Mass attendance up, even after Ryan.....

fisgon

According to the Irish Times weekly mass attendance in this country is now at 46%, up 4% since the height of the boom. I can see that in an economic downturn people will turn back to religion, but after the horrors of Ryan? After the non-stop child abuse revelations? What does this say about us?

Turtwig

Wouldn't read too much into tbh, statistics fluctuate the whole time.
I'd love if media outlets determined causation before reporting correlations.
(Never going to happen I know...:()

Anyways, I'm not part of that 4% increase...
I'm part of the 46%

Edit: That reminds me, I forgot about Seamus's question...

Latchy

It says that people can be fickle when it suits them .

lugha

I find it rather odd that any Catholic would give up their ‘aul God in the wake of Ryan, After all, if you hold Catholicism to be true, how does it become untrue because of the bad behavior of some of the clergy? It would be akin to me deciding I was no longer going to believe in gravitational attraction if it emerged that Newton was a bit of a knave.

irishpaddy

fisgon wrote: »

According to the Irish Times weekly mass attendance in this country is now at 46%, up 4% since the height of the boom. I can see that in an economic downturn people will turn back to religion, but after the horrors of Ryan? After the non-stop child abuse revelations? What does this say about us?

who do you know that goes; or went to mass just to look at the priest. most of the parish priests are not great speakers, so you don't go to be overwhelmed verbally. i see so many staying outside the door and i can't figure it out. why go and stand there doing nothing; saying nothing; or at least nothing to do with the service; well maybe the odd word as to how much longer it can go on for. i go to mass on a very regular basis and it has to do with the belief in god, my god; your god; the one god.

Turtwig

irishpaddy wrote: »

who do you know that goes; or went to mass just to look at the priest. most of the parish priests are not great speakers, so you don't go to be overwhelmed verbally. i see so many staying outside the door and i can't figure it out. why go and stand there doing nothing; saying nothing; or at least nothing to do with the service; well maybe the odd word as to how much longer it can go on for. i go to mass on a very regular basis and it has to do with the belief in god, my god; your god; the one god.

Maybe because it's a cultural and community thing.

liamw

It's the recession

Dades

I'm not a big fan of Ryan Tubridy either... but I don't care enough to change my beliefs for him.

Coriolanus

I don't find it that surprising tbh. People, lots of them, are at panic stations and having exhausted every mortal means at their disposal of improving their situation, they naturally turn to the divine.

docmol

where do they get these statistics? is it possible to see a breakdown by age? are they verifyable?

Coriolanus

docmol wrote: »

where do they get these statistics? is it possible to see a breakdown by age? are they verifyable?

Well, they're by RedC and they sell the figures to newspapers, programmes etc. Presumably you can see a full breakdown when you pay for the product, iol.ie mentions that:

The poll also finds that church attendance is still reasonably high among young people.

While attendance rates are lower than the national average, almost a third of 18-24 year olds attend church weekly.

for example. I've seen breakdowns done in the Irish Times for other polls they've done, but presumably full access is a purchased commodity.

As for how they're done, presumably the same as most other opinion polls and surveys. The pollster chooses what they like to call a "statistically signifigant" proportion of the population, properly distributed throughout the countries geographical, social and economical strata, poll them, and then extrapolate figures for the entire country from that sample.

Not exactly foolproof, it can be easy enough to skew sample sizes, data collection points etc etc. (Bad Science has a great section on statistics and though it mainly deals with medical fraud, a lot of the lessons are applicable to political/social polling)

Bottle_of_Smoke

No publicity is bad publicity. I don't actually mean that in a tongue in cheek way. More talk about the church, more thinking about the church.

seamus

This discussion was had in the Christianity forum and it was agreed over there that this is not an indication that faithfulness is on the rise or that "believers" are coming back in their droves.

All it really says is that more Irish people were in a church building this year than last year. And since births and marriages have gone through the roof, that would easily account for the increase in footfall, particularly amoung the 18-40 age group.

It doesn't contain any indication whatsoever that support for the church is rising or that people are "returning to the church".

Dades

docmol wrote: »

where do they get these statistics? is it possible to see a breakdown by age? are they verifyable?

Everybody can relax - here is the source of the statistics:

The Irish Times wrote:

The Red C poll, conducted between October 19th and 21st last, for the Catholic Iona Institute and based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over, found that weekly church attendance is now 46 per cent while monthly attendance is 65 per cent.

Call me cynical but a poll created by the Iona Institute is only going to have one goal in mind - to make it appear that religion is popular and healthy. 1000 adults between 18 and over were called - undoubtedly on their home landlines. How many young people sit at home beside their directory listed landlines? I would suggest they basically polled the Late Late Show audience.

Full article here.

Tim Robbins

seamus wrote: »

This discussion was had in the Christianity forum and it was agreed over there that this is not an indication that faithfulness is on the rise or that "believers" are coming back in their droves.

All it really says is that more Irish people were in a church building this year than last year. And since births and marriages have gone through the roof, that would easily account for the increase in footfall, particularly amoung the 18-40 age group.

It doesn't contain any indication whatsoever that support for the church is rising or that people are "returning to the church".

Is there not a sort of Irish trend that when people have kids, the mother tends to bring them to mass / church every now and again?

seamus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Is there not a sort of Irish trend that when people have kids, the mother tends to bring them to mass / church every now and again?

Honestly couldn't tell you, but from the discussion on the christianity forum apparently large numbers of atheists/non-catholics attend mass with their spouse or their child.

However if you are to count a non-believing mother and their child as "churchgoers", then you're overestimating the size of your flock by at least 50%.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

Everybody can relax - here is the source of the statistics:

Call me cynical but a poll created by the Iona Institute is only going to have one goal in mind - to make it appear that religion is popular and healthy. 1000 adults between 18 and over were called - undoubtedly on their home landlines. How many young people sit at home beside their directory listed landlines? I would suggest they basically polled the Late Late Show audience.

The problem is redC itself, seriously have you gotten a call from those folks?
Their survey takes ages!:mad:
And I wasn't in a mad enough mood to hang up!!:mad::mad:

They're either
"A or B or C or D or E or F or G or H"

or
"Statement :
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strong Disagree."

Honestly it'd be faster if they just emailed you the bloody thing.

Survey took around 20 mins : never again.
Getting to closer to the end the temptation is obviously there to just string it and not really think.

Coriolanus

They take a while alright, but in fairness to them they tend to come out with results that make sense. I've never seen any decidedly polls from them.

Take this one for example, we all pretty much assumed there would be some rise in church attendance the last year.

They got the Lisbon Treaty bang on to within a decimal point, so they obviously know the ins and outs of who to poll, and when, to get an accurate reading of peoples whims.

Turtwig

Nevore wrote: »

They take a while alright, but in fairness to them they tend to come out with results that make sense. I've never seen any decidedly polls from them.

Take this one for example, we all pretty much assumed there would be some rise in church attendance the last year.

They got the Lisbon Treaty bang on to within a decimal point, so they obviously know the ins and outs of who to poll, and when, to get an accurate reading of peoples whims.

Oh, yeah I agree, they are good, it's just I'd imagine the caller needs a bit of patience to finder younger adults patient enough to fill in the survey.
So that all demographics are covered.

Galvasean

The Catholic Iona Institute publishes statistic spun to make the Catholic Church look better/stronger?
Stop the bleedin' presses!

irishpaddy

but i have seen so many people get their kids baptised and they have not been to a church in years, nor will they go again until another wedding or another baby. now i am not criticising them; i believe any reason is a good reason to go to a church, but i mean what is the mentality in doing something that you really have no time for; and i have seen this abroad in non catholic countries, i mean if you dont believe in god and you hear me praying you may think i am mad saying who are you talking to; but at least i believe i am talking to someone. but those that attend and dont give jot as to why they are attending and if this is true then they dont believe; then who are they talking to.

Xluna

fisgon wrote: »

After the non-stop child abuse revelations? What does this say about us?

Weak minded.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

a poll created by the Iona Institute is only going to have one goal in mind - to make it appear that religion is popular and healthy.

I'd be as suspicious as hell about this "survey". Firstly, it's produced by the Iona Institute. Secondly, it seems unlikely that weekly church attendance has increased by 10% in a few months, with monthly attendance increasing by almost 20% (in comparison with the results of Michael Mac Greil's study). Thirdly, Quinn's report requires that anybody using information contained within it must ask him and Red C before publishing (huh?)

Finally, the questions that Red C asked don't appear to have been published, so I'm having a hard time convincing myself that they weren't loaded in some way.

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

Finally, the questions that Red C asked don't appear to have been published, so I'm having a hard time convincing myself that they weren't loaded in some way.

Yes, without knowing what was asked, you can't know if 'monthly attendance' means weddings, christenings & funerals or actually going along for a standard Sunday mass. All I can say is that if anyone I know personally does regularly go to mass on Sundays, they sure are keeping quiet about it. This may, however, say more about the company I keep.

If the survey is right, I wonder which congregations are growing. I'd expect, given the ongoing travails in the Catholic church and the general trend towards increased individual choice, that - at least in the cities - some of the newer and more consumer-driven churches will increase their market share at the expense of Catholicism. The poll as reported, though, sheds no light on whether or not this is happening.

dvpower

Dades wrote: »

Full article here.

Good indepth reporting from the IT. They got a metal health expert to tell us of the benefits of religious practice.

Irish Times wrote:

Prof Patricia Casey, consultant psychiatrist at the Mater hospital in Dublin, said people would “benefit from the moderating effects of religious practice on the stress that inevitably results from the current downturn.”

Wait a second; isn't that Patricia Casey who sits on the board of the Iona Institute, the same people who commissioned the poll?

robindch

dvpower wrote: »

Wait a second; isn't that Patricia Casey who sits on the board of the Iona Institute, the same people who commissioned the poll?

Yep, I believe it's the same woman who, earlier this year, produced a pseudo-scientific report on the benefits of prayer which unaccountably forgot to mention the largest, most expensive, most-wide ranging, long-term study ever carried out into the third-party effects of prayer.

Weird, that.

spacetweek

fisgon wrote: »

According to the Irish Times weekly mass attendance in this country is now at 46%, up 4% since the height of the boom. I can see that in an economic downturn people will turn back to religion, but after the horrors of Ryan? After the non-stop child abuse revelations? What does this say about us?

I'd be surprised if it made any difference. We've already had around 15 years of child abuse revelations.

In uncertain times, religious observance often goes up. Also when people have less money, religious observance is more common. This is why religious belief is stronger in developing countries but tends to wane as a country gets richer (with the exception of the USA).

Xluna wrote: »

Weak minded.

Nope, just the recession. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Yep, I believe it's the same woman who, earlier this year, produced a pseudo-scientific report on the benefits of prayer which unaccountably forgot to mention the largest, most expensive, most-wide ranging, long-term study ever carried out into the third-party effects of prayer.

Weird, that.

Oh, you mean the one that showed how when you pray for people (well, tell them that you are praying for them actually) their condition is more likely to worsen as a result?
Must have slipped her mind. I can't imagine she would purposefully cherrypick details to further an agenda... *snigger*

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Yep, I believe it's the same woman who, earlier this year, produced a pseudo-scientific report on the benefits of prayer which unaccountably forgot to mention the largest, most expensive, most-wide ranging, long-term study ever carried out into the third-party effects of prayer.

Weird, that.

I've read alot of what Institute spouts, (especially with regard to LGBT marriage), it the crap they publish that infuriates me at times because of who they aim their sh1te at.

Depressing stuff.:mad:

philologos

I don't see how the Ryan Report would stop people from considering God or going to church if their priest has never been involved in sexual abuse in his lifetime. It'd be fairly fallacious reasoning to assume that because a minority of priests within Catholicism abused children that it should be extended to every parish including well meaning people who weren't involved in the slightest.

spacetweek wrote:

In uncertain times, religious observance often goes up. Also when people have less money, religious observance is more common. This is why religious belief is stronger in developing countries but tends to wane as a country gets richer (with the exception of the USA).

What do you think that says about humanity? Is it a good or bad portrayal that people generally become more materialistic and less concerned with higher questions when money starts rolling in? Generally materialism produces apathy rather than any strong conviction I would have thought?

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think that says about humanity? Is it a good or bad portrayal that people generally become more materialistic and less concerned with higher questions when money starts rolling in?

I wouldn't say they become lesss concerned with the 'higher questions' but rather interprate them differently. Basically, if times are tough people tend to be more likely to look for a crutch, anything to help/inspire them to get through things. Religion would fit that bill nicely. On the other hand, if things are going well people tend to thank themselves and not feel themselves dependent on a higher power.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

the crap they publish that infuriates me at times

Wouldn't worry about it too much. Unlike in the USA, there doesn't really seem to be a market in this country for religious propaganda dressed up as worthwhile research. So, while Quinn and friends seem to have the field pretty much to themselves, few bother to watch the game.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think that says about humanity?

I think it just says that as the standard of living goes down, people clutch at what they can to get them through.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Wouldn't worry about it too much. Unlike in the USA, there doesn't really seem to be a market in this country for religious propaganda dressed up as worthwhile research. So, while Quinn and friends seem to have the field pretty much to themselves, few bother to watch the game.

I've seen their research findings reported in many Irish newspapers. sometimes it credits the IONA Institute. Sometimes it doesn't. I've never seen the papers to go into the detail we do, ie: point out that they are a Catholic organization and their research methods are dubious.

Coriolanus

I'd want to know a bit more about RedC and what control they allow the clients over the polling before I jumped to any conclusions. To the best of my knowledge they do more in the process than make the phonecalls.

As in, did Iona set the questions, did they choose or have any role in the choosing of the polling candidates etc.

Considering the Times uses them for their own research, I'm a little skeptical that they'd allow themselves to be used in a way that would impact future earning from less biased clients.

seamus

Nevore wrote: »

I'd want to know a bit more about RedC and what control they allow the clients over the polling before I jumped to any conclusions. To the best of my knowledge they do more in the process than make the phonecalls.

As in, did Iona set the questions, did they choose or have any role in the choosing of the polling candidates etc.

Considering the Times uses them for their own research, I'm a little skeptical that they'd allow themselves to be used in a way that would impact future earning from less biased clients.

Red C are a very well respected polling company and by all accounts their methods are scientific and statistically valid.

However, the data and reports they produce are private and handed directly to the client, who is then free to re-interpret the data as they see fit and in constructing a press release they can omit and include whatever they feel is necessary to get their point across.

The Irish times is a direct transcribe from IONA's press release, lazy journalism. You can clearly see that they mix the data in their release;

For example, they say that X amount of people have not been in at least a year, but also give figures for "weekly" or "monthly" attendance. In reality these are two entirely different data sets, i.e.

1. Frequency of attendance
2. Time since last attendance

You can't use one in place of the other, that is, if someone says the last time they attended was "last week", that doesn't make them weekly attendees.

So I suspect the poll was perfectly scientific and unbiased, but the interpretation of the output leaves something to be desired.

robindch

I contacted David Quinn a day or two back. He said that the RedC question that was asked was:

David Quinn wrote:

When was the last time you attended a religious service in a place of worship?

I haven't been able to figure out how one can get weekly, monthly and annual attendance rates from that one question (though I have asked him).

Either way, the question is richly ambiguous.

I've been in a church for a religious service some weeks back -- in the Benedictine monastery of Fontgombault in France. And very pleasant it was too, but I'd hate to think that somebody would conclude from me being there (and buying some of their very fine pottery and sublime CD's), that I'd have been happy to have contributed towards a "big rise in church-attendance" or was turning to religion to "benefit from the moderating effects of religious practice on the stress that inevitably results from the current downturn", as Ms Casey puts it.

Dades

I 'attended a religious service in a place of worship' last Friday (funeral).

That's two of us heathens already in the net, Robin!

seamus

So I was right (in what I was telling myself in my head).

Since births (and presumably christenings) and marriages have increased dramatically, then I'd say that the answers there were all pretty positive.

Tells us absolutely zero about the state of religious worship in Ireland today.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

That's two of us heathens already in the net, Robin!

He's just got back, saying that respondents were asked to categorize attendance into "past week, past month, past year", and then assumes that this happens all the time (can you do that legitimately when dealing with large populations? I'm not sure)

Anyhow, Dades, according to the Iona Institute criteria, you're a weekly church-goer.

I think it's time you and I sat down and had a chat.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

I think it's time you and I sat down and had a chat.

Yes I was at mass but I swear I didn't inhale the incense! :pac:

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

I contacted David Quinn a day or two back. He said that the RedC question that was asked was:

David Quinn wrote:

When was the last time you attended a religious service in a place of worship?

I haven't been able to figure out how one can get weekly, monthly and annual attendance rates from that one question (though I have asked him).

Either way, the question is richly ambiguous.

robindch wrote: »

He's just got back, saying that respondents were asked to categorize attendance into "past week, past month, past year", and then assumes that this happens all the time (can you do that legitimately when dealing with large populations? I'm not sure).

If that's actually how Red C conducted the survey, then I can't see any justification for the press release the Iona Institute put out claiming weekly church attendance of 46% of all adults and monthly attendance of 65%.

The fact that it was broken down by political allegiance makes it sound as though the survey was a question tacked onto the end of a political opinion poll. Probably quite cheap to get done, and very cost effective given what Iona have apparently spun out of it.

.

Coriolanus

Colour me convinced.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

I contacted David Quinn a day or two back. He said that the RedC question that was asked was:I haven't been able to figure out how one can get weekly, monthly and annual attendance rates from that one question (though I have asked him).

Either way, the question is richly ambiguous.

I've been in a church for a religious service some weeks back -- in the Benedictine monastery of Fontgombault in France. And very pleasant it was too, but I'd hate to think that somebody would conclude from me being there (and buying some of their very fine pottery and sublime CD's), that I'd have been happy to have contributed towards a "big rise in church-attendance" or was turning to religion to "benefit from the moderating effects of religious practice on the stress that inevitably results from the current downturn", as Ms Casey puts it.

Dades wrote: »

I 'attended a religious service in a place of worship' last Friday (funeral).

That's two of us heathens already in the net, Robin!

Make that 3. I was at a funeral a week ago.

robindch wrote: »

He's just got back, saying that respondents were asked to categorize attendance into "past week, past month, past year", and then assumes that this happens all the time (can you do that legitimately when dealing with large populations? I'm not sure)

Anyhow, Dades, according to the Iona Institute criteria, you're a weekly church-goer.

Hmm, by that logic I too am a weekly church goer. Pity, considering before said funeral it was about a year since I had been to a mass (another funeral IIRC).
I should certainly hope I do not end up going to mass on a weekly basis considering taht would mean my friends and relatives would be dropping like flies! :eek:

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how the Ryan Report would stop people from considering God or going to church if their priest has never been involved in sexual abuse in his lifetime. It'd be fairly fallacious reasoning to assume that because a minority of priests within Catholicism abused children that it should be extended to every parish including well meaning people who weren't involved in the slightest.

Seriously? I can imagine that the Ryan Report might not stop many people from believing in God, but the Ryan report was damning of whole institutions, not just individual clergy. For example:

Ryan Report wrote:

The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities

When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again.

The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the extensive evidence that emerged from Garda investigations, criminal convictions and witness accounts.


In general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated.


Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue.

The Ryan report wasn't just about individual instances of abuse. It was also about how the church institutions dealt with it (and allowed it), so while I could fully understand that some people might not want to distance themselves from their God, they might want to distance themselves from their church.

philologos

dvpower: That's irrelevant. If you have a good priest / pastor in your church, irrespective of denomination, the fact that abuses have occurred elsewhere isn't going to detract from you going to your church to develop in your faith if you are to believe.

I can outwardly condemn acts that people have carried out in the name of Christianity and still commit myself to the cause.

That's entirely reasonable. The conclusion isn't condone the church or leave it. There is a middle ground.

I do agree that some distancing from denominational lines may well be required, or a serious call for reform at a denominational level.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

dvpower: That's irrelevant. If you have a good priest / pastor in your church, irrespective of denomination, the fact that abuses have occurred elsewhere isn't going to detract from you going to your church to develop in your faith if you are to believe.

I can outwardly condemn acts that people have carried out in the name of Christianity and still commit myself to the cause.

That's entirely reasonable. The conclusion isn't condone the church or leave it. There is a middle ground.

I do agree that some distancing from denominational lines may well be required, or a serious call for reform at a denominational level.

Not irrelevant at all. When the report was released there were lots of people posting on these boards (and elsewhere) that they couldn't/wouldn't go back to the church. Maybe they were just angry and didn't follow through on this, but its not an unreasonable position to take. They weren't necessarily saying that their faith was diminished, but their trust in the institution was.

Certainly if you had a good local priest it would help to keep you, but when that good local priest had to tow the official church line, which is still behaind the vast majority of public opinion, a person might decide that they could no longer be associated with the organisation. There are plently of choices in the God marketplace nowadays.

In any case, large numbers of people who attend church aren't going there to develop their faith; they're just a la carte Christians who attend more for cultural than religious reasons. These people are less likely to stay committed to the cause. I'd have thought that when reports like the Ryan report come out these people are the ones who examine their relationship with the church and conclude that they don't share a common cause at all.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

Not irrelevant at all. When the report was released there were lots of people posting on these boards (and elsewhere) that they couldn't/wouldn't go back to the church. Maybe they were just angry and didn't follow through on this, but its not an unreasonable position to take. They weren't necessarily saying that their faith was diminished, but their trust in the institution was.

Many of the people posting those angry comments were those who either regularly posted in the A&A section, or people who wouldn't have had any formal belief in God, or in Catholicism, or people who had doubted the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland before this came to light.

dvpower wrote: »

Certainly if you had a good local priest it would help to keep you, but when that good local priest had to tow the official church line, which is still behaind the vast majority of public opinion, a person might decide that they could no longer be associated with the organisation. There are plently of choices in the God marketplace nowadays.

Are we discussing the findings of the Ryan Report, or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church now? You're deviating from the main issue.

Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church != Ryan Report in terms of causation.

As for the "vast majority of public opinion". Churches shouldn't have to conform to public opinion if they are defending their traditional denominational position, and the position of the Christian community.

dvpower wrote: »

In any case, large numbers of people who attend church aren't going there to develop their faith; they're just a la carte Christians who attend more for cultural than religious reasons. These people are less likely to stay committed to the cause. I'd have thought that when reports like the Ryan report come out these people are the ones who examine their relationship with the church and conclude that they don't share a common cause at all.

I'd dispute this. If you go to church in the vast majority of cases you have a belief in God and most people want to express this by going to church.

I'm doubtful that this is a "large number". Perhaps this is the reason that only 3,039 people have printed off a form. I doubt that anywhere near that many actually follow through with it.

One would also have to wonder how many of these people already had themselves down as Lapsed Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, No Religion, or didn't fill in the form at all on the census.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Many of the people posting those angry comments were those who either regularly posted in the A&A section, or people who wouldn't have had any formal belief in God, or in Catholicism, or people who had doubted the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland before this came to light.

And many weren't. I think there was a lot of genuine anger from people who had a relationship with their church and felt badly let down.

Jakkass wrote: »

Are we discussing the findings of the Ryan Report, or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church now? You're deviating from the main issue.

Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church != Ryan Report in terms of causation.

No. I'm still on topic. I'm referring to the church's response to the abuse scandal (inadequate compensation, continuing protection of abusers ...)

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the "vast majority of public opinion". Churches shouldn't have to conform to public opinion if they are defending their traditional denominational position, and the position of the Christian community.

This could be the subject of a whole thread (probably with conflicting opinions both within and outside Christianity).

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd dispute this. If you go to church in the vast majority of cases you have a belief in God and most people want to express this by going to church.

I'm doubtful that this is a "large number". Perhaps this is the reason that only 3,039 people have printed off a form. I doubt that anywhere near that many actually follow through with it.

One would also have to wonder how many of these people already had themselves down as Lapsed Catholic, Atheist, Agnostic, No Religion, or didn't fill in the form at all on the census.

You might be in danger of going off topic yourself. I'm not suggesting that these people would officially leave the church. I'm suggesting that some would be less likely to attend.

But I would be interested in a survey of church goers to determine the level of their committment; how many are fully committed Christians right down to those who are just there out of habit (preferably not commissioned by the Iona Institute).

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

And many weren't. I think there was a lot of genuine anger from people who had a relationship with their church and felt badly let down.

I'm not sure to what extent that this was the case from reading and being involved in those threads as they arose.

As for "their church" we need clarification here. Do you mean their local church, or their denomination?

dvpower wrote: »

No. I'm still on topic. I'm referring to the church's response to the abuse scandal (inadequate compensation, continuing protection of abusers ...)

Then I need to say that priests do not have to publically condone any handling of the higher authorities on this issue.

This has nothing to do with Roman Catholic teachings.

dvpower wrote: »

This could be the subject of a whole thread (probably with conflicting opinions both within and outside Christianity).

I'm sure it could be. I think that churches are autonomous communities, and that they need to make these decisions for themselves without interference from outside on issues regarding belief, teaching and operation. On legal matters of course that is a matter of State, and we should be obedient. Above and beyond that, it is the churches decision how to deal with themselves. This is applicable to any denomination from Catholic to Methodist.

In short it depends on how porous faith based denominations want to be to society, or how much they want to hold by their truth without being conformed by outside opinion. That's their decision and their decision alone.

philologos

Simply put Malty T, churches shouldn't change their opinions or traditional values because people outside of the church disagree with them.

If they do decide to change that should be based on the church deciding, not on people outside deciding.