Are the clegy dying out in Ireland?

Peregrinus

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Just because someone is baptised and therefore once a Catholic, does not make them a current Catholic.

A lapsed Catholic, or ex-Catholic, or former Catholic is not a Catholic. To remain a Catholic you must observe the five precepts of the Church. I didn't decide this, that is just the facts.

No, no, no.

A Catholic is (a) a baptized Christian who is (b) in Eucharistic communion (through his own Eucharistic community) with the bishop of Rome and, through him, with the universal church.

“Communion” is a real relationship and, like other real relationships, it can be complex, it can be complicated and it usually can’t be reduced to a simple binary on/off assessment.

There are lots of cases where it is easy to see that someone isn’t a Catholic - as, for example, where they leave the Catholic church and join another church or denomination. Or where they themselves say that they have severed their relationship with the church.

After that, it gets messy. You can have a more or less healthy and whole relationship with the church, as reflected in your belief and/or practice. But the church is very, very slow to take the view that the relationship has been severed; that discernment is usually left up to the individual concerned.

Fidelity in observing the precepts of the church might serve as a “quick and dirty” measure of the health of someone’s communion relationship, but they should never be taken as more than that, and that is not their purpose (according to the Catechism). And even then, we should distinguish between different precepts. If you’re not taking communion even once a year, for instance, that has obvious implications for the health of your Eucharistic relationship. On the other hand, while not putting money in the collection plate may indicate a problem (and infringes a precept of the church) I seriously doubt if you will find anyone with authority to say that this, and this alone, can ever make you “not a Catholic”.

In general, if you’ve been baptized, and if you have ever been in Eucharistic communion with the church, and you’ve never formally terminated it, and you want to be a Catholic, then you are. And the issue you should be considering is not whether you should become a Catholic again, but whether you should start living up to the commitment you already have by being a Catholic.

Ciaran0

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's not backwards, it a choice not necessarily confined to religious orders.
It may be hard to understand but not everyone is driven by sex.

Ah no one really chooses a life without sex outside of religion. Why would they? A very small percentage of people may be asexual and as such not sexually inclined at all but the vast majority aren't. I think it's sad that unfortunate individuals are duped into a needlessly difficult life.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Ah no one really chooses a life without sex outside of religion.

Actually they do http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/8168531/No-sex-please-the-joys-of-a-celibate-life.html

Celibacy is certainly not my cup of tea - but I applaud those who have the courage to be true to themselves rather than being pressurised by our sex-obsessed society.

tommy2bad

no one really chooses a life without sex outside of religion. Why would they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/8168531/No-sex-please-the-joys-of-a-celibate-life.html
Nowt strange as folk!

Newsite

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Ah no one really chooses a life without sex outside of religion. Why would they? A very small percentage of people may be asexual and as such not sexually inclined at all but the vast majority aren't. I think it's sad that unfortunate individuals are duped into a needlessly difficult life.

You only think that because you've been conditioned by society to think that way. Sex is just a commodity now for most people, just something 'you do'. Which is not how it's meant to be. Plenty of people aren't having sex for various reasons, the vast majority by choice. It's also kinda condescending to say that they are being 'duped into a needlessly difficult life', wouldn't you say? And untrue like!

Peregrinus

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Ah no one really chooses a life without sex outside of religion. Why would they?

Historically, lots of people have done this for a variety of reasons, often practical to do with career, travel, having the means to raise a family, commitment to a communal life. An obscure example is that, until the middle of the nineteenth century, the fellows of Oxford and Cambridge colleges (and of TCD) were required to be unmarried, the idea being that they could better form an academic community if they lived in common.

The idea that most of us share that a fulfilling life pretty well requires an active sexual life for all human beings who aren't in some way "broken" is actually pretty recent.

Even now, it's common for people to choose temporary celibacy, on the understanding that "temporary" can mean "for many years" - they want to travel, they're concentrating on getting that PhD, they've just come out of a relationship and don't have the emotional energy for another, whatever.

jonniebgood1

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone that has been tricked into leaving on just those grounds, but from what I've seen, most people that have left in recent times, were only there, to be seen to be there, and thankfully locally there has not been that many of them. The Catholic Church is 1 billion Catholics, and the Church utterly condems child abuse and any complicity in dealing with it. The failings of a small minority of Priests and Bishops, is hardly grounds for blaming the rest. When there was only 12 apostles, there was still one Judas, even in the time of Jesus. Are all Irish people corrupt because some of their leaders were ? Should everyone leave Ireland to them ? I think not.

People leave not because they are tricked into leaving or because they were there 'to be seen'. That is not a correct view and if you think that then you are in denial of the real reason that alot of people have stopped attending churches.
They leave largely because they are disgusted at the attitude that this establishment shows towards child abuse. Stuff like not complying with investigations into crimes.

The Quadratic Equation

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no, no.

Big Ian, Is that you ?

Peregrinus wrote: »

A Catholic is (a) a baptized Christian who is (b) in Eucharistic communion (through his own Eucharistic community) with the bishop of Rome and, through him, with the universal church.

“Communion” is a real relationship and, like other real relationships, it can be complex, it can be complicated and it usually can’t be reduced to a simple binary on/off assessment.

There are lots of cases where it is easy to see that someone isn’t a Catholic - as, for example, where they leave the Catholic church and join another church or denomination. Or where they themselves say that they have severed their relationship with the church.

After that, it gets messy. You can have a more or less healthy and whole relationship with the church, as reflected in your belief and/or practice. But the church is very, very slow to take the view that the relationship has been severed; that discernment is usually left up to the individual concerned.

Fidelity in observing the precepts of the church might serve as a “quick and dirty” measure of the health of someone’s communion relationship, but they should never be taken as more than that, and that is not their purpose (according to the Catechism). And even then, we should distinguish between different precepts. If you’re not taking communion even once a year, for instance, that has obvious implications for the health of your Eucharistic relationship. On the other hand, while not putting money in the collection plate may indicate a problem (and infringes a precept of the church) I seriously doubt if you will find anyone with authority to say that this, and this alone, can ever make you “not a Catholic”.

In general, if you’ve been baptized, and if you have ever been in Eucharistic communion with the church, and you’ve never formally terminated it, and you want to be a Catholic, then you are. And the issue you should be considering is not whether you should become a Catholic again, but whether you should start living up to the commitment you already have by being a Catholic.

So you promote that someone can ignore the prececpts of the Church, refuse to attend communion, confession, etc. disagree with the teachings and beliefs of Catholicism and the Church, and can still run around calling themselves Catholic ? At best, that's a cultural Catholic, or a lapsed Catholic, or an Apostate, nothing more. No wonder the Irish Church is in the mess it is then so.

2041 - "the obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the indispensable minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort. "

There is nothing "quick and dirty" about the precepts of the Church.

As for putting money in the collection plate, that is not the entire fifth precept, please don't try and twist it as such, the precept is that "you shall help provide for the needs of the church", that can equally be volunteering your time and work.

jonniebgood1

soterpisc wrote: »

as for the Clergy they are actually growing in Ireland. 90 priests in Training at the moment.

(FYI... Nuns are not classed as clergy)

Really? That is the opposite of any figures I have seen. Perhaps you are looking at a really short term comparison rather than generational?

A quick search gives this story that contains figures showing a rapid fall post 1995 (presumably relating to the time that revelations about abuse became common):

Ireland witnessed a 5pc decline in diocesan priest numbers nationwide between 1981 (3,762) and 1995 (3,659).

However, the past decade has witnessed an alarming drop in the number of diocesan priests -- down almost 19pc nationwide to 3078 priests in 2006.
...
In 1981, Ireland had 176 male vocations -- but in 2006 there were just 30 men training for the priesthood.

But most worrying for the Church hierarchy is the rapidly "greying" profile of diocesan priests.

In the 1950s, Ireland had one of the youngest age profiles of Catholic clergy anywhere in the world. Now, one diocese is expected to have just six priests aged under 45 by 2012.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/parish-overhaul-to-ease-strain-on-overworked-ageing-priests-1321170.html

The Quadratic Equation

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Really? That is the opposite of any figures I have seen. Perhaps you are looking at a really short term comparison rather than generational?

A quick search gives this story that contains figures showing a rapid fall post 1995 (presumably relating to the time that revelations about abuse became common):

3,078 diocesan priests in 2006 ?

There are currenlty 3,097 diocesan priests in Ireland today. Not really a big drop in the last 5 years.

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc4.html

tommy2bad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

3078 priests in 2006 ?

There are currenlty 3,097 diocesan priests in Ireland today. Not really a big drop in the last 5 years.

Fall off has bottomed out or the retirement age lag hasn't caught up.
Face it TQE the church in Ireland is dead as a large scale cultural phenomena.
'Tis for the better, part of the cause of the problems was the 'of the world' nature of Irish Catholicism. If the church hadn't been such a force politically and culturally it might have been better placed to deal with the problem or never been in the situation where exploitation of the weak was so easy.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

Fall off has bottomed out or the retirement age lag hasn't caught up.
Face it TQE the church in Ireland is dead as a large scale cultural phenomena.
'Tis for the better, part of the cause of the problems was the 'of the world' nature of Irish Catholicism. If the church hadn't been such a force politically and culturally it might have been better placed to deal with the problem or never been in the situation where exploitation of the weak was so easy.

Face it Tommy, I've always been a proponent of quality not quantity and the less pseudo Catholics the better.
The Church should be in the world, but not of the world.

tommy2bad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Face it Tommy, I've always been a proponent of quality not quantity and the less pseudo Catholics the better.
The Church should be in the world, but not of the world.

We might agree on the nature of the problem but we are miles apart on the nature of the church. I'm a universal inclusive kinda guy. 'Tis a place for sinners after all, they just have to admit it.

jonniebgood1

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

3,078 diocesan priests in 2006 ?

There are currenlty 3,097 diocesan priests in Ireland today. Not really a big drop in the last 5 years.

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc4.html

Yes but I referred to generation in my point. There is not a new generation every 5 years. I think you need to loof at the figure over the past 50 years (in 5 year segments uf you wish) to get a proper idea of any trends.

The Quadratic Equation

tommy2bad wrote: »

We might agree on the nature of the problem but we are miles apart on the nature of the church. I'm a universal inclusive kinda guy. 'Tis a place for sinners after all, they just have to admit it.

Sounds lovely Tommy, sound just like Fr. Trendy, who does not want to deal with or face the difficult teachings, but Jesus didn't run a liberal a la carte morality by democracy. You take all his teachings or none, and yes, the Church is hospital for all us sinners, not a showroom. Catholic church literally means The Universal Church.

bryaner

Its not dying out half fast enough..

The Quadratic Equation

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Yes but I referred to generation in my point. There is not a new generation every 5 years. I think you need to loof at the figure over the past 50 years (in 5 year segments uf you wish) to get a proper idea of any trends.

Ireland had a huge surplus blip of Priests in the 50's / 60's, so much so, we exported them all over the world, that surplus has gone now for sure, but People retire from, and join the Priesthood every year, and yet the numbers numbers have remained steady over the last 5 years.

The Quadratic Equation

bryaner wrote: »

Its not dying out half fast enough..

It's death has been predicted for 2000 years, with 1 billion Catholics worldwide, you'll have to wait a bit yet.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

jonniebgood1

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Ireland had a huge surplus blip of Priests in the 50's / 60's, so much so, we exported them all over the world, that surplus has gone now for sure, but People retire from, and join the Priesthood every year, and yet the numbers numbers have remained steady over the last 5 years.

What is the comparison over say 20 years or 40 years?

Peregrinus

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is the comparison over say 20 years or 40 years?

I don't have the figures, but the answer is certainly "a very signficant decline".

Put this in context, though. For a little over a century, ending in the 1970s/80s, Ireland had an extraordinarily high ratio of priests to people. Older Catholics think of this as normal, but in fact it was exceptional, both historically (comparing the Irish church in earlier periods) and internationally (looking at the church in other countries during the same period). And in fact even after the significant decline since the 1980s, the Irish clergy:laity ratio is still well above average for the CAtholic church as a whole.

I think in the past Ireland had a very over-clericalised church. We complain that all the laity were expected to do was "pray, pay and obey", but the truth is that was all they had to do; the clergy did everthing else - all the planning, all the thinking, all the leadership, all the decision-making, all the priority-setting, everything. In one sense, the laity had a very easy ride.

Well, we know how that turned out.

So now the Catholic church is going to become much less clericalised, and is going to make much greater demands on its lay members (and, therefore, willingly or unwillingly, give them much more influence). This will be a big shock to the Irish church - all change is stressful. But I think it's a big leap from that to thinking that the church will or may disappear.

philologos

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Someone is either Catholic or they are not, it's not an a la carte menu system. There are 40,000 plus Prodestant denominations and interpretations to choose from if someone wants that.

The Reformation didn't occur so that people could be alacarte about anything. It began to bring Biblical truth back into churches and to encourage people to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.

This is for the megathread though.

PDN

philologos wrote: »

The Reformation didn't occur so that people could be alacarte about anything. It began to bring Biblical truth back into churches and to encourage people to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.

This is for the megathread though.

He can't help himself.

The Quadratic Equation

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

These are the official Church figures, that the international media, including the BBC etc. are happy to use, but if you have better, more accurate figures, please post them for us, along with the source . . . . .

The Quadratic Equation

philologos wrote: »

The Reformation didn't occur so that people could be alacarte about anything. It began to bring Biblical truth back into churches and to encourage people to enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.

All through history, Christians have reformed erroneous Church practices while remaining faithful to the Church, but unlike Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII they did not feel the need to set up a heritical personal cult based on following themselves.

Propellerhead

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

All through history, Christians have reformed erroneous Church practices while remaining faithful to the Church, but unlike Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII they did not feel the need to set up a heritical personal cult based on following themselves.

And neither did Luther, Calvin or Henry VIII. If you keep reducing the other Christian Churches to a status even further below than that ascribed to them by a 1950s CTS pamphlet, then how can you expect those who do not hold your trenchant and remarkably ill-informed views to have any wish to properly engage with your beloved Church?

The Quadratic Equation

Propellerhead wrote: »

And neither did Luther, Calvin or Henry VIII. If you keep reducing the other Christian Churches to a status even further below than that ascribed to them by a 1950s CTS pamphlet, then how can you expect those who do not hold your trenchant and remarkably ill-informed views to have any wish to properly engage with your beloved Church?

They were heritics, more intrested in self promotion, pride, vainity, fame and political power, they have led many generations astray, don't expect me to sugar coat it for you.

jonniebgood1

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

All through history, Christians have reformed erroneous Church practices while remaining faithful to the Church, but unlike Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII they did not feel the need to set up a heritical personal cult based on following themselves.

Would you describe the catholic church as a cult?

PDN

Since this thread has raced to the bottom in sectarianism it's probably time for the lock.