Archbishop Martin to all catholics: "You're lapsed? The door's thata way."

robindch

On "Would you Believe?" tomorrow evening, Archbishop Martin is apparently going to ask non-committed members of the catholic church to leave.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/archbishop-urges-lapsed-catholics-to-leave-the-faith-2959884.html

Diarmuid Martin wrote:

The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has urged the country's lapsed Catholics to have the maturity to leave the church. Over the past two decades, rising numbers of 'a la carte' Catholics simply turn up at the altar for the sacraments like baptism, communion and marriage.

But in a new documentary on the future of the church, priests reveal they will expect a firmer commitment from their flock in the future. It shows how church pews swell to almost full capacity for celebratory sacraments, while Sunday services have dwindling numbers. Archbishop Martin urged non-believers to walk away from the church.

He said: "It requires maturity on those people who want their children to become members of the church community and maturity on those people who say 'I don't believe in God and I really shouldn't be hanging on to the vestiges of faith when I don't really believe in it'."

Fr Michael Drumm, from the Catholic Schools Partnership, said the church would be getting firmer with parents looking to have their children baptised as a Catholic. Archbishop Martin also said the church was anxious to start parting ways from some of its Catholic schools.

"It can't be done overnight. There is still a very strong demand for Catholic education."

The 'Would You Believe' documentary will be shown on RTE One tomorrow night.

But how?

While the Vatican doesn't permit people who've been baptized to leave, perhaps Martin would support the creation of an informal registry of people who no longer wish to be considered members.

irishh_bob

i see nothing wrong with this , id leave if i was let , dont go in for this once a year for xmas and weddings lark

Zombrex

That would be brilliant, it is about time the Church started kicking out cultural Catholics and stopped pretending that their base in Ireland is much bigger than it actually is.

Saying you are a Catholic to get into a school or have a nice building for your wedding is both disrespectful to the religion itself, and confusing to the politicians making public policy based on stated beliefs.

Sonics2k

I believe they closed the ability to leave the Church sometime last year due to the incredibly high amount of people doing so, but cited some nonsense like confusion in scripture as an excuse.

Dades

Sonics2k wrote: »

I believe they closed the ability to leave the Church sometime last year due to the incredibly high amount of people doing so, but cited some nonsense like confusion in scripture as an excuse.

Confusion the in the scriptures was the reason they were leaving in the first place!

lmaopml

Sonics2k wrote: »

I believe they closed the ability to leave the Church sometime last year due to the incredibly high amount of people doing so, but cited some nonsense like confusion in scripture as an excuse.

Sonics, nobody can 'close' your ability to leave the Church. You are a free person.

They can't go back in time obviously and unbaptise you, but in order to leave the Church all you really have to do is express your lack of belief - simple, voila you are an atheist.

The State don't use a baptism register for any decision making purposes, as far as I am aware.

The census is used for this reason, for planning etc. so it seems that the census is most important in this regard.

Apart from the fact that the Catholic Church won't hound you into being somebody you are not, you yourself will get older and decide for yourself, as it should be.

fisgon

To me what Archbishop Martin says is eminently reasonable, and can only be a positive for secularists. In fact it is what non-believers and secularists have been wanting for ages, a bit of reality among both believers and lapsed. Let those who are really catholic be catholic, and those who don't really believe be honest about this.

Though I don't think he realises that absolute collapse the church would suffer if all the part-time, uncommitted, wishy washy, only-go-at-Christmas catholics left. YOu would be left with a bunch of old people and a hard core of fundamentalists, who were much more absolutist than even the clergy. I can't see this ever happening, though would welcome the day if it did.

fisgon

At the moment the church's control over education doesn't suit a lot of committed catholics. This is because catholic schools have to accept everyone, and this dilutes the catholic ethos. There are those who just want a few, pure catholic schools, so they can roll out the hard core catechism that was pushed on kids in the 50s and 60s, all the sin and repentance, the sex is evil and the mysticism stuff, rosaries and ten commandments, the whole bizarre nine yards. This is part of what this is about, the church wants the opportunity to be more catholic. Good luck to them, this will only scare more people away.

lmaopml

fisgon wrote: »

To me what Archbishop Martin says is eminently reasonable, and can only be a positive for secularists. In fact it is what non-believers and secularists have been wanting for ages, a bit of reality among both believers and lapsed. Let those who are really catholic be catholic, and those who don't really believe be honest about this.

Though I don't think he realises that absolute collapse the church would suffer if all the part-time, uncommitted, wishy washy, only-go-at-Christmas catholics left. YOu would be left with a bunch of old people and a hard core of fundamentalists, who were much more absolutist than even the clergy. I can't see this ever happening, though would welcome the day if it did.

Maybe there is a lot of truth in this - although I wonder at people sometimes, I still have a lot of faith in their decision making powers. As for myself, I kinda tend to let people decide for themselves, and I would neither call myself fundamentalist or puritanical, but certainly a Catholic.

There is no perfect Catholic, or at least very few...the whole idea is that all are welcome, more sinners the better imo nobody gets turned away.

I missed the program, I'll watch the player because I think the Archbishop is a good man with a heavy burden.

ShooterSF

lmaopml wrote: »

Maybe there is a lot of truth in this - although I wonder at people sometimes, I still have a lot of faith in their decision making powers. As for myself, I kinda tend to let people decide for themselves, and I would neither call myself fundamentalist or puritanical, but certainly a Catholic.

There is no perfect Catholic, or at least very few...the whole idea is that all are welcome, more sinners the better imo nobody gets turned away.

I missed the program, I'll watch the player because I think the Archbishop is a good man with a heavy burden.

I'd say that's a common complaint for people who can't have sex or masturbate...

magicbastarder

fisgon wrote: »

This is because catholic schools have to accept everyone

this is the problem. they don't.
it's all well and good martin saying people should leave, when there is not yet choice for them to send their kids to a non-catholic national school.

Doctor DooM

lmaopml wrote: »

Sonics, nobody can 'close' your ability to leave the Church. You are a free person.

They can't go back in time obviously and unbaptise you, but in order to leave the Church all you really have to do is express your lack of belief - simple, voila you are an atheist.

The State don't use a baptism register for any decision making purposes, as far as I am aware.

The census is used for this reason, for planning etc. so it seems that the census is most important in this regard.

Apart from the fact that the Catholic Church won't hound you into being somebody you are not, you yourself will get older and decide for yourself, as it should be.

Actually, you're wrong. I get counted as a Catholic, every time a bishop says something like "80% of Irish people are Catholic". There's a recent discussion about this on this forum and after it was closed, I believe Dermo made a statement which pretty much confirmed this. I will try and dig it out. It's used to apply pressure to the govt- we represent THIS many people!

You're putting your childrens future at risk of being denied entry to a school often with no reasonable alternative by that slimy word "ethos" in this country by not getting them baptised. I myself have already had a discussion with my girlfriend that there's pressure from her family for her kids to be baptised, even though they are not regular church goers, because that's the "done thing".

I don't want my kids baptised. They do for some nebulous reason. The real world is not how you see it.

It's easy not to see ones own priviledge when one has it (for example, men don't often worry about walking out into a dark night and are often amazed how wary women are when they really talk about it).

Hobbes

If the church was to leave the school system, you would see a lot more of these so called "lapsed catholics" leaving as well.

Doctor DooM

Hobbes wrote: »

If the church was to leave the school system, you would see a lot more of these so called "lapsed catholics" leaving as well.

They don't have to leave, IMO, the state just needs to take proper responsibility for children getting educated instead of leaving it to them (of course the Catholic church will use this opportunity if given, they'd be mad not to!)

Nothing wrong with Catholic schools being there- if Catholics want to use them instead of the perfectly acceptable alternative schools.

fisgon

lmaopml wrote: »

There is no perfect Catholic, or at least very few...the whole idea is that all are welcome, more sinners the better imo nobody gets turned away.

Actually, the whole point of the archbishop's statement is that this is no longer true. This is exactly what he is doing, trying to turn people away who are only half hearted. Which is as it should be, imo, either believe and take part, and assume all of the stuff that goes with catholicism (which very, very few people in this country actually do), or just be honest and leave.

BostonB

Hobbes wrote: »

If the church was to leave the school system, you would see a lot more of these so called "lapsed catholics" leaving as well.

You'd see few I dunno if there'd be that many. There's something like 20% attendance at mass. But close to 100% at the usual sacraments. So apart from getting into schools, people are still interested beyond that. I think the case for needing baptism to get into schools is over stated. Theres a lot of other criteria usually, residency, proximity, siblings, etc. So many of the schools have no clergy involvement now, run by lay people etc. Indeed theres so few clergy in the system now, and hardly any entering it, that there will probably be laypeople doing the majority of the sacraments in 10yrs or so.

Even if nothing else was to happen. The RC will be a shadow of itself in 10~20yrs times in Ireland at least. I've heard in places that Poland its age profile, is much younger, not just in clergy either.

the_syco

robindch wrote: »

But how?

Burn churches, sacrifice priests? :pac:

Penn

Archbishop Martin to all catholics: "You're lapsed? The door's thata way."

All atheists to Archbishop Martin: "Door's locked"

Hobbes

Doctor DooM wrote: »

They don't have to leave,

I think they do. My son for example was baptized 4 months before going to school, just so we could guarantee a place for him.

Despite him living just around the corner from the school, the head mistress hinted in no uncertain terms that Catholics would get preference in placement of the school (and asked for his baptismal certificate). This isn't a private school btw.

The next closest school where he could get a placement would require a bus to/from the school.

I was against it, the wife didn't care either way but my mum was over the moon about it (and I think she secretly got him baptized anyway).

BostonB

The school is legally obliged to follow its published enrolment policy. Hints or no hints.

Dades

Hmmm. I wonder if there's a market for fake baptismal certs.

Must dig one out at home and fire up Photoshop!

irishh_bob

Hobbes wrote: »

I think they do. My son for example was baptized 4 months before going to school, just so we could guarantee a place for him.

Despite him living just around the corner from the school, the head mistress hinted in no uncertain terms that Catholics would get preference in placement of the school (and asked for his baptismal certificate). This isn't a private school btw.

The next closest school where he could get a placement would require a bus to/from the school.

I was against it, the wife didn't care either way but my mum was over the moon about it (and I think she secretly got him baptized anyway).

the mammys are incredibly anti democratic alrite when it comes to the oul religon , ive a will made and were i to die prematurely in the morning , despite the fact that ive given instruction for a secular funeral and cremation , i know deep down my mam would never allow it and id be wheeled before an altrar where a priest would declare me a devout believer :rolleyes:

BostonB

I'd be wary about believing what you are told by school management. They can be economical with the truth.

Galvasean

Must show this to my mother, "Told ya you weren't Catholic! :pac:"

I see where Martin is coming from. I go to my local pub every week. Then come the special occasions the place is packed and I cant get a seat. Must be how the church regulars feel.

28064212

I've never understood why the "officially leaving the church" issue gets so much air-time. I never officially left the scouts, I'm pretty sure I'm not still a member though

School enrollment is a totally different issue

BostonB

Galvasean wrote: »

...I see where Martin is coming from. I go to my local pub every week. Then come the special occasions the place is packed and I cant get a seat. Must be how the church regulars feel.

I think theres another side to this also. They don't contribute to the running costs either, in terms of the Sunday collections. Yet the big numbers at the weddings, commnunions, etc, put a big drain on very limited resources.

As you say the numbers at things like xmas is ridiculous. You'd need to at the church almost an hour beforehand to get a seat. Which then is a problem for people with kids, or older people etc.

dttnch

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Actually, you're wrong. I get counted as a Catholic, every time a bishop says something like "80% of Irish people are Catholic". There's a recent discussion about this on this forum and after it was closed, I believe Dermo made a statement which pretty much confirmed this. I will try and dig it out. It's used to apply pressure to the govt- we represent THIS many people!

You're putting your childrens future at risk of being denied entry to a school often with no reasonable alternative by that slimy word "ethos" in this country by not getting them baptised. I myself have already had a discussion with my girlfriend that there's pressure from her family for her kids to be baptised, even though they are not regular church goers, because that's the "done thing".

I don't want my kids baptised. They do for some nebulous reason. The real world is not how you see it.

It's easy not to see ones own priviledge when one has it (for example, men don't often worry about walking out into a dark night and are often amazed how wary women are when they really talk about it).

They actually don't and can't get their figures from parish baptismal records, this 80% plus figure that they quote is from the CSO for census records from 2006.
While it would not be impossible to get an estimated figure from their own records it would be very difficult and time consuming. They'd need an up to date computer system to link up all parishes to a central catholic database and they'd need to manually go threw all their records for decades to input this info, very time consuming and costly, then they would need to cross reference this info with the total deaths in each parish and finally they'd have the almost impossible task of calculating the number of non-nationals who have moved into each parish over the decades. Not an easy task.
I've seen the church mention a few times that the figure they use is actually from census records in Ireland. I'll try to find you a link confirming this but here is the actual census records from the CSO in the mean time http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/census2006results/volume13/volume_13_religion.pdf
The census shows that 86.5% of the total population of Ireland on census night 2006 claimed to be Roman Catholics and 80.5% of the population on census night 2006 claimed to be Irish nationals who where Roman Catholics. Over 218,000 are foreign national catholics which is very near the total increase in those claiming to be RC since the 2002 census. The total number of Irish RC has remained fairly static while the other religions, foreign catholics and no religion stats have increased in comparison.
Of course anyone with any cop on knows that 80% of Irish people are not practicing Roman Catholics but for whatever reason still stat that they are RC. I personally know and have seen on forums people who admit to either not believing in a god, are not sure if they do or who do not believe in the dogma of the Roman Catholic church but do believe in some sort of higher power but still tick the RC box on census night!!!! The mentality seems to be that they see themselves as culturally catholic because their parents where or the idea that they are catholic is so ingrained that they do not cognitively "think before they tick".
So for whatever reason (eg family pressure, to get into a local school)the vast majority of Irish people still tick the RC box and baptise their children whether they are practicing or not.
Unfortunately the Catholic church are not making the 80% plus people up or getting this info from their own records... PEOPLE ARE FREELY CHOOSING to identify as RC on census night. Or people do not realise that they have a chose to tick no religion EVEN if they are baptised as RC or not and that when you do tick the RC box this info is being used by the church, the government, canvassing politicians and other groups to decide where schools will be built, if hospitals and services remain in the hands of the church, what government policies are put forward and to gauge the opinions of an electorate during an election so as not to lose any votes.
The best way we currently have to show that we have left the church is to TICK THE NO RELIGION BOX on census night. According to the CSO website we will have to wait until late 2012 to find out the updated figure for the 2011 census ie how many catholic people have left since the economic downturn and how many native Irish chose to tick no religion.

marienbad

BostonB wrote: »

You'd see few I dunno if there'd be that many. There's something like 20% attendance at mass. But close to 100% at the usual sacraments. So apart from getting into schools, people are still interested beyond that. I think the case for needing baptism to get into schools is over stated. Theres a lot of other criteria usually, residency, proximity, siblings, etc. So many of the schools have no clergy involvement now, run by lay people etc. Indeed theres so few clergy in the system now, and hardly any entering it, that there will probably be laypeople doing the majority of the sacraments in 10yrs or so.

Even if nothing else was to happen. The RC will be a shadow of itself in 10~20yrs times in Ireland at least. I've heard in places that Poland its age profile, is much younger, not just in clergy either.

That may be the case in the day to day running of the schools, but in most cases you will find that the bishop is the patron and that the majority of the board of management are staunchly religious and that is where the real power resides. Anything else is just window dressing.

Jimmy444

If I understood correctly what they said on the Would You Believe program last night, the church wants to exclude children from baptism and communion if their parents are not sufficiently religious i.e attend regular mass, assist with preparation for first communion etc. Why is it the child’s fault if the parents are not faithful enough? Sounds like blackmail to me. Or do they really want unbelieving parents to go through a charade of participation just to avoid subjecting their children to exclusion from a ceremony to which they may be genuinely committed even if their parents are not?

Also, I was surprised at the adult "practising Catholics" who had so much difficulty answering simple questions about what being a Catholic meant. Surely if you believe that the price of failure to abide by the rules and practices of your religion is an eternity in Hell then you would make a supreme effort to make sure you understood fully what it all meant?

28064212

Jimmy444 wrote: »

...children...exclusion from a ceremony to which they may be genuinely committed...?

Genuine lol

BostonB

marienbad wrote: »

That may be the case in the day to day running of the schools, but in most cases you will find that the bishop is the patron and that the majority of the board of management are staunchly religious and that is where the real power resides. Anything else is just window dressing.

I don't really follow this, or how it relates to my post. Could you be more specific.

marienbad

BostonB wrote: »

I don't really follow this, or how it relates to my post. Could you be more specific.

Just taking up your point about the reduced involvment of clergy in the running of schools .

Dades

28064212 wrote: »

Genuine lol

Indeed!

Jimmy444 wrote: »

Sounds like blackmail to me. Or do they really want unbelieving parents to go through a charade of participation just to avoid subjecting their children to exclusion from a ceremony to which they may be genuinely committed even if their parents are not?

Children can't drink, vote or have sex, but they can commit themselves for life to a religious ideology they have only been told the most basic facts about?

dttnch

Jimmy444 wrote: »

If I understood correctly what they said on the Would You Believe program last night, the church wants to exclude children from baptism and communion if their parents are not sufficiently religious i.e attend regular mass, assist with preparation for first communion etc. Why is it the child’s fault if the parents are not faithful enough? Sounds like blackmail to me. Or do they really want unbelieving parents to go through a charade of participation just to avoid subjecting their children to exclusion from a ceremony to which they may be genuinely committed even if their parents are not?

Also, I was surprised at the adult "practising Catholics" who had so much difficulty answering simple questions about what being a Catholic meant. Surely if you believe that the price of failure to abide by the rules and practices of your religion is an eternity in Hell then you would make a supreme effort to make sure you understood fully what it all meant?

Jimmy I have to agree parts of the show where very uncomfortable to watch even for me, I'm not a RC - practicing or otherwise, but my dear mam is and she and her elderly friends who I was watching the program with where aghast and quite upset at what they saw as "a la carte" catholics baptising their children but yet did not seem to understand that more than a belief in God is required to a Roman Catholic.

The part that stood out was the young couple from lucan (i think). They keep saying that they where catholics and wanted their child to be baptised in the same parish and go to the same catholic schools as themselves and felt that they did not have to go to mass much but that they had a deep belief in God. When the interviewer asked them what it meant to be a Roman catholic they where very fuzzy on the details and kept saying it meant a belief in God and spirituality, when he asked a second time they seemed confused and stuck for words and just repeated what they said the first time. Not once did they mention the most obvious requirements such as a belief in Jesus christ as the lord and saviour and the son of God or the gospels, the bible, Mary as the virgin mother and probably the most important things that would set a RC apart from other christians - the doctrine and dogma of the church itself e.g. transublimation and the supreme infallible pontiff the pope as the representative of christ on earth.
While this doesn't make them bad people in anyway it will upset some practicing catholics and highlights the fallings in the Irish church at being able to educate and evangelise their own flock which is upsetting some strict catholics who want this to change and agree with Archbishop Martin's comments about them leaving the church. In fairness some of the catholics questioned would be better in the unitarian church than in the Roman Catholic one.

Hobbes

BostonB wrote: »

The school is legally obliged to follow its published enrolment policy. Hints or no hints.

The issue was he was moving schools and the point when we were in a position to move the school in question was in a position to reject the request.

BostonB

marienbad wrote: »

That may be the case in the day to day running of the schools, but in most cases you will find that the bishop is the patron and that the majority of the board of management are staunchly religious and that is where the real power resides. Anything else is just window dressing.

My comment was in response that if the church retreated from the schools, lapsed RC wouldn't bother with the religion at all, I was disagreeing with that saying there's still a strong interest in religion beyond simply the enrolment. As such your comment seems to agree with mine. I think. Not sure.

Jimmy444

Dades & 28064212

I agree with you that they are too young to make such a choice, but that’s not the point I was trying to make. What I object to is the way parents are manipulated in order to avoid embarrassment or exclusion for the children, who are too young to understand why they are being prevented from joining in what for most of them is just a harmless rite of passage. If I had my way there would be no commitment to any religion until the person is old enough to at least make an informed choice. The choice they make at that point may be misguided in my eyes but they are free to choose.

BostonB

Hobbes wrote: »

The issue was he was moving schools and the point when we were in a position to move the school in question was in a position to reject the request.

Faith can be a critera for faith based school that is legal. However if its not in their enrolment policy and not in their ethos, they can't use it to refuse you. The other problem in the latter situation, you would have is getting any proof that it was used as a criteria. Or getting access to it under FOI, as it may not apply.

headmaster

irishh_bob wrote: »

i see nothing wrong with this , id leave if i was let , dont go in for this once a year for xmas and weddings lark

Bob,
off you go, what's stopping you?

robindch

dttnch wrote: »

the doctrine and dogma of the church itself e.g. transublimation and the supreme infallible pontiff the pope as the representative of christ on earth.

That's transubstantiation you're thinking of. And according to canon law, the pope's only infallible when he chooses to be, and even then, only on matters of dogma and morals and not an inch beyond that.

dttnch wrote: »

I'm not a RC - practicing or otherwise

You'd have shot yourself in the foot with that post if you were

dttnch

robindch wrote: »

That's transubstantiation you're thinking of. And according to canon law, the pope's only infallible when he chooses to be, and even then, only on matters of dogma and morals and not an inch beyond that.You'd have shot yourself in the foot with that post if you were

Robin Thanks for the spelling clarification, I know what the term means but was desperately trying to remember how to spell it and just went for it!!!

BUT if I was a catholic under the age of 24 the chances are I wouldn't know what Transubstantiation was anyway never mind how it is spelt. According to the Iona guys only 15% of under 24 and 34% of over 65s know the term and a serious amount of them don't understand that they are meant to believe it. Ask a young Catholic if they believe the changing of wine and bread into the body and blood of christ is literal or figurative and it makes for interesting conversation. Even though I had a usual Irish Catholic education I only realised it was meant to be taken literally in my late 20s, my mother was surprised at this and thought I would have learnt it at the catholic school I went to, I really didn't or 7-8yrs is far too young to be teaching it to kids.

As to infallibility "the pope's only infallible when he chooses to be, and even then, only on matters of dogma and morals and not an inch beyond that" what else would I mean? As he is the church leader I thought my post implied this as he cant be infallible in any other capacity so I don't really get your point sorry! He can't very well rewrite the bible.

robindch

dttnch wrote: »

As to infallibility "the pope's only infallible when he chooses to be, and even then, only on matters of dogma and morals and not an inch beyond that" what else would I mean? As he is the church leader I thought my post implied this as he cant be infallible in any other capacity so I don't really get your point sorry!

It's hard to pin down. There are a few people out there, most of them wingnuts I'd imagine, who appear to believe that anything that the pope says on any topic is infallible; there are a much larger number of people who believe that he's infallible on matters of dogma and morals, regardless of whether he claims it or not.

Neither of those positions are true and in fact, the pope is only infallible when he explicitly makes it clear that he's speaking infallibly.

This is defined, in strangely orotund terms, in Canon 749:

Some Canon Lawyer wrote:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

fisgon

dttnch wrote: »

While this doesn't make them bad people in anyway it will upset some practicing catholics and highlights the fallings in the Irish church at being able to educate and evangelise their own flock .

Actually, what it highlights is the failure of the doctrine itself.

All of the elements that you mentioned are, literally, unbelievable for a majority of people of even a basic educational level in this country. The couple you mentioned don't believe in the stuff they are supposed to believe in, because it is, in the year 2011, frankly difficult to take seriously. Unless you are indoctrinated sufficiently in early years, and then kept away from all alternative viewpoints for your whole life - as effectively happened to most people in this country in the 50s and 60s - then catholic doctrine is impossible to see as anything other than dogma, superstitions, traditions that are there simply because that's what has always been believed, notions with no factual basis, rules without rationale, the internal regulations of an antiquated church.

mikhail

robindch wrote: »

It's hard to pin down. There are a few people out there, most of them wingnuts I'd imagine, who appear to believe that anything that the pope says on any topic is infallible; there are a much larger number of people who believe that he's infallible on matters of dogma and morals, regardless of whether he claims it or not.

Neither of those positions are true and in fact, the pope is only infallible when he explicitly makes it clear that he's speaking infallibly.

Ah, but is he infallible when he's deciding whether or not he's fallible? I mean, he hasn't declared his infallibility yet.

Mistress 69

Just watched 'would you believe'. Regardless of any of our views on this forum I seem to remember from school teaching that God welcomes all into his house. I am unsure if Archbishop Martin has the authority to change that, by suggesting that non believers or ala cartes should leave. Does anyone know how his views have gone down in Rome?

Lollipops23

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Actually, you're wrong. I get counted as a Catholic, every time a bishop says something like "80% of Irish people are Catholic"

This. I hate being "counted" by them, even if not on the census. I haven't attended mass (besides the odd wedding/funeral) in years, don't consider myself religious in any way and yet they still want to count me as their own? Fair enough, but if that's the way they're doing things they should really look at how good a catholic the average flock member is. Cos I'm dragging it way way down.....

dttnch

fisgon wrote: »

Actually, what it highlights is the failure of the doctrine itself.

All of the elements that you mentioned are, literally, unbelievable for a majority of people of even a basic educational level in this country. The couple you mentioned don't believe in the stuff they are supposed to believe in, because it is, in the year 2011, frankly difficult to take seriously. Unless you are indoctrinated sufficiently in early years, and then kept away from all alternative viewpoints for your whole life - as effectively happened to most people in this country in the 50s and 60s - then catholic doctrine is impossible to see as anything other than dogma, superstitions, traditions that are there simply because that's what has always been believed, notions with no factual basis, rules without rationale, the internal regulations of an antiquated church.

I agree with you, your preaching to the choir, that's why I don't believe in the doctrine that the RC teaches and never said I did.
"able to educate and evangelise their own flock" My use of the word educate is perhaps incorrect, indoctrinate is more appropriate. Personally I don't believe that any child should be indoctrinated or evangelised but it is still used by all religions to make people believe all sorts of things that are in total contradiction to what you have said (which is common sense). Anyways sorry if my statement was not phrased correctly but in short I was just politely trying to say that they haven't brainwashed their flock adequately enough to make them believe what they do.

But from their POV non of the above seems to matter much and as it's their church, their rules I was making the point that most nominal Irish RC either don't adhere to, believe or understand the rules of the church to which they belong. So after watching the interview with Archbishop Martin in it's entirety it is understandable why some strict catholic are not happy with " a la carte" catholics and understandable why the Archbishop made the comments he did even though I think it's all a fairy tale.

dttnch

robindch wrote: »

It's hard to pin down. There are a few people out there, most of them wingnuts I'd imagine, who appear to believe that anything that the pope says on any topic is infallible; there are a much larger number of people who believe that he's infallible on matters of dogma and morals, regardless of whether he claims it or not.

Neither of those positions are true and in fact, the pope is only infallible when he explicitly makes it clear that he's speaking infallibly.

This is defined, in strangely orotund terms, in Canon 749:

I get you now!! I've been in discussion with people that believe his infallibly in all matters and those who to defend him have made your very point "the pope's only infallible when he chooses to be, and even then, only on matters of dogma and morals and not an inch beyond that" but to be honest it's all neither here nor there to me as he/they still believe in the concept that he is capable of being infallible even within the above context and I didn't see the point of going in-depth into cannon law and as to what circumstances that applied. It's all infallibility one way or another and it's a very dangerous concept, as you point out many believe him infallible in all matters or some within the context of cannon law (morals, dogma) so it's all much of a muchness really.

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Actually, you're wrong. I get counted as a Catholic, every time a bishop says something like "80% of Irish people are Catholic". . . .

Lollipops23 wrote: »

This. I hate being "counted" by them, even if not on the census . . .

This is an extraordinarily persistent myth. All of the estimates of the numbers/proportion of Irish Catholics - including those bandied about by church figures - come from the census. If you didn’t identify as Catholic in the census, you aren’t included in the estimate. Nobody, not even the church, uses baptismal records to calculate the number or proportion of Catholics in Ireland.

UDAWINNER

I wonder how many lapsed catholics get married in a catholic church as getting it done in a registry office would be beneath them. I've a neighbour who along with her kids never go to the local church, but when a confirmation/communion comes up the cathederal is the only place that is not beneath her. I wonder also how many lapsed catholics will celebrate christmas this year, would they give up the time off work or paid holiday leave. I think not.

Delirium

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is an extraordinarily persistent myth. All of the estimates of the numbers/proportion of Irish Catholics - including those bandied about by church figures - come from the census. If you didn’t identify as Catholic in the census, you aren’t included in the estimate. Nobody, not even the church, uses baptismal records to calculate the number or proportion of Catholics in Ireland.

Not according to information given to me by the diocese of Cork and Ross.