so it's probably best to stick to discussing the census figures.

You say that a difference needs to be made between people who simply say they are Catholic but don't follow any of the tenets of the faith, and those who do follow the tenets of the faith. To a certain extent you may have a point, but how do you propose to differentiate between the two? And how would a state body such as the CSO differentiate between the two? Ultimately they depend on individuals giving an honest response, and to be fair, while you may not consider someone who dissents from the Catholic teaching on contraception to be Catholic (and that is the vast majority of Catholics), they would vehemently disagree. Personally, I would differentiate between fundamentals such as the virgin birth, the resurrection and what is contained in the Nicene Creed, with issues such as teachings regarding divorce and contraception. I'd have to admit though that even that is a completely subjective opinion.

I should add that the reason the Holy See has permanent observer status at the UN, and participates in other international organisations, is because historically it has been recognised as a sovereign entity by countries around the world. This has absolutely nothing to do with the number of Catholics in Ireland or any other country.

Doc Farrell · 11-06-2012 6:43pm

MrP your arguments make a lot of sense at first reading but what I'm wondering is, why are you devoting so much time to them? The only way to change the situation is to bring the Vatican to the European court of human rights, which is a costly and lengthy procedure.
The reason the RCC has Changed canon law to prevent people from opting out is, I presume, because they don't want to deal with the bureaucratic headache of changing all the paperwork. Frankly I think that you are wasting your obvious talents on this subject unless you are ready to make it a legal case. If I were an atheist it would be way down on my list of things that bother me about organized religion, probably about number 46.

philologos · 11-06-2012 7:35pm

MrPudding: Why do you think churches need to formally recognise that people don't want to be a part of them any more? It's an odd request. If people don't want to be a part of it any more, that's it as far as most churches are concerned.

It's not up to churches to boot anyone out. It's up to people to decide if they want to leave. I just think it is bizarre that people expect churches to formally recognise that people leave.

philologos · 11-06-2012 7:57pm

MrPudding wrote: »

But they might not be struggling! They might be perfectly happy. We all know people that don't believe in the tenants of the catholic church and some that don't even believe in god yet still say they are catholic. They plainly are not functionally catholic. If the church want to claim some kind of supernatural claim over them, then so be it, but they should not be able to claim them as an adherent for secular purposes. As I have said before, I really don't care what the church believes about what my christening has done to a part of me that I consider to be made up, but I do care if they count me as one of their number when they are talking to the government or the EU or the United Nations.

People who actively attend church but yet don't properly believe in the teachings of it, should IMO be encouraged to investigate into the truths of Christianity more.

I think people should never be told to leave if they come. Rather it is the responsibility of the church to preach the Gospel to their congregations clearly. I think this may be the problem. It is the problem in many churches. Biblical teaching is the only way to confirm as to whether or not people believe in the Gospel.

I guess on applying this to a RCC level, the RCC is responsible for ensuring that people believe in the Gospel. If people choose to go to a RCC service irrespective of what they believe, they shouldn't be encouraged to leave. The same is true of any other church.

MrPudding wrote: »

Irrelevant. The fact is they are not functionally catholic, so should not be counted as catholic for secular reasons. The church is more than welcome to try to "rescue" them, though I really think that ship has sailed, and going by the recent polls unless the vatican mounts some kind of invasion and sends in a few thousand crack commando priests, I think it might well be beyond the ability of the church in Ireland to fix this problem.

Christians are called to encourage people to become Christians, not to encourage people to become atheists.

I'll never encourage anyone who I meet, Christian or non-Christian to become or remain an atheist. Given the Gospel, that would be completely immoral.

MrPudding wrote: »

Obviously I don't agree, but that said, it still doesn't matter. Boot them out or don't boot them out. I suppose all I want is a bit of honesty about what the numbers mean. 84% of the population identify themselves as catholic, but how many of them are functionally catholic? How many of them follow the rules or requirements? How many of them are real catholics? Many of us, religious and non-religious alike, want a more secular Ireland. We don't want a particular church having too much power or control. Allowing the church to say that 84% of the population is catholic when that is quite clearly not the case isn't helping anyone, aside form the catholic church.

Irrespective of how many people believe in the Gospel, it is the responsibility of Christians to lead people to it.

Being interested in state secularism does not mean encouraging people to become atheists. Telling people who currently attend church not to go or people who claim to be Christians of any denomination is nothing to do with that. I find it quite dishonest when atheists try to point it out like that.

I guess, I'm not interested in societal secularism, or individual secularism. In fact I'm strongly opposed to both of those forms. I'm interested in the State leaving churches alone and ensuring religious freedom, and the churches not trying to rule society. This is better for Christianity too. I'd like to see Christianity become a powerful grass roots movement globally, and I think it's possible, but it will take a lot of work to reject the state / cultural forms of Christianity that are among us.

MrPudding · 11-06-2012 8:37pm

Guys. Some good responses here that I want to address, but I have an exam in 13 hours and another 24 hours after that. I need to do some work and responses to your posts will take longer than I really have to spare. I will, however, respond at some point.

I will say this however. The reason I expend energy in this area is, in addition to it irritating me greatly, I actually find it very interesting. It is a devilish problem, and I think Benny and Doc kind of see where I am coming from. I think Phil is still missing the point somewhat. In response to Benny's question, I have absolutely no idea how we might or should differentiate between the two. That doesn't stop me from thinking we should though.

I will return soon.

MrP

Doc Farrell · 11-06-2012 10:51pm

Focus on the exams, best of luck. Don't let my moderate position fool ye, that's how we drag'em back in!

gimmebroadband · 11-06-2012 11:17pm

According to archbishop Chaput, those who don't believe all the teachings of the CC are not really Catholic! That being the case, people who don't believe all that the Church teaches, has no business claiming to be Catholics on the Census!

The new archbishop of Philadelphia is a Native American who has earned a reputation as one of the church's most outspoken conservatives.
Charles Chaput, 66, has tough talk for Catholics who don't accept all the church's teachings.
Chaput said the church is not for so-called "cafeteria Catholics" -- those who pick which doctrines they'll follow and which ones they won't.
"If they don't believe what the church teaches, they're not really Catholic," Chaput told the Associated Press in an interview Tuesday, two days before his installation at the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/September/New-Archbishop-Church-Not-for-Cafeteria-Catholics-/

Benny_Cake · 11-06-2012 11:29pm

MrPudding wrote: »

Guys. Some good responses here that I want to address, but I have an exam in 13 hours and another 24 hours after that. I need to do some work and responses to your posts will take longer than I really have to spare. I will, however, respond at some point.

I will say this however. The reason I expend energy in this area is, in addition to it irritating me greatly, I actually find it very interesting. It is a devilish problem, and I think Benny and Doc kind of see where I am coming from. I think Phil is still missing the point somewhat. In response to Benny's question, I have absolutely no idea how we might or should differentiate between the two. That doesn't stop me from thinking we should though.

I will return soon.

MrP

That's a fair enough response. Good luck with the exam!

liveya · 12-06-2012 12:21am

philologos wrote: »

Christians are called to encourage people to become Christians, not to encourage people to become atheists.

I'll never encourage anyone who I meet, Christian or non-Christian to become or remain an atheist. Given the Gospel, that would be completely immoral.

Irrespective of how many people believe in the Gospel, it is the responsibility of Christians to lead people to it.

Being interested in state secularism does not mean encouraging people to become atheists. Telling people who currently attend church not to go or people who claim to be Christians of any denomination is nothing to do with that. I find it quite dishonest when atheists try to point it out like that.

I guess, I'm not interested in societal secularism, or individual secularism. In fact I'm strongly opposed to both of those forms. I'm interested in the State leaving churches alone and ensuring religious freedom, and the churches not trying to rule society. This is better for Christianity too. I'd like to see Christianity become a powerful grass roots movement globally, and I think it's possible, but it will take a lot of work to reject the state / cultural forms of Christianity that are among us.

Sorry to say it, but if the churches don't have some say in society, then society (a secualr one) will rule them. As we're seeing with the Obama administration forcing Catholic organizations to provide the morning after pill etc. Which is essentially imposing their values on the church.

But if a state becomes secularised, they must have a reason for not wanting religion interfering. Is it because they think religious teachings are harmful? If it is, then doesn't it make sense that they would try and outlaw religious activity all together. Of course we've seen this in communist Russia, with ugly consequences. A secualr society seems all nice now, but this is a time where we're 'tolerant' and 'relative', it won't last forever.

What makes you think we won't see it again? I think, give it enough time, their will be an attempt to suppress religious worship, especially the Catholic church. with it's array of strict teachings, that seemingly most of this country don't want to abide by.

Doc Farrell · 12-06-2012 12:51am

liveya wrote: »

Sorry to say it, but if the churches don't have some say in society, then society (a secualr one) will rule them. As we're seeing with the Obama administration forcing Catholic organizations to provide the morning after pill etc. Which is essentially imposing their values on the church.

But if a state becomes secularised, they must have a reason for not wanting religion interfering. Is it because they think religious teachings are harmful? If it is, then doesn't it make sense that they would try and outlaw religious activity all together. Of course we've seen this in communist Russia, with ugly consequences. A secualr society seems all nice now, but this is a time where we're 'tolerant' and 'relative', it won't last forever.

What makes you think we won't see it again? I think, give it enough time, their will be an attempt to suppress religious worship, especially the Catholic church. with it's array of strict teachings, that seemingly most of this country don't want to abide by.

There will be no attempt to suppress religious worship. There will be no need to suppress it. The decision of the hierarchy to go heresy hunting after nuns and girl guides is destroying what remains of their moral authority. What legal team is advising the bishops, 'Satan, baal and beelzebub inc'? (edit: this is an attempt at humour)

Dear poster there is a considerable difference between the soviets and America. Visit Latvia or Moldova if you don't believe me. And this is their new age, God help them.

philologos · 12-06-2012 6:56am

liveya: Even if the State did suppress Christianity, I would still follow it. I think Christianity turns out badly when it tries to work top-down rather than down-up (grassroots) if you will. I agree that I desire and I long for people in society to become Christians and to grow in the Gospel. I also agree that if this happened wide scale it ultimately would affect a culture.

liveya · 12-06-2012 4:20pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

There will be no attempt to suppress religious worship. There will be no need to suppress it. The decision of the hierarchy to go heresy hunting after nuns and girl guides is destroying what remains of their moral authority. What legal team is advising the bishops, 'Satan, baal and beelzebub inc'? (edit: this is an attempt at humour)

Dear poster there is a considerable difference between the soviets and America. Visit Latvia or Moldova if you don't believe me. And this is their new age, God help them.

Okay, I was over reacting, the result of an increasing hostile world to religious faith. You're probably right, it won't happen like it did in Russia, it will be more subtle this time: instead of this annihilation of actual churches and religious people, like in the soviet era, the doctrines, teachings and tenets will be attacked, as we are seeing. Undermining the faith itself, and therefore trying to suppress it that way.

But Doc Farrell, I don't see how the actual moral authority of the bishops is affected, in reality, just because of the crimes of ommision and commison of certain priests and Bishops years ago.

What I'm saying is, the truth remains regardless of their conduct, so if they teach the truth, then in reality the moral authority has nothing to do with the people they are, it only seems that way. In other words I see a genetic fallacy, in saying what they actually teach has no moral authorty, just because of it's origin.

If they teach the truth, that conctraception is wrong for example, then it's basis of that being true or false is not defined by their terrible conduct. So as long as Bishops teach church doctrine, then their moral autority is not affected, it only seems that way for people who don't like what they teach.

tommy2bad · 12-06-2012 4:33pm

liveya wrote: »

the doctrines, teachings and tenets will be attacked, as we are seeing. Undermining the faith itself, and therefore trying to suppress it that way.
One way to do it I supose but thats not the reason their is opisition to certain church teachings.
But Doc Farrell, I don't see how the actual moral authority of the bishops is affected, in reality, just because of the crimes of ommision and commison of certain priests and Bishops years ago.

What I'm saying is, the truth remains regardless of their conduct, so if they teach the truth, then in reality the moral authority has nothing to do with the people they are, it only seems that way. In other words I see a genetic fallacy, in saying what they actually teach has no moral authorty, just because of it's origin.

If they teach the truth, that conctraception is wrong for example, then it's basis of that being true or false is not defined by their terrible conduct. So as long as Bishops teach church doctrine, then their moral autority is not affected, it only seems that way for people who don't like what they teach.

The problem is when the person teaching is seen as corupt then what they teach becomes suspec of being the product of coruption. We suspect hiden agendas at worst, hypocrasy at best. Yes their moral authority is undermined by their behavour.
The teaching becomes open to debate on it own merit rather than because of who teaches it. God works in mesterious ways

Brer Fox · 12-06-2012 4:33pm

liveya wrote: »

Okay, I was over reacting, the result of an increasing hostile world to religious faith. You're probably right, it won't happen like it did in Russia, it will be more subtle this time: instead of this annihilation of actual churches and religious people, like in the soviet era, the doctrines, teachings and tenets will be attacked, as we are seeing. Undermining the faith itself, and therefore trying to suppress it that way.

But Doc Farrell, I don't see how the actual moral authority of the bishops is affected, in reality, just because of the crimes of ommision and commison of certain priests and Bishops years ago.

What I'm saying is, the truth remains regardless of their conduct, so if they teach the truth, then in reality the moral authority has nothing to do with the people they are, it only seems that way. In other words I see a genetic fallacy, in saying what they actually teach has no moral authorty, just because of it's origin.

If they teach the truth, that conctraception is wrong for example, then it's basis of that being true or false is not defined by their terrible conduct. So as long as Bishops teach church doctrine, then their moral autority is not affected, it only seems that way for people who don't like what they teach.

Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Humanum Genus:

"From the anti-social character of the errors we have mentioned, it is clear that the greatest dangers are to be feared for States. For once the fear of God and the reverence due to His laws have been taken away, the authority of rulers treated with contempt, free reign and approval given to sedition, popular passions recklessly fanned, and all restraining influences eliminated except the fear of punishment, then there will necessarily follow a revolutionary upheaval and a period of wholesale destruction of existing institutions...A complete change and upheaval of this kind is being carefully prepared by numerous associations of Communists and Socialists, in fact, it is their openly avowed aim; and Freemasonry is not only not opposed to their plans, but looks upon them with the greatest favour, as its leading principles are identical with theirs. If the Freemasons do not immediately and everywhere proceed to realise the ultimate conclusions contained in these principles, this is not because they are restrained by the discipline of the organization or by lack of determination, but partly on account of the power and virtue of that divine religion which cannot be crushed out of existence, and partly because the more balanced part of mankind are unwilling to sink into slavery under the domination of secret societies, and offer vigorous resistance to their insane endeavours."

This is why ecclesiastical masonry has infiltrated the Church. The Church cannot be destroyed from without. External persecution only serves to make her stronger. The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church as Tertullian reminded us. Ecclesiastical masonry is Freemasonry which has infiltrated the Church with the goal of subverting her from within by questioning all traditional doctrines and remaking the Church into the image and likeness of man.

It was Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski who warned, back in June of 1963, that "It is not the Communists whom we fear. What fills us with anguish is the spectacle of false brethren." Here the great Cardinal was warning of those modern-day Judases who, instead of openly attacking the Church, seek to infiltrate and penetrate her in order to introduce and impose humanitarian, naturalistic and anti-traditional ideas.

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/pope-leo-xiii-and-cardinal-stefan.html

georgieporgy · 12-06-2012 4:43pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem is when the person teaching is seen as corupt then what they teach becomes suspec of being the product of coruption. We suspect hiden agendas at worst, hypocrasy at best. Yes their moral authority is undermined by their behavour.
The teaching becomes open to debate on it own merit rather than because of who teaches it. God works in mesterious ways

thank goodness we have examples of good christians like Mother Teresa and the late pope John Paul to rely on. Lets listen to them and copy their example instead of the corrupt bad guys. (unless of course we don't want to?)

Doc Farrell · 12-06-2012 9:01pm

Leo xxiii was living in a very different time when there were strong anti-catholic feelings both in Europe and America. Freemasonry and communism is not that much an issue any more.
Brer do you understand the words that you bolded? Do you know what humanitarian means? It's not an actual insult. Am I wrong in presuming that these words are directed at me? That I am a Judas or false brother? Are you familiar with the charter here? I'm being polite to you again because I know you have a lot to deal with but it would be wiser for you to consider your words before flinging them out. Perhaps I made a mistake in trying to help you, perhaps you need to make painful mistakes in order to learn from them. A great many people of all ages do.
Try not to be too influenced by passionate views on the Internet, they may not be altogether healthy.

Brer Fox · 12-06-2012 9:36pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Leo xxiii was living in a very different time when there were strong anti-catholic feelings both in Europe and America. Freemasonry and communism is not that much an issue any more.
Brer do you understand the words that you bolded? Do you know what humanitarian means? It's not an actual insult. Am I wrong in presuming that these words are directed at me? That I am a Judas or false brother? Are you familiar with the charter here? I'm being polite to you again because I know you have a lot to deal with but it would be wiser for you to consider your words before flinging them out. Perhaps I made a mistake in trying to help you, perhaps you need to make painful mistakes in order to learn from them. A great many people of all ages do.
Try not to be too influenced by passionate views on the Internet, they may not be altogether healthy.

I do not know you Doc, I don't even know if you are Catholic or not. I any case, you were not in my mind when I posted that material and that is the truth of the matter. It was a post by liveya that inspired me to post my material. I think the cardinal was talking about unfaithful clerics within the Church when he spoke of modern-day Judases. Be at peace.

HamletOrHecuba · 13-06-2012 12:28am

Doc Farrell wrote: »

.
Try not to be too influenced by passionate views on the Internet, they may not be altogether healthy.

Your own posts would count as passionate views on the internet surely?

But you are right there is a lot of confusing junk out there; so best focus on the Bible, the Church Fathers and the traditional Liturgy?

liveya · 13-06-2012 12:31pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

The problem is when the person teaching is seen as corupt then what they teach becomes suspec of being the product of coruption. We suspect hiden agendas at worst, hypocrasy at best. Yes their moral authority is undermined by their behavour.
The teaching becomes open to debate on it own merit rather than because of who teaches it. God works in mesterious ways

I don't see how the truth of the church's teachings (not the bishops teachings) is defined by the terrible conduct of some Bishop's, though in those days nobody challenged their religious authority, and neither would have anyone else in those days. Hence why nobody did challenge their actions, or inactions.

The church teachings, through all the bad popes and abuse of power of the years remained pure, that is, when a pope kept mistresses, they didn't alter canon law and say it's now okay to keep mistresses. It remained pure.

So tommy, we go back to our original problem. If what the Bishops teach is what the churches teach, and bishops certainly cannot change the church teaching, then how is their moral authority in reality affected? As already pointed out, some, thing, does not become false just because of it's origin (genetic fallacy).

tommy2bad · 13-06-2012 4:08pm

liveya;
If what the Bishops teach is what the churches teach, and bishops certainly cannot change the church teaching, then how is their moral authority in reality affected? As already pointed out, some, thing, does not become false just because of it's origin (genetic fallacy).

The teaching isn't afected the authority of the bishop to preach it is. See the difference?
If the bishop looses authority then the teaching has to stand or fall on its own merit.What the church teaches is in the end what bishops and popes agree on, remove their authority and the teaching is without authority.
Uncomfortable as that may be for some people, I don't think its a bad thing.

Theirs a quote I cant recall exactly but it's something like " The lord puts under the plough all things, least the greatest virtues by habit become vices"
BTW how do you distinguish the church from the bishops/popes? Are you using the term 'church' to mean the eternal catholic church or the people of God or the hierarchy?

liveya · 13-06-2012 6:30pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

The teaching isn't afected the authority of the bishop to preach it is. See the difference?
If the bishop looses authority then the teaching has to stand or fall on its own merit.What the church teaches is in the end what bishops and popes agree on, remove their authority and the teaching is without authority.
Uncomfortable as that may be for some people, I don't think its a bad thing.

Theirs a quote I cant recall exactly but it's something like " The lord puts under the plough all things, least the greatest virtues by habit become vices"
BTW how do you distinguish the church from the bishops/popes? Are you using the term 'church' to mean the eternal catholic church or the people of God or the hierarchy?

I see the difference now, thanks for clarifying. But aren't those Bishops who actually covered up abuse, either dead or retired? I don't see how the moral authority of the current bishops would be affected. Since they are different people. It would be like saying the medical authority of a doctor is affected because the previous doctor was mudering old ladies like Harold Shipman. That's what I'm trying to say.

I can see how many don't go to church naymore, not because they had any faith in the sacraments to begin with, but because the abuse cover ups was their 'ticket out' of something they didn't want to be part of - the church. I mean, how would depriving oneself of the sacraments, by refusing to go to church do any good for those abused, or bring justice in any way?

gimmebroadband · 13-06-2012 6:55pm

liveya wrote: »

I see the difference now, thanks for clarifying. But aren't those Bishops who actually covered up abuse, either dead or retired? I don't see how the moral authority of the current bishops would be affected. Since they are different people. It would be like saying the medical authority of a doctor is affected because the previous doctor was mudering old ladies like Harold Shipman. That's what I'm trying to say.

I can see how many don't go to church naymore, not because they had any faith in the sacraments to begin with, but because the abuse cover ups was their 'ticket out' of something they didn't want to be part of - the church. I mean, how would depriving oneself of the sacraments, by refusing to go to church do any good for those abused, or bring justice in any way?

The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones

William Shakespeare

tommy2bad · 13-06-2012 7:48pm

liveya wrote: »

I see the difference now, thanks for clarifying. But aren't those Bishops who actually covered up abuse, either dead or retired? I don't see how the moral authority of the current bishops would be affected. Since they are different people. It would be like saying the medical authority of a doctor is affected because the previous doctor was mudering old ladies like Harold Shipman. That's what I'm trying to say.
And thats true but if the medical establishment had covered up and facilitated Shipman.......?
I can see how many don't go to church naymore, not because they had any faith in the sacraments to begin with, but because the abuse cover ups was their 'ticket out' of something they didn't want to be part of - the church. I mean, how would depriving oneself of the sacraments, by refusing to go to church do any good for those abused, or bring justice in any way?

I agree for many the abuse was just a justification for abandoning something they dident subscribe to anyway but thats not a problem for the church, it's a symptom of something though, a disafection with a church that has lost touch with people and no longer holds the respect or authority that it once did.
As to depriving oneself of the sacraments? I won't try to answer for anyone else here just myself. I have left the RCC having been born and bred a catholic, not because I didn't want to be in it anyway and the abuse gave me an out. I left because the institutional church not only covered up abuse but in doing so allowed it to continue. I had to face the fact that the RCC had chosen its own institutional survival over the best interest of its flock.
It had in fact decided to sacrifice them to save itself.
Had this been due to ignorance and ineptitude I would have been ashamed of them but willing to forgive. While these failings played a part they were not the whole story and we have seen that the thinking was church first people second.
So I have lost faith in the RCC as capiable of anything other than self serving efforts.Sorry if thats harsh but thats how I see it.
At the moment I am church-less but not faithless, I hope that the RC reforms and sorts its self out but I wont hold my breath. Any thing I have seen so far indicates that they are playing a long game and trying not to regain lost sheep but compete for a new flock elsewhere. In fact they seem to want to discourage any kind of modernization at all.
Entrenchment is understandable but its not the solution .
As to the sacraments? I might have to go elsewhere, I have always been more inclined towards Orthodoxy in theology anyway. Or the Episcopalians are an option. No salvation outside the church they say, I'll take my chance.
Of course things may go differently, I have hope that it will, in which case...I'll be back as another Austrian once said.;)

Welcome to the forum btw. nice to see new opinions to agree and disagree with.

MrPudding · 16-06-2012 5:11pm

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Ok, there may be a little confusion here between the census figures and any figures that the Catholic Church compiles. We don't seem to know one way or another whether the church compiles such figures, so it's probably best to stick to discussing the census figures.

This is also one of the issues. There is no apparent consistency in how numbers of adherents are counted. Sometimes it is the CSO figures, sometimes it is the baptismal record and sometimes, apparently, the census Sunday figures.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You say that a difference needs to be made between people who simply say they are Catholic but don't follow any of the tenets of the faith, and those who do follow the tenets of the faith. To a certain extent you may have a point, but how do you propose to differentiate between the two? And how would a state body such as the CSO differentiate between the two?

That is the million dollar question. I don't know, but not knowing is not an excuse to stop asking.

With respect to the census a change in the format of the question and some additional questions would help. What religion do you consider yourself to be? Then follow that up with a couple of questions around attendance at services etc. I understand there is a reluctance to change questions as it makes statistical analysis more tricky, but then how much value is there in analysing a worthless figure.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Ultimately they depend on individuals giving an honest response, and to be fair, while you may not consider someone who dissents from the Catholic teaching on contraception to be Catholic (and that is the vast majority of Catholics), they would vehemently disagree. Personally, I would differentiate between fundamentals such as the virgin birth, the resurrection and what is contained in the Nicene Creed, with issues such as teachings regarding divorce and contraception. I'd have to admit though that even that is a completely subjective opinion.

Agreed, this would not be easy and any line drawn will be arbitrary.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I should add that the reason the Holy See has permanent observer status at the UN, and participates in other international organisations, is because historically it has been recognised as a sovereign entity by countries around the world. This has absolutely nothing to do with the number of Catholics in Ireland or any other country.

The pretend state status of the Holy See is something else I take issue with. That said, the church does use the old "we represent 1 billion people worldwide" line quite a bit.

And it is perhaps worth noting that the church's activity in the US over the health bill and their activity closer to home around gay marriage is in breach of the treaty that they use to claim state status, but that is for another thread.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

MrP your arguments make a lot of sense at first reading but what I'm wondering is, why are you devoting so much time to them? The only way to change the situation is to bring the Vatican to the European court of human rights, which is a costly and lengthy procedure.

I think a Frenchman already has... Or at least he was successful in the French courts. There was a thread on it in A & A I think, I will see if I can dig it out.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The reason the RCC has Changed canon law to prevent people from opting out is, I presume, because they don't want to deal with the bureaucratic headache of changing all the paperwork. Frankly I think that you are wasting your obvious talents on this subject unless you are ready to make it a legal case. If I were an atheist it would be way down on my list of things that bother me about organized religion, probably about number 46.

Because it is hard is not really a reason to stop doing it. I would love to see more legal challenges on this, and I have to say I am surprised there has not been more action on this front. I would love to take a case myself, but I am, unfortunately a little short on time...

philologos wrote: »

MrPudding: Why do you think churches need to formally recognise that people don't want to be a part of them any more? It's an odd request. If people don't want to be a part of it any more, that's it as far as most churches are concerned.

It's not up to churches to boot anyone out. It's up to people to decide if they want to leave. I just think it is bizarre that people expect churches to formally recognise that people leave.

Again with the spectacularly missing the point. The point is the numbers. It is the number of people the church claims to speak for. We all know all we have to do to leave the church is stop going. Let me repeat that again, we all know all we have to do to leave the church is stop going. We got that. What we don't know is what do we have to do for the church to stop counting us. That is the issue.

Sonics2k · 16-06-2012 5:31pm

philologos wrote: »

MrPudding: Why do you think churches need to formally recognise that people don't want to be a part of them any more? It's an odd request. If people don't want to be a part of it any more, that's it as far as most churches are concerned.

It's not really complicated.
There are people who firmly disagree with everything the Vatican does, for a variety of reasons, ranging from being Atheists/Agnostics, or even converting to another religion.

It's quite ridiculous for the Vatican to claim these people as members of the RCC, despite them having no wish to be so. These numbers are then thrown out by the RCC as the amount of members they have, when in reality it is a false number.

As an example. I was a member of the Labour party for some time, but given the last few months and their total failure to go ahead with the political promises they made should they come to power in the Dail, I have elected to leave the party as I do not wish to be a member anymore.
As such, they have removed me from their records and I will no longer be counted as a member, thus showing a correct reflection of the member numbers.

The Vatican should morally do the same, and not keep people as members, despite them not wishing to be so. It is quite simply a tactic used by the Vatican to make it look like their numbers are only increasing.

philologos wrote: »

It's not up to churches to boot anyone out. It's up to people to decide if they want to leave. I just think it is bizarre that people expect churches to formally recognise that people leave.

I fail to see why it's bizarre at all. People don't want to be members, and should not be counted as such.

Benny_Cake · 16-06-2012 5:47pm

MrPudding wrote: »

That is the million dollar question. I don't know, but not knowing is not an excuse to stop asking.

I would absolutely agree with this, there is value in discussing subjects such as this even if we acknowledge that there are no straightforward answers.

MrPudding wrote: »

With respect to the census a change in the format of the question and some additional questions would help. What religion do you consider yourself to be? Then follow that up with a couple of questions around attendance at services etc. I understand there is a reluctance to change questions as it makes statistical analysis more tricky, but then how much value is there in analysing a worthless figure.

You could have followup questions, although they would have to be very general so that they could be answered regardless of religion.

It seems to me that the main thing the census figures are used for is in the area of schooling and patronage, something which will (rightly) be changing in the next few years. As the education system gradually becomes more secular (and I'm aware that secular is a dirty word to some posters here), this will become less of an issue.

MrPudding wrote: »

Again with the spectacularly missing the point. The point is the numbers. It is the number of people the church claims to speak for. We all know all we have to do to leave the church is stop going. Let me repeat that again, we all know all we have to do to leave the church is stop going. We got that. What we don't know is what do we have to do for the church to stop counting us. That is the issue.

Honestly, I don't think the church has any idea of the amount of members it has. Round it to the nearest hundred million, at best! I think most people are quite aware of that too. For what it's worth though, I think the "Count Me Out" facility should be restored.

Brer Fox · 17-06-2012 2:43am

There is a practical problem with the idea of the Catholic Church keeping a 'registry' of members.

Firstly, the Church has the duty and right to record who has been baptised. This is a matter of historical fact, and it is important when administering the other Sacraments that the Church knows who has received what, when, and where.

Secondly, there would be a major pastoral problem with the Church keeping a live registry of members, their status and so on. How would this work? So if you miss Mass two Sundays running you drop out of the 'Good Catholic' ranking and enter 'Lapsed Catholic'? Then when you go to confession, the priest has an ipad connected to the super computer in the Vatican and it updates your ranking so that you are restored to 'Good Catholic' again?

With freedom of information, people would have a right to see their Church ranking, just as they have a right to see their credit ratings. People would get upset if they knew Holy Mother Church regarded them as 'Bad' or 'lapsed' or 'Apostate' Catholics. Real people have real journeys and they move through life, with crises here, happy times there. Real life Catholics can't be boxed in to a system such as would be necessary if the proponents of 'Count me out' style thingies got their wish. The Church regards anyone She has baptised as a Catholic. The baptism cannot be washed away. Even in hell, souls will bear the mark of baptism.

philologos · 17-06-2012 8:47am

Sonics2k - I think that you missed the point I was actually making in my post if that's what you got from it. Read my other posts in this thread and that one will make sense.

In other churches - there is no formal procedure for leaving. Most people just do the figures by attendance or census results.

Splendour · 18-06-2012 9:51am

Splendour wrote: »

Or that same couple who,when having a child baptised, knowingly lie when they promise to bring their child up in the Catholic faith when they've no intention of setting foot inside the church until the child's communion day?

MrPudding wrote: »

Done this 3 times myself. In my defence it was under severe protest.

MrP

Quite a number of people do this and then complain that most of our schools are under the guidance of the CC. It doesn't make sense to me...

Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

Comments