Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

Dave!

Hope ye don't mind me cross-posting this in Christianity and here.

Probably won't come as a surprise to a lot of you.

Many Catholics 'do not believe' church teachings

CARL O'BRIEN, Chief Reporter

Tue, Jun 05, 2012

THE MAJORITY of Catholics in Ireland do not attend Mass regularly and significant numbers do not believe in key tenets of the church’s teaching, according to an Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll.

The poll results, which come as Ireland hosts the 50th Eucharistic Congress of the Catholic Church this week, show belief in the church is strongest in rural areas but falls off significantly in urban areas.

Despite the fallout from clerical sex abuse scandals, a significant proportion of the country – including non-Catholics – believe the church has had a broadly positive influence on Ireland.

The national survey was undertaken last month among a representative sample of 1,000 voters aged 18 and over.

A total of 89 per cent of respondents were Catholic. The remainder were either not religious (6 per cent), Protestant (3 per cent) or from other faiths.

Fianna Fáil supporters were most likely to be Catholic (95 per cent), followed by Sinn Féin (89 per cent), Fine Gael (88 per cent), Labour (85 per cent) and Greens (58 per cent). Overall, just under a third (31 per cent) of Catholics said they attended Mass at least once a week.

More than two-thirds attended services far less frequently. Some 39 per cent said they either never or very occasionally went to Mass. A further 20 per cent said they attended every two to three months, while 8 per cent went once a fortnight.

Those who attend Mass regularly are twice as likely to live in rural rather than urban areas. They are also more likely to be older and support Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael.

When it comes to the church’s teachings, many Catholics do not subscribe to key tenets such as transubstantiation. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) believe the blessing of bread and wine during Mass only represents the body and blood of Christ.

Just over a quarter believe it is transformed (26 per cent).

There is division on the issue of the church’s role in education, although Labour supporters are more likely to support Government moves to loosen the church’s control of primary schools.

Also, most Catholics (59 per cent) said they are aware of the Eucharistic Congress, due to take place this week, but a very small minority (4 per cent) planned to attend.

© 2012 The Irish Times

bnt

The online piece is currently #1 on the "most read" list on the Irish Times website, and #2 "most shared". The "transubstantiation" thing is particularly interesting to me: it's part of Catholic doctrine that Catholics are expected to take literally, but 2/3 don't. Now, how about applying that understandable scepticism to the rest of the Dogma? :cool:

I haven't been to t'other forum yet, but I expect a "shoot the messenger" attitude, claims that the survey is flawed. Well, all surveys are flawed, but the margin of error should tell you approximately how flawed it is. That info will be in the detailed survey, but the Irish Times really should print that too.

edit: in a related comment piece, they give the expected margin of error at the bottom: 3%.

CiaranC

Theyll just remove anything unpalatable from the official line, same as they always have done. Catholics wont even blink.

token56

As has been said before a lot of catholics beliefs in this country are more in line with the protestant doctrine. Say that to them though and they would not be happy. Religion to many people is very little about the actual beliefs and more the culture associated with it (i.e. culture catholics).

joseph brand

token56 wrote: »

As has been said before a lot of catholics beliefs in this country are more in line with the protestant doctrine. Say that to them though and they would not be happy. Religion to many people is very little about the actual beliefs and more the culture associated with it (i.e. culture catholics).

http://bocktherobber.com/2012/04/survey-most-irish-catholics-are-protestants/

What's a Protestant?

My understanding of the term is that it applies to Christians who don't accept in their entirety the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. The entirety is important. All the Christian denominations agree on the vast bulk of their beliefs but none, apart from the Roman church insists on absolute obedience.

It follows, therefore, that any Christian who refuses to accept dogma laid down by the Pope is not a Catholic.

Paparazzo

How much of it do you have to believe in to still be considered catholic by the church? I mean, if you don't believe Jesus was the son of god, are you still Catholic?
I think Dara O'Briain said he doesn't believe in god, but he's just considered a bad catholic, cut still a catholic. It seems the church want you to believe everything, but they still want to claim the numbers.

token56

Paparazzo wrote: »

How much of it do you have to believe in to still be considered catholic by the church? I mean, if you don't believe Jesus was the son of god, are you still Catholic?
I think Dara O'Briain said he doesn't believe in god, but he's just considered a bad catholic, cut still a catholic. It seems the church want you to believe everything, but they still want to claim the numbers.

As far as the church is considered once you've been baptised they can count you in their numbers. You can be as bad a catholic as you want, not even believing a word of it and be the most militant atheist but if you have been baptised you are still a catholic from the churches point of view.

One thing I'm not sure of however is, if somebody formally converts to another religion, for example, Islam, or even another christian doctrine, are they still counted as catholic or excommunicated? What exactly is the process for doing so, do they have to inform the catholic church when doing so?

seamus

So three-quarters of Irish Catholics are functionally Protestant?

The ironing.

I wonder if the Irish Times would have the balls to print that as a headline.

Do they ever provide the raw data on these polls?

vicwatson

How can you claim to be "catholic" when the integral part of being a "catholic" is going to mass to hear the eucharist

Don't get it. Big fakes.

legspin

Majority of Irish catholics not really catholics...?

Well, Duh!! Tell us something we don't know.

Sarky

I'd love to see the reaction if the pope said something like "if you don't do x or believe y, you're not catholic" next time he visits. I imagine some of the loonier ones would try to excommunicate him...

Paparazzo

If we blasphemy against the holy spirit are we still catholics?

seamus

Sarky wrote: »

I'd love to see the reaction if the pope said something like "if you don't do x or believe y, you're not catholic" next time he visits. I imagine some of the loonier ones would try to excommunicate him...

Most likely the response would be (very seriously), "Who is the Pope to tell me that I amn't Catholic?"

Sindri

The problem with church teachings is that you're supposed to believe them for no other reason than dogma and tradition. You're told Catholics believe in this and that is why you're meant to believe in it also.

I remember in religion class in 3rd year, which was one of my favourite classes as it was very interesting and very easy, a girl was confused about the differences between Catholics and Protestants (High Anglicanism). When I explained to her that Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which is what she had a problem with, and what that is, she said she didn't believe in that and was sort of shocked that that might make her Protestant as were a few other people. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

I noticed the Transubstantiation thing before. When interviewing catholics on the subject I found there are essentially three groups.

1) Those who think it is just symbolic only. According to the article above this actually makes up the majority of the congregation by some margin.

2) Those who believe there is actually a physical literal real world actual change. They were the people my link was aimed at. The only group it COULD be aimed at.

3) Those who believe there is a real "spiritual" change. In other words it very (in)conveniently changes magically in just those very ways that we can not detect which is why to us it seems exactly the same before and after. I am assured by posters on the Christianity forum (well actually only one shrill and invective ridden one) that this is the "correct" position. To me it seems about as impressive and believable as me pulling an invisible undetectable rabbit out of a hat. A magic trick who's main magic is that I actually did nothing at all. Yet people _fall_ for it when it is a cracker.

What amuses me most though is that the church do not do much about correcting the "wrong" positions. Their wishy washy ceremony is always the same whether I go to a mass in Ireland, England or most recently a wedding in Poland.

They never seem to say "Look people, most of you apparently think this is symbolic only, here is what it REALLY means.....". I have never seen a pamphlet out in the entrance hall of a church entitled "Transubstantiation and You, what does it really mean".

I suspect why too. If they get too specific and suggest one category is "right" then they risk alienating many from the other two who do not believe as they decree. Keep it vague as possible, pander to all three categories, leave them believe what they want, and you will get more bums on seats and coins in baskets.

fitz0

Dawkins has some comments already, which I suppose many of you heard in person tonight.

People who describe themselves as Catholic but do not accept the church’s key teachings should be “honest” and admit they no longer belong to the faith, atheist author and scientist Prof Richard Dawkins has told a Dublin audience.

He said he was intrigued by this week’s Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll showing almost two thirds (62 per cent) of Catholics believed the bread and wine which was blessed during Mass “only represents the body and blood” of Christ.

Just 26 per cent said they believed the bread and wine transformed into Christ’s body and blood in accordance with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

“If they don’t believe in transubstantiation then they are not Roman Catholics,” Prof Dawkins said. “If they are honest they should say they are no longer Roman Catholics.”

The survey finding “should come in for a fair degree of ridicule,” he added. “I wouldn’t hold back on the ridicule”.

Prof Dawkins was speaking at a public interview in the National Concert Hall last night as part of the Dublin Writers Festival.

He said he was encouraged by the growth of the atheist movement in Ireland, and a gradual shift towards “science and reason” at the expense of the Catholic Church.

“The number of priests is going down beautifully,” he said.

In addition, the child abuse controversy has eroded the church’s authority and the “extraordinarily ham-fisted way” the church responded “has helped”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0606/breaking34.html

Turtwig

F**k you Dawkins I had convinced a friend of mine to read the Selfish Gene!!!:mad:
Why did he have to get the air time right about now?
(I'm never going admit I was too slow with the convincing. Solely, Dawkins' fault.:p )

IRISHREDSTAR

I wonder how my priests really belive in God very few I'd bet

number10a

During our "faith formation" classes in primary school I never remember being told about transubstantiation (granted, I cannot remember every single class). The first time I heard of it was in Juinor Cert history when we were studying the Reformation and learning about what Luther objected to. The nun explained it to us and the whole class basically had a collective "Are you serious?!?" look on their faces.

Clearly that bit was left out of our religion classes all the way up to that point, and for good reason. No rational person can believe it, even if they were told since they were two years old that an old man in the sky was watching their every move and that nana now lives up there with him. It is not taught simply because the Church knows that this is the point where people begin to see this stitches unravelling in the great blindfold of faith.

seamus

number10a wrote: »

During our "faith formation" classes in primary school I never remember being told about transubstantiation (granted, I cannot remember every single class). The first time I heard of it was in Juinor Cert history

14 years in Catholic schools and I was 18 when I heard that word for the first time. It's almost like they know it's unbelievable so they don't mention it.

Run_to_da_hills

Catholics that don't believe in transubstantiation should not bless themselves when passing a Church.

Catholic doctrine preaches in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist which is inside the tabernacle inside the church. The whole idea of blessing ones self passing a church was for this reason.

JuliusCaesar

I was brought up an atheist, but attended CoI primary schools and regularly won the Christian Knowledge prize. >cough!< (Mostly this involved knowing the bible.)


So may I point out to you - just in case you don't already know - that the CoI and also the CoE, aren't actually Protestant churches like Presbyterians or Methodists. The Credo of the CoI includes the belief in the Holy Catholic (as in universal, not as in Roman Catholic) Church. But CoI does not believe in transubstantiation, and sees the wine and bread as symbols. Symbols of blood and flesh. So :rolleyes: from me at the whole lot of them anyway!


Total non sequitor: I visited the Museum of the Reformation in Geneva in last year, and while it was interesting, I came away feeling very saddened that so many lives had been wasted discussing the niceties of fictional constructs; wasted both in terms of effort, and also due to persecution and violence, both inflicting on others and suffered by themselves.

RGDATA!

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Catholics that don't believe in transubstantiation should not bless themselves when passing a Church.

catholics that don't believe in transubstantiation are not catholics surely?
i understand your point though, but i'm sure it's not the only catholic ritual misunderstood by the 'faithful'

Run_to_da_hills

RGDATA! wrote: »

catholics that don't believe in transubstantiation are not catholics surely?
i understand your point though, but i'm sure it's not the only catholic ritual misunderstood by the 'faithful'

Theses are "Catholics" that "do not believe" church teachings as per OP.

Pwpane

I don't understand all this about transubstantiation not being taught in schools. I'm sure it is, but maybe not using that word. How could teachers escape it during all those classes in preparation for communion in primary school? How could they avoid saying "and then the wafer turns into the body of Christ"?

Perhaps it's down to the lack of priests and nuns actually teaching in schools any more and lay teachers not being convinced themselves.

But if people listen during mass, how can they avoid it? "This is my Body" during the Consecration. The priest genuflecting. "The Body of Christ" during Communion followed by "Amen". What do people think is going on at Mass at all??? What's the red light in the sacristy for? Why do people genuflect?

I dunno. Maybe children are so used to watching films and cartoons that they automatically filter out anything unbelievable as soon as they hear it and don't even notice it.

Rev Hellfire

Pwpane wrote: »

I dunno. Maybe children are so used to watching films and cartoons that they automatically filter out anything unbelievable as soon as they hear it and don't even notice it.

Turn that frown upside down.

Galvasean

When I was in (Catholic) primary school we were told that transubstantiation was a metaphor - probably because the idea of a bunch of people eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood is a ghastly one to tell children about.

Bannasidhe

I lecture on the Reformation to 2nd year 3rd level History students and although I avoid discussions on theology (as my snorting loudly at some bit of religious hookum results in complaining emails from parents and frankly life is too short) I do discuss the main differences in doctrine between Rome, Luther, Calvin, Knox and the Anabaptists. The shocked look on the faces of the 'Catholics' when I explain Transubstantiation is a wonder to behold. A few years ago out of a class of 40 the only student who knew what it meant was a German, much to my amusement when I was explaining Luther's take on things she laughed and said 'Oh - is that what I'm meant to believe!'

I have found that in order for me to discuss Luther's issues with Rome, I first have to discuss what exactly the tenets of Catholicism were so the 'Catholics' can see where he differed....:eek:

Edit to add: I don't think it's so much a case of many Catholics not believing as many who call themselves Catholic not having the faintest idea what the tenets of 'their' religion actually are.

Pwpane

So maybe it's not being taught in school at all.

I wonder what is being taught during all that religion time in Primary? Colouring?? I think they spend quite a bit of time in Secondary making posters too...

Mind you, I think this may be changing at second level with the employment of people (lay) who have qualifications in the teaching of Religion. Some of these could be more hardline than the religious themselves. I think schools are paying more attention now that nuns and priests have almost disappeared from the scene.

As an aside, what about the Assumption of the body and soul of our Lady into Heaven? I think this is doctrine but in Jerusalem a Franciscan monk showed me Our Lady's tomb...

robindch

Pwpane wrote: »

As an aside, what about the Assumption of the body and soul of our Lady into Heaven?

That only became a religious truth in 1950.

Pwpane wrote: »

I think this is doctrine but in Jerusalem a Franciscan monk showed me Our Lady's tomb...

One assumes the tomb was pre-1950.

Sarky

Have the church ever backed up their truth by making a definitive statement on that tomb, or does it still bring in too much money to be considered heresy?

Pwpane

The Wiki article says that she is supposed to have died before her assumption. So was she resurrected first, or was her dead body brought to Heaven? Our religion book showed a picture of her being assumed alive. Maybe she was in her tomb first.

Now I understand it all.

VinLieger

The whole transubstantiation thing, i always just went off the assummption that it was more a metaphor, but learning that they actually did believe in magic bread was one of the main reasons i couldnt be bothered with the whole thing anymore

Run_to_da_hills

VinLieger wrote: »

The whole transubstantiation thing, i always just went off the assummption that it was more a metaphor, but learning that they actually did believe in magic bread was one of the main reasons i couldnt be bothered with the whole thing anymore

I thing the whole country is beginning to come to that conclusion.

zenbuffy

I recently sat at a dinner table and was called a bull****ter (among other things) for pointing out what transubstantiation actually meant. The arguer maintained that she was a good Catholic, and that it was all just a metaphor, and would hear no argument against it. Despite pointing out that this was really consubstantiation or memorialisation, she maintained that it was all a metaphor and that she was a good Catholic and that no Catholics believed in transubstantiation as I was describing it. Eventually, after much name calling, she decided to ask another friend (studying for a PhD in Theology) about it, to prove us wrong.

I'm told that this conversation (which happened the following night) was a sight to behold, watching her try to convince this Theology student (and very strong believer) that transubstantiation was just a metaphor...

Bannasidhe

zenbuffy wrote: »

I recently sat at a dinner table and was called a bull****ter (among other things) for pointing out what transubstantiation actually meant. The arguer maintained that she was a good Catholic, and that it was all just a metaphor, and would hear no argument against it. Despite pointing out that this was really consubstantiation or memorialisation, she maintained that it was all a metaphor and that she was a good Catholic and that no Catholics believed in transubstantiation as I was describing it. Eventually, after much name calling, she decided to ask another friend (studying for a PhD in Theology) about it, to prove us wrong.

I'm told that this conversation (which happened the following night) was a sight to behold, watching her try to convince this Theology student (and very strong believer) that transubstantiation was just a metaphor...

I remember as a child in the 70s hearing someone telling my extremely devoutly Catholic grandmother about an incident in Belfast where Ian Paisley and his cohort were gathered outside the Cathedral screaming abuse at the congregation as they left. One of the insults flung was 'Cannibals'. My grandmother replied that technically, she supposed, Paisley had a point and given the doctrine of Transubstantiation it was a fair comment.

That one one less Xmas card I had to write out for Granny after that....:pac:

fitz0

zenbuffy wrote: »

I recently sat at a dinner table and was called a bull****ter (among other things) for pointing out what transubstantiation actually meant. The arguer maintained that she was a good Catholic, and that it was all just a metaphor, and would hear no argument against it. Despite pointing out that this was really consubstantiation or memorialisation, she maintained that it was all a metaphor and that she was a good Catholic and that no Catholics believed in transubstantiation as I was describing it. Eventually, after much name calling, she decided to ask another friend (studying for a PhD in Theology) about it, to prove us wrong.

I'm told that this conversation (which happened the following night) was a sight to behold, watching her try to convince this Theology student (and very strong believer) that transubstantiation was just a metaphor...

Well, sh*t. There's such a thing as being a doctor of magic?

robindch

zenbuffy wrote: »

I recently sat at a dinner table and was called a bull****ter (among other things) for pointing out what transubstantiation actually meant.

The whole thing's Aristotelian what with all that talk of "substances" and "accidents" and so on. The dogma of transubstantiation makes no sense at all unless it's viewed in that way.(*)

(*) Well, actually it makes no sense even if it is viewed that way, but at least via Aristotelianism, one can get some kind of an idea of what the dogma is grasping for.

Galvasean

fitz0 wrote: »

Well, sh*t. There's such a thing as being a doctor of magic?

Well, if we can assess the science of Discworld...
http://sciencegallery.com/events/2012/06/science-discworld-terry-pratchett-ian-stewart-and-jack-cohen

zenbuffy

fitz0 wrote: »

Well, sh*t. There's such a thing as being a doctor of magic?

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for a PhD in Potterology. I've read all the books, I can infer greater meaning and layer my own interpretation on top of them, and can probably quote from them too. Granted, I don't have my own set of robes, but that's easily solved.

Now, where's my doctorate?

Sarky

I have a friend in Galway who got his Ph.D. by watching Monty Python for 3 years.

fitz0

Sarky wrote: »

I have a friend in Galway who got his Ph.D. by watching Monty Python for 3 years.

I approve of this. PhD in Pythonography?