Do a la carte religious people bother you?

lazygal

By this I mean those who don't attend services at all, but will turn up when they want to get married or have their children baptized. Or those who say they're atheist but agree to a church wedding because their parents got upset. Or those who don't really believe things like contraception or IVF are wrong but still call themselves Catholic. Do they bother you?

homer911

Well, I'd start off by saying that only God knows a person's heart and where they stand with him

You have a range of questions buried in there..

1. Those who claim to be Christian but dont engage in Christian fellowship
2. Those who have no self respect and/or the church is "pandering" to
3. Those who pick and choose Catholic teachings

#1 - The Bible makes it pretty clear that Christians should meet together often to worship together, praise God, pray, break bread and encourage one another - I can't imagine a Christian wanting to do a "solo run", not if they believe the Bible is the word of God

#2 - While I can see how Christians could get upset about this, the Church has to reach out to all members of society, and it just may be that that person may turn up to a church and hear the Good News on the one occasion that it could have an impact on them - who are we to judge? lets consider it Christian witness and outreach

I'm going to have to pass on #3, as I'm not Catholic, but outside of the Catholic tradition, Christians are encouraged to study the Bible, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and make up their own minds on what is the right thing to do

Manach

I'd find lay people who did not share the same viewpoint in such matters irritants. The same substance that might generate pearls. In that AFAIR it was St. Aquinus that opined that it was impossible to truly understand God and hence by implication religous matters so those who are do present different world-views to mind based on the same doctrinal foundations are a challenge to see if I'm the one who'd need (or not) to re-evaluate issues.

nagirrac

Modern evolutionary psychology theory suggests that self deception and hypocrisy are hardwired in humans, and have provided a significant evolutionary advantage in human history. It is reasonably compelling, given that once one gets adept at self delusion, the more advantageous trait of deluding others, in terms of survival and reproduction, becomes second nature. What this suggests of course is that we are all hypocritical, and the evidence strongly suggests this, even if we try and delude ourselves that only other people are hypocritical. Even those that have been held up as great examples of living a selfless and moral life, such as Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King, were found to be hypocritical when it came to aspects of their own lives. The reality is that humans are not just capable of holding themselves to the opposite standards of what they profess to others, but are adept at holding completely contradictory positions simultaneously (as anyone who has been in a long term relationship can attest to!).

The contradictions involving Catholics and contraception is a good example of cognitive dissonance, in that Catholic teaching emphasizes that one should always follow one's conscience, with the caveat that one's conscience needs to be informed, mainly by Church teaching. Clearly the great majority of Catholics have decided on this matter that their moral conscience trumps Church teaching. What this highlights I think is that most morality arguments in human societies involve demanding behavior from others that we wouldn't accomplish ourselves were we in the same position. For example, I think its likely that most men who are anti-abortion rights, if they were placed in the shoes of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, would likely be caught for speeding on the way to the abortion clinic (or the airport in the case of Ireland).

I would say before we get bothered by the hypocrisy of others, we should first get bothered by our own, and the contradictory positions we hold ourselves. There is recent research that suggests we are better at deceiving ourselves than deceiving others, in that by getting better at deceiving ourselves we get better at deceiving others. What this suggests to me at least is that we should be slow to judge others and start with an honest look inward.

Peregrinus

The people don’t bother me, no. Not at all.

The situation bothers me - we have people who are semi-detached from the believing community, and clearly it would be better if they were fully integrated into it. And we have a disconnect between the public teaching of the community on the one hand, and the insights, reflection and lived experience of the community on the other. These are not good things.

But blaming the people who exemplify our collective failure in this area is a bit like blaming the poor for poverty, or the sick for disease.

smacl

It doesn't bother me at all at an individual level, and is something I would expect as I tend to think of religious belief falling in a spectrum ranging from hard line atheist through moderate atheist to moderately religious to religious fundamentalist. I'm not a huge fan of pigeon-holing people into boxes unless it is strictly necessary to do so, nor would I expect anyone to hold any particular belief or intransigent moral position.

Where I have the problem is dividing such a varied population into a very small number of discrete groups on the national census, and the government making subsequent policy decisions on that basis. e.g, the 93% of the population that is nominally Catholic according to the census would suggest that Ireland is as staunchly Catholic as it ever was, where this is clearly not true. I think it is about time we owned up to the diversity of religious positions held in this country.

Big Nasty

What about the ones that are 'God fearing' and top of the church every Sunday but are mean and spiteful every other day of the week?

Then you have those that aren't in to 'organised religion' per ce but still have faith and are good and decent people who contribute to their communities.

Give me the latter any day.

nc19

lazygal wrote: »

........contraception or IVF are wrong.....

Im sorry, what?

I know of a priest or two that dont still think like that.

Absolutely ridiculous belief's

sydthebeat

Catholic teachings change over time, so are you saying that the doctrine right now is perfect and is to be followed without question? I believe a mature person can differentiate the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the more polarizing teachings of any religion. It shouldn't be all or nothing, that's just blind leading the blind.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Where I have the problem is dividing such a varied population into a very small number of discrete groups on the national census, and the government making subsequent policy decisions on that basis. e.g, the 93% of the population that is nominally Catholic according to the census would suggest that Ireland is as staunchly Catholic as it ever was, where this is clearly not true. I think it is about time we owned up to the diversity of religious positions held in this country.

Or, Ireland is pretty much as staunchly Catholic as it ever was. It’s just that perhaps it was never as staunchly Catholic as we like to think.

In the Republic, the nominal Catholic population has fallen from 95% in 1971, of whom 91% attended mass weekly or more, to 84% in 2011, of whom 30% attended mass weekly or more.

The biggest change here, obviously, is not in Catholic identification or affiliation, but in mass attendance.

Does this change mean that Ireland has become much less “staunchly Catholic”? Only if you equate staunchness with regular mass attendance.

We focus on figures for mass attendance - indeed, we have figures for mass attendance - mainly because external religious observances like mass attendance are easily measurable. But just because we can measure them doesn’t mean that they are of central importance. Yes, the Catholic church does impose a discipline of weekly mass attendance on its members, but there’s a bit more to Catholicism than that. If you look at something like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you’ll get to paragraph 2,180 (out of 2,865) before the obligation of weekly mass attendance is mentioned. It’s quite near the back, in other words.

I’m not saying that mass attendance isn’t important, or that the huge decline in mass attendance shouldn’t concern the church. My point is that there’s a lot more to Catholicism than weekly mass attendance. The fact that we had high rates of mass attendance in 1971 doesn’t mean that we were particularly “staunch” in living out other aspects of the faith, and conversely the fact that we have low rates now doesn’t mean that we aren’t.

What I’m suggesting is that high rates of mass attendance in the past may have been sustained in part by social convention. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but it’s a mistake to confuse it with love of the gospel. And the same high rates of mass attendance managed to coexist with some distinctly unloving behaviour.

The fact that most of the 84% who identify as Catholic today don’t go regularly to mass doesn’t mean that their Catholic identity has no meaning or significance. It may have as much - or even more - meaning as it did when they all went to mass out of habit or social convention. The government doesn’t divide the population into a small number of discrete groups on the census; people can tick any box provided, or write in their own identification. They divide themselves into groups. And the fact is that 94.7% of them put themselves into one of the top six identifications (the second-biggest of which is “no religion”). 1.6% choose not to answer, and the remaining 3.7% divide themselves between about twenty different identifications.

That’s not the picture of a “varied population” being artificially corralled into large groups; it’s the picture of a strikingly homogenous population whose largely Catholic identity has changed in the way it’s expressed (i.e. not by regular mass attendance) but hasn’t dissipated.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does this change mean that Ireland has become much less “staunchly Catholic”? Only if you equate staunchness with regular mass attendance.

Yes it does, and there are many more indicators than mass attendance. Number of vocations would be a great example. Back in my Grandmothers day, there was a priest in just about every extended household. Now there are none. Even when I was younger, the place was crawling with nuns and brothers, and they ran the bulk of the schools and hospitals. Again, now there are practically none, and those that remain are either very old or recent immigrants. For all the nominal Catholics out there, Ireland is clearly not the Catholic country it once was.

The fact that most of the 84% who identify as Catholic today don’t go regularly to mass doesn’t mean that their Catholic identity has no meaning or significance. It may have as much - or even more - meaning as it did when they all went to mass out of habit or social convention.

If we compare two Catholic communities, one that doesn't attend mass regularly or produce any priests, nuns or brothers, and another that does, I think it is reasonable to assert that religious practice and hence Catholic identity is more important to the latter. I think the Catholic identity in Ireland today actually has far more to do with tradition and a sense of nationalism than religious observance.

The government doesn't divide the population into a small number of discrete groups on the census; people can tick any box provided, or write in their own identification.

By asking to someone to label themselves as belonging to one of a small number of possible groups (other also being such a group), you are by definition dividing them into discrete ranges.

They divide themselves into groups. And the fact is that 94.7% of them put themselves into one of the top six identifications (the second-biggest of which is “no religion”). 1.6% choose not to answer, and the remaining 3.7% divide themselves between about twenty different identifications.

They don't divide themselves, the process of answering a census creates that notion of division. My contention is that the self labelling Catholics do not form a homogeneous group in terms of religious and moral stance, and as such the distinction between Catholics and various others is a false dichotomy. I rather think that this is the issue that the opening question is alluding to.

That’s not the picture of a “varied population” being artificially corralled into large groups; it’s the picture of a strikingly homogenous population whose largely Catholic identity has changed in the way it’s expressed (i.e. not by regular mass attendance) but hasn’t dissipated.

So you say, but I rather think that the picture is a fake

tommy2bad

I think the Catholic identity in Ireland today actually has far more to do with tradition and a sense of nationalism than religious observance.

I'm not sure about that, I think it was more about nationalism and tribal identity back then than now. Now it's just one of a number of things that people think of as 'Irish'.
People like this don't bother me at all tbh, what dose grate is when they claim to be spiritual but not religious. For some reason this expression really annoys me. In my head I hear them say 'I'm fond of a bit of pondering when stoned but cant be arsed to go to mass'. That could just be me though.

I'm in all 3 categories as it were, call my self Christian but don't attend mass, like the option of religious ceremonies at big occasions, match, hatch and dispatch as the saying goes and pick and chose the rules to follow according to my own conscience. Most people do anyway and that's as it should be, don't fall into the trap of assuming that their decisions are the soft option, often people come to different answers the hard route.

nagirrac

smacl wrote: »

So you say, but I rather think that the picture is a fake

No, I think Peregrinus is right. Catholics in Ireland are now very like most Caucasian Catholics in America. I grew up in Ireland, have lived in the US for decades but visit Ireland often, so I got to first live through and then observe the changes in Ireland at regular intervals. I know a lot of Catholics here as my daughter attends Catholic school (her choice), and the only ones who go to mass are the Hispanics, and they go in droves. Most families get involved in a lot of community and school activites though, especially the kids, lots of volunteer hours.

If Ireland has become like the US, then a church is somewhere you go for the pre-party for baptisms, weddings and such, and to pay your respects to the families of those who have died. The problem I suppose for the church in Ireland is unless you have a deluge of Hispanics who is going to pay the rent?

Where your question is valid is what do these people actually believe. I have always maintained that it's hard information to extract, unless you know the person really well. We have no way of knowing what people actually believed in the past either, in many ways a lot of them appeared in terms of their actions even less Christian than today, as its supposed to be practiced, compassion, service to others, etc. So maybe there's an argument that today's Irish Catholics are better Christians than their forefathers.

Peregrinus

Hi smacl

The question of whether the state divides people by asking them about their religion in the census, or people divide themselves by answering the question, is probably a bit of a red herring. I think the real issue is, what do the distinctions mean?

And if your point is that all those who tick “Catholic” do not necessarily conform to some kind of platonic idea of a Catholic, those who tick “no religion” done’t conform to some kind of platonic ideal of a non-religious person, etc, then I’m in complete agreement with you. And I’d go a bit further; this was never the case.

On the other hand, the religious affiliation does mean something. And in terms of what interests the state, it may mean quite a lot.

We observe, both in Ireland and in other countries, that there’s a strong correlation between something like school choice and religious affiliation, but a much weaker correlation between school choice and frequency of attendance at church services. Which means that if we’re interested in, say, forecasting demand for school places, we actually don’t care about changes in mass attendance (down from 91% of Catholics to 30%) but we do care about changes in Catholic affiliation (down from 95% to 84%). The latter change may be much smaller, in absolute terms, but it’s much more significant for a lot of purposes.

Ireland used to be unusual in having such high rates of practice (and, as you point out, high rates of vocations). We are now conforming much more to the European norm. And what we know from other European countries is that high rates of affiliation combined with low rates of practice can be sustained from generation to generation. And that religious affiliation can continue to be correlated not only to things like school choice but to decisions about where to marry, what hospital or residential home to choose, even how to vote. From a sociological point of view, religious affiliation is relevant and useful information. The low rates of practice may be a problem for the church, but they don’t bother the state, and they don’t invalidate people’s religious affiliation.

On an individual level, if you want to know what someone’s religious affiliation means in terms of his beliefs, his values, his ethical choices, etc, you have no option but to ask him. And of course you’ll get a wide range of answers. But so what?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

We observe, both in Ireland and in other countries, that there’s a strong correlation between something like school choice and religious affiliation, but a much weaker correlation between school choice and frequency of attendance at church services.

Cynically perhaps, I would say that for a choice to exist for someone, multiple distinct options must be readily available to them. Historically in Ireland, in education this has not been the case, and while the situation is improving, for very many there is still no choice. As children get educated in a Catholic ethos primary school, they are prone to inherit and pass on Catholic tradition. Contrasting that with mass attendance, the choice is simple; either go or don't go, where vary many nominal Catholics choose the latter.

Which means that if we’re interested in, say, forecasting demand for school places, we actually don’t care about changes in mass attendance (down from 91% of Catholics to 30%) but we do care about changes in Catholic affiliation (down from 95% to 84%). The latter change may be much smaller, in absolute terms, but it’s much more significant for a lot of purposes.

Surely if the state wanted to know what type of schools were actually in demand by the people of this country, they should ask the question directly rather than inferring a supposed demand that predominantly props up the status quo.

The logic that all of the nominal Catholics who have stopped attending mass would rather have their children educated in a Catholic ethos school over another ethos, such as Educate together, seems tenuous. Some obviously would, others not. The information hasn't been collected and inferring it from nominal religious affiliation seems incorrect given that demand for ET school places significantly exceeds those for faith school places.

Ireland used to be unusual in having such high rates of practice (and, as you point out, high rates of vocations). We are now conforming much more to the European norm. And what we know from other European countries is that high rates of affiliation combined with low rates of practice can be sustained from generation to generation. And that religious affiliation can continue to be correlated not only to things like school choice but to decisions about where to marry, what hospital or residential home to choose, even how to vote. From a sociological point of view, religious affiliation is relevant and useful information. The low rates of practice may be a problem for the church, but they don’t bother the state, and they don’t invalidate people’s religious affiliation.

I'm at a loss to understand how a religious tradition can be sustained long term without new vocations or majority mass attendance. I can appreciate how the nominal affiliation may linger for generations, but without a significant number of new indigenous vocations, who is responsible for carrying the religion forward largely intact? What you end up with is an increasingly watered down version of the religion, which is what I suspect we're already seeing with Catholicism in Ireland.

On an individual level, if you want to know what someone’s religious affiliation means in terms of his beliefs, his values, his ethical choices, etc, you have no option but to ask him. And of course you’ll get a wide range of answers. But so what?

Always a pleasant way of spending an evening with more religious friends over a quiet pint. Certainly many friends of my generation seem quite rooted in their beliefs, and have doubtless got more from their religious practice as a result. Anyone I've spoken to of my children's, nieces' and nephews' generation tick the boxes as demanded, but have no use for religion. I dare say, many of them will still want to get married in a church by an Irish priest when the time comes, though they may have some difficulty in finding either, the former because they've never been there, the latter because he's extinct.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Cynically perhaps, I would say that for a choice to exist for someone, multiple distinct options must be readily available to them. Historically in Ireland, in education this has not been the case, and while the situation is improving, for very many there is still no choice. As children get educated in a Catholic ethos primary school, they are prone to inherit and pass on Catholic tradition. Contrasting that with mass attendance, the choice is simple; either go or don't go, where vary many nominal Catholics choose the latter.

Sure. But we observe this not just in Ireland but in other countries where there may be a more realistic choice of schools. Take Australia, say (where I happen to live). Nominal Catholic population: about 25% (per the census, like in Ireland). Regular massgoing population: about 3% (down from about 20% a generation ago). Proportion of kids attending Catholic schools: 28% (20% nominally Catholic, 8% not). And this is not down to the widespread lack of a non-Catholic option, since the network of non-religious state schools is much denser than the network of Catholic schools.

smacl wrote: »

Surely if the state wanted to know what type of schools were actually in demand by the people of this country, they should ask the question directly rather than inferring a supposed demand that predominantly props up the status quo.

Oh, they do. look at the consultation they conducted before the current project to switch national schools from church patronage to non-church patronage, asking a number of questions on exactly that topic. But we’re talking about the census here; you can only ask the really big-picture questions. More detailed questions for more specific planning need to left to another day. Ireland (and many other countries) seek religious affiliation information in the census because they have found it useful for state purposes to do with planning, community services, co-operation with the voluntary sector and much more apart from education. If they need more detailed information for a more specific purpose, the census isn’t really the place to look for ti.

smacl wrote: »

The logic that all of the nominal Catholics who have stopped attending mass would rather have their children educated in a Catholic ethos school over another ethos, such as Educate together, seems tenuous. Some obviously would, others not. The information hasn't been collected and inferring it from nominal religious affiliation seems incorrect given that demand for ET school places significantly exceeds those for faith school places.

Couple of points:
I’m not saying that all the nominal Catholics want their kids to go to a Catholic school (or that none of the rest of the population do). I’m just saying that the correlation is stronger; changes in Catholic identification correlate with changes in school preference much more strongly than changes in massgoing figures do. If you are trying to plan schools, you are much more interested to know how many people identify as Catholic than how many people go to mass, and you are even more interested in the change in the number of people identifying as Catholic.
Secondly, it may seem that demand for ET school places significantly exceeds those for faith school places, but in fact that’s the result of the acute shortage of ET places; they are vastly oversubscribed. But you remember that consultation I mentioned that underpins the transfer of national schools to non-church patronage? In every one of the 38 districts surveyed a majority of the parents were happy with the range of patronage options already open to them, and far and away the most popular patronage option was the Catholic church (preference of 63% of respondents, from memory). ET came second - 7.5%. It’s just not the case that demand for ET school places significantly exceeds demand for Catholic places. What it significantly exceeds is the supply of ET school places.

smacl wrote: »

I'm at a loss to understand how a religious tradition can be sustained long term without new vocations or majority mass attendance. I can appreciate how the nominal affiliation may linger for generations, but without a significant number of new indigenous vocations, who is responsible for carrying the religion forward largely intact? What you end up with is an increasingly watered down version of the religion, which is what I suspect we're already seeing with Catholicism in Ireland.

Well, it’s certainly “watered down” in the sense that it doesn’t attach the same significance to mass attendance, or the same value to religious vocations. But so what? None of this is the state’s business, or is relevant to the purposes for which the state might collect religious affiliation data.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But we observe this not just in Ireland but in other countries where there may be a more realistic choice of schools. Take Australia, say (where I happen to live). Nominal Catholic population: about 25% (per the census, like in Ireland). Regular massgoing population: about 3% (down from about 20% a generation ago). Proportion of kids attending Catholic schools: 28% (20% nominally Catholic, 8% not). And this is not down to the widespread lack of a non-Catholic option, since the network of non-religious state schools is much denser than the network of Catholic schools.

I'm not sure the situation in a country where one religion dominates and has done so for a long time, and another which is more multi-cultural, is that comparable. The reason here is that the society may be socially stratified on religious grounds, with poorer people tending to have different religious background to the middle classes. I'm not sure what the situation is like in your part of Australia, but was aware of high demand for Catholic school places in parts of the states as they were better schools apart from being Catholic. I even had a few friends convert from protestantism to Catholicism purely to avail of better education for their kids.

In every one of the 38 districts surveyed a majority of the parents were happy with the range of patronage options already open to them, and far and away the most popular patronage option was the Catholic church (preference of 63% of respondents, from memory). ET came second - 7.5%. It’s just not the case that demand for ET school places significantly exceeds demand for Catholic places. What it significantly exceeds is the supply of ET school places.

Fair point, though the interesting figure to me there is the 63% preferring Catholic schools, which is quite a bit less than the 84% nominal Catholics from the census. This again seems to illustrate that the census figure for religious affiliation is not a good quantitative indicator of educational preference.

Well, it’s certainly “watered down” in the sense that it doesn’t attach the same significance to mass attendance, or the same value to religious vocations. But so what? None of this is the state’s business, or is relevant to the purposes for which the state might collect religious affiliation data.

But you could similarly argue that one's religious affiliation is none of the state's business, though as you suggest above this information is collected for a purpose. The only purpose that comes to mind is provision for education, but I remain unconvinced that the information is fit for this purpose. Where the Catholic population has stopped producing priests and attending mass, one would feel that their ethos and the morality they aspire to has also moved significantly from that of the church hierarchy, as can be seen below;

tommy2bad wrote:

I'm in all 3 categories as it were, call my self Christian but don't attend mass, like the option of religious ceremonies at big occasions, match, hatch and dispatch as the saying goes and pick and chose the rules to follow according to my own conscience. Most people do anyway and that's as it should be, don't fall into the trap of assuming that their decisions are the soft option, often people come to different answers the hard route.

My feeling is that tommy2bad's approach is by and large very similar to many self labelling Catholics, which while entirely laudable is going to fall foul of accepted Catholic doctrine on a pretty regular basis. That begs the question of what exactly should be taught in terms of religious instruction in an Irish Catholic school?

Berserker

For the most-part they don't bother me. I do however find it strange when people who are vehemently opposed to the teachings of the church, turn around and use the church for services. I mean, if you have such an issue with the church, surely you should be doing your damnedest to avoid it. For example, I have a good friend who recently announced his engagement. He is RC and I know that he has not attended Sunday mass for years, since his teenage years. He is massively critical of the RCCs stance on many issues and wants them out of the educational system. He is a second level teacher. He often queries as to why I still go to service and asks me if I would still attend church if I was a RC, given the scandals of the past year. He cities tradition and family reasons as his reason for having a RC wedding.

Ireland is probably unique in the Western world when it comes to religion, given the dominance of Catholicism. I never get a sense of community from the RC churches. Once the service is over on a Sunday, people just seem to hope into their cars and drive off home. Other religions to tend hang around for tea, sandwiches, cake etc and mingle.

tommy2bad

smacl wrote: »

[snip]

My feeling is that tommy2bad's approach is by and large very similar to many self labelling Catholics, which while entirely laudable is going to fall foul of accepted Catholic doctrine on a pretty regular basis. That begs the question of what exactly should be taught in terms of religious instruction in an Irish Catholic school?

It's close to most of the people I know but not exactly the same. I know people who have nothing at all to do with any church, no funerals baptism or weddings. I also know people who attend regular mass but take their moral guidance from whatever everyone else is doing. I know people who pray, do pilgrimage, and follow all the directions of the church (I have a cousin who still wont watch The Life of Brian because the pope said it was blasphemous). All of whom ticked the RCC box n the census.
We al a cart cath's are a mixed bunch. By the way I no longer self identify as Roman Catholic, just christian and if pressed further I'll say orthodox catholic end of things. It's not something that comes up often unless outside of dinner party conversation if theirs a church scandal in the news.


As to what should the catholic schools teach? Well obviously the curriculum as set out by the dep of ed., and standard catholic teaching, not a catholic version of the curriculum. It's not that hard to do really.

hinault

Like Beserker, I do wonder why those who decry Catholicism insist on attending Church under the "hatched, matched, dispatched" pretext.
These people don't cross the threshold of a church otherwise.

I don't know why those same people "cave in to family pressure" and feel compelled to attend Church on only certain occasions.
If I know that the same person decries Catholicsm, surely their own family's know this too?

I am an observant Catholic.
I attend Mass weekly, I attend Confession every month, I try to live by the teaching of the Catholic church.
I don't get annoyed at a la carte Catholics. It's their own decision to do what they do.

But in doing what they do, they will have to account for that at some point.

Peregrinus

Hi Smacl

Couple of points:

1. I haven’t at any point suggested that “84% identify as Catholic” = “84% want Catholic schools”. All I’m saying is that, if you are interested in planning for school demand, “84% identify as Catholic” is a much more useful and relevant datum than “30% go to mass weekly”. Both Irish and international experience confirms this.

2. Of course, you don’t have to choose between them. If you are really interested to understand the size and nature of demand for schools of a particular type, you’re obviously best off having both sets of data. And this is true for more than just school planning; anyone interested in any aspect of the sociology of religion will much prefer to have both sets than just either one.

3. It’s not correct that the only or main purpose of collecting religious affiliation data in the census is for education; that’s just an obvious purpose that leaps to mind. But bear in mind that an awful lot of countries collect religious affiliation data in the census, including some (like the US) where funding or provision of church schools is not an issue at all. Prior to the 2011 UK census, the Office of National Statistics had an extensive consultation about what data they sought or ought to seek; they found that all the users of the census that they consulted (central and national government; experts, community and special interest groups; local and regional government; local service providers) wanted the form to include information on religion. A number of reasons were offered:

- Policy delivery, including meeting statutory requirements under the Race Relations Act
- Resource allocation and service provision
- Providing a clearer view of society and gaining a better understanding of certain ethnic groups.

The strongest demand was from local and regional government (91% of responders said that they required census information on religion). Given that in the UK it is local governments which provide housing, education and social services, this is unsurprising. But everybody wanted the data, including groups whose interests did not focus on education at all. So there’s obviously more going on there than just school planning. The UK is not Ireland, obviously, and the statutory and governmental framework that applies here is different. But there are sufficient similarities between the two countries to suggest that some at least of the reasons why they are interested in religious affiliation data in the UK would be relevant here too.

4. Can the census religion data be abused? ‘Course it can. When Eamonn Gilmore closed the embassy to the Vatican a couple of years back, one of the objections voiced was that 84% of the population was Catholic (and therefore could be taken to want a resident embassy at the Vatican). That’s b*lls, obviously. But the risk that data might be misinterpreted or invalidly applied is hardly a reason for not compiling data in the first place; if it was, we’d have precious little data on any subject. If we believe that opinions should be formed, and in particular public policy should be formed, on the basis of evidence, then our default should be to favour the gathering of evidence. Ensuring that the evidence is properly weighed, assessed and used is important, but it’s a separate argument.

5. Also, bear in mind that it’s only because of the census religion question that we have a concrete handle on the rapid growth of unbelief in the Irish population (and on the reluctance of most unbelievers to own labels like “atheist” or “agnostic”). You may be pleased about what this data shows, or you may be intrigued by it, or you may be horrified, but it’s hard to argue that we’d be better off not knowing any of this.

smacl

Hi Peregrinus,

Thanks once again for a considered response. From where I'm sitting I still see a huge diversity of religious positions ranging from what we're calling the 'a la carte Catholic' such as tommy2bad and the more traditionally dogmatic positions such as hinault. I also still think Catholicism in Ireland has shifted hugely between these positions in recent decades, as indicated by low mass attendance, negligible new vocations, and rejection of Church doctrine in favour of more liberal social values in areas such as gay marriage,abortion, etc...

In many ways the variation of position within the nominal Catholic population would appear to be far greater than that say between the Catholic population and the protestant one. While you suggest that Catholicism in Ireland is largely homogeneous, I don't see any evidence to support that assertion. As such, I still feel that the census figure of 84% Catholic is of questionable value outside of the strict context of how people choose to self label. My feeling is that in the context of Catholicism meaning so many different things to different people, the census should either look for more information or less.

I am slightly bemused that the a la cart Catholics get attacked on one side by the strong atheists for not being proper Catholics, and by the more staunch Catholics on the other side for not being proper Catholics. To me it says more about the extremes than the middle.

antiskeptic

sydthebeat wrote: »

Catholic teachings change over time, so are you saying that the doctrine right now is perfect and is to be followed without question?

History indicates that that would be a problematic position to hold.

I believe a mature person can differentiate the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the more polarizing teachings of any religion. It shouldn't be all or nothing, that's just blind leading the blind.

Whilst agreeing that Christian dogma can very often be inappropriately .. er .. dogmatic - unto missing the point altogether surely there must be space for all or nothing. For instance, Jesus dying on a cross such as to make possible our being made right with God. Whilst you might argue around the edge of that notion (who precisely are the "us" involved here) he either did or didn't die on a cross for our sin. And either is or isn't the son of God.

Whilst we could discuss what the truth is all day long, one thing must be the case: truth is has an all or nothing quality about it.

tommy2bad

antiskeptic wrote: »

History indicates that that would be a problematic position to hold.




Whilst agreeing that Christian dogma can very often be inappropriately .. er .. dogmatic - unto missing the point altogether surely there must be space for all or nothing. For instance, Jesus dying on a cross such as to make possible our being made right with God. Whilst you might argue around the edge of that notion (who precisely are the "us" involved here) he either did or didn't die on a cross for our sin. And either is or isn't the son of God.

Whilst we could discuss what the truth is all day long, one thing must be the case: truth is has an all or nothing quality about it.

And if that was all their was, we would have a more homogeneous church. It's what follows from that core belief that causes the problems. How do we worship? Should we use contraception? Is confession necessary? Are buttons plain enough? Christianity has a huge and wide range of interpretations of what to an outsider seem simple beliefs. Catholicism has similar problems and out part of that the RCC has it's own selection of options. I can't see any way to get a unanimous agreement on what exactly constitutes a good catholic, regular mass attendance? once a year every year or every week/every day? Probably best if we accept peoples word on what they are and let them sort it out.
I can't see it helping anyone, the church or the lapsed or the al a cart if we start setting the bar high and refusing admission based on limited criteria.

Stepping Stone

Berserker wrote: »

For the most-part they don't bother me. I do however find it strange when people who are vehemently opposed to the teachings of the church, turn around and use the church for services. I mean, if you have such an issue with the church, surely you should be doing your damnedest to avoid it. For example, I have a good friend who recently announced his engagement. He is RC and I know that he has not attended Sunday mass for years, since his teenage years. He is massively critical of the RCCs stance on many issues and wants them out of the educational system. He is a second level teacher. He often queries as to why I still go to service and asks me if I would still attend church if I was a RC, given the scandals of the past year. He cities tradition and family reasons as his reason for having a RC wedding.

As for this wedding related behaviour, I can in a way offer an explanation for this.

I come from a non religious family. If I wanted to get married, as far as I am concerned, I would be legally bound to my OH. This requires a simple, legal process. No church, no lies, no hypocrisy. I was brought up to believe that lies were unforgivable and that you should treat everyone with respect. Lying to a priest, using and abusing his faith and services are a big no no.

My OH comes from an extremely religious family. Everything revolves around religion with the parents. So much so, that they have children who feel extremely negatively about all religious based activities. Oddly, the parents have no issues with lying. They tell everyone that the now adult children are extremely religions. They told my OH that when we get married it will have to be in a church or they will never speak to him again (highly likely). I have no intention of doing such a horrible thing and to be honest, my OH has such negative feelings about all things religious that he would probably lash out if pushed to it. We are simply not getting married as a result.

Emotional blackmail and concern about what the neighbours say seems to be the driving force behind a lot of it.

Corkgirl18

I would say that a large proportion of Catholics in Ireland nowadays are A la carte as you put it.
A lot of people who are Catholic disagree with the churches opinion on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, IVF, divorce etc.

Nomis21

Religion was useful to create laws that were useful at the time of their inception, but doctrine has not kept pace with the modern age and is generally seen as too conservative and often irrelevant by most people.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

From where I'm sitting I still see a huge diversity of religious positions ranging from what we're calling the 'a la carte Catholic' such as tommy2bad and the more traditionally dogmatic positions such as hinault. I also still think Catholicism in Ireland has shifted hugely between these positions in recent decades, as indicated by low mass attendance, negligible new vocations, and rejection of Church doctrine in favour of more liberal social values in areas such as gay marriage,abortion, etc...

Sure. But the census only measures religious affiliation, not frequency of religious practice, strength or orthodoxy of religious belief, etc. And that’s all it ever measured.

It’s silly to object that the census figures don’t reflect changes in practice or in intensity of belief. Why would they? They don’t measure that.

It’s also silly, as I have pointed out, to assume that because affiliation to a particular religion is at such-and-such a level, therefore practice of that religion, and/or fervent adherence to its religious teachings is also at that level. But it would equally be silly to assume that it used to be at that level - i.e. that the census figures used to map accurately onto practice and belief, but no longer do. We know that mass attendance was high in the past, because we have mass attendance figures, not because we have census figures. We don’t know (SFAIK) that acceptance of orthodox teachings was high, because we have no data on that. Etc, etc.

smacl wrote: »

In many ways the variation of position within the nominal Catholic population would appear to be far greater than that say between the Catholic population and the protestant one.

So? Is that a problem? We know that the diversity of opinion, or career choice, or whatever is greater within each gender than it is between genders; does this undermine the validity or utility of the gender question on the census? Or questions about national origins, say?

smacl wrote: »

While you suggest that Catholicism in Ireland is largely homogeneous, I don't see any evidence to support that assertion.

No, I don’t think it is homogenous at all. Sorry if I have been unclear on that. My point is that (a) it’s not homogenous, and (b) it never was, or at least it never was as homogenous as we like to remember it.

smacl wrote: »

As such, I still feel that the census figure of 84% Catholic is of questionable value outside of the strict context of how people choose to self label. My feeling is that in the context of Catholicism meaning so many different things to different people, the census should either look for more information or less.

All it measures is how people self-label. I don’t think we can criticise it for that.

I agree with you that, to understand the significance of the label, we need to know more. I don’t think, though, the census is the place to seek that extra information. (And neither, I am reasonably confident, does anybody else. No country’s census asks for more that basic affiliation in the census.) Realistically and practically, the more detailed research has to come from other information-gathering exercises.

smacl wrote: »

I am slightly bemused that the a la cart Catholics get attacked on one side by the strong atheists for not being proper Catholics, and by the more staunch Catholics on the other side for not being proper Catholics. To me it says more about the extremes than the middle.

Oh, yes. It’s not the only occasion on which devout atheists and devout theists have strikingly similar positions! There is often less separating them than either of them would care to admit.

Gerry T

People insist that people attend mass, where did god say that ?

hinault wrote: »

they will have to account for that at some point.

No they won't, it doesn't matter if you go to mass, confession or any of that crap. What matters is how you live your life.
How can anyone that considers themselves a Christian follow the church ?? is your faith not strong enough that you can't stand on your own two feet and distance yourself from such a corrupt evil organisation. Every decade there is another uncovering of the churches underhanded dealings, it never stops and I think never will.

hinault

Gerry T wrote: »

where did god say that.

God said it to Moses in the third Commandment, on Mount Sinai.
But you don't believe any of that Gerry, correct?

Gerry T wrote: »

No they won't, it doesn't matter if you go to mass, confession or any of that crap.

Of course it does matter.

If one doesn't receive the sacraments, how can one receive sanctifying grace?
If you decide to not attend Mass, to not attend Confession, you are not in a state of grace.

Every person needs God's grace. By cutting oneself off from God's grace, one cannot be saved.

Gerry T

hinault wrote: »

God said it to Moses in the third Commandment, on Mount Sinai.
But you don't believe any of that Gerry, correct?

Thought the third was "Don't take the name of the lord in vain" whats that got to do with attending mass

hinault wrote: »

Of course it does matter.

If one doesn't receive the sacraments, how can one receive sanctifying grace?
If you decide to not attend Mass, to not attend Confession, you are not in a state of grace.

Every person needs God's grace. By cutting oneself off from God's grace, one cannot be saved.

I'm not sure if your being sarcastic, a state of "grace"---what are you talking about ! you sound brainwashed. Attending mass and going to confession means nothing. What's important is how you treat others, how you live your life and if you do something wrong i you really do regret what happened.
Take the confession bit, say someone commits a theft, surely if they really regretted what they did they would turn themselves in to the police and apologise to the person in question. What has going to a confessional got to do with anything.

hinault

Gerry T wrote: »

Thought the third was "Don't take the name of the lord in vain".

The second commandment reads "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

Gerry T wrote: »

Attending mass and going to confession means nothing. What's important is how you treat others, how you live your life and if you do something wrong i you really do regret what happened.

Attending Mass and going to Confession, as well as treating others as you would want them to treat you, are all important.

There is no point in attending Mass, if for the other 6 days of the week you don't live by what the Gospel teaches.
But equally doing the right thing 6 days of the week and completely disregarding God by not going to Mass or attending confession is also wrong.

You're required to do right by God (keeping Holy) and by Man (by treating others as you'd want them to treat you).

Gerry T wrote: »

Take the confession bit, say someone commits a theft, surely if they really regretted what they did they would turn themselves in to the police and apologise to the person in question. What has going to a confessional got to do with anything.

Those attending confession are asked to try to make full reparation to those others that they have committed a sin against, as well as God.

So if I steal your car, while I go to confession by rights I am required to restore to you the property I stole from you. In that way I have asked forgiveness from God and I have also tried to restore you to where you were before I stole from you.

Benny_Cake

Gerry T wrote: »

No they won't, it doesn't matter if you go to mass, confession or any of that crap. What matters is how you live your life.
How can anyone that considers themselves a Christian follow the church ?? is your faith not strong enough that you can't stand on your own two feet and distance yourself from such a corrupt evil organisation. Every decade there is another uncovering of the churches underhanded dealings, it never stops and I think never will.

Mod: Please read the charter. People of all faiths and none are welcome to post here, but this is the Christianity forum and describing mass and confession as "crap" is deeply offensive to Catholics who post here.

Gerry T

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mod: Please read the charter. People of all faiths and none are welcome to post here, but this is the Christianity forum and describing mass and confession as "crap" is deeply offensive to Catholics who post here.

Ok I will tone it down.

Gerry T

hinault wrote: »

The second commandment reads "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

I don't think so.

hinault wrote: »

But equally doing the right thing 6 days of the week and completely disregarding God by not going to Mass or attending confession is also wrong.

That's where I disagree, where does it say you have to go to mass. If you have a faith and you confess to God surely that's what's important.

hinault wrote: »

You're required to do right by God (keeping Holy) and by Man (by treating others as you'd want them to treat you).

Well my understanding was the Sabbath was a day of rest, again when did that become a day you have to go to Mass. But then the Church changed that rule in the '90's by allowing Saturday Mass.




Those attending confession are asked to try to make full reparation to those others that they have committed a sin against, as well as God.

So if I steal your car, while I go to confession by rights I am required to restore to you the property I stole from you. In that way I have asked forgiveness from God and I have also tried to restore you to where you were before I stole from you.[/QUOTE]

georgieporgy

this might help?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] While the entire Judeo-Christian tradition uses the same Scriptural content for the Ten Commandments, their exact division and numbering varies.
The Catholic tradition uses the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine. (The Lutheran confessions also use this numbering, while some other confessions & traditions use slightly different numberings.)
Here are the Catholic Ten Commandments:

1. I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-ten-commandments.html

[/FONT]

Gerry T

georgieporgy wrote: »

this might help?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] While the entire Judeo-Christian tradition uses the same Scriptural content for the Ten Commandments, their exact division and numbering varies.
The Catholic tradition uses the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine. (The Lutheran confessions also use this numbering, while some other confessions & traditions use slightly different numberings.)
Here are the Catholic Ten Commandments:

1. I am the LORD your God. You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/catholic-ten-commandments.html

[/FONT]

I was eluding to the differences that religions have regarding the 10 commandments. IF they were carved in stone and carried down the mountain how come the RCC leaves out one that the protestants call no. 2 and we make their 10th into two 9 & 10.

nagirrac

Gerry T wrote: »

I was eluding to the differences that religions have regarding the 10 commandments. IF they were carved in stone and carried down the mountain how come the RCC leaves out one that the protestants call no. 2 and we make their 10th into two 9 & 10.

No. The Protestant 10 commandments break the original Catholic 1 into 1 and 3 (other Gods and graven images), which pushes the Lord's Day/Sabbath out from 3 to 4, and then combine the Catholic 9 and 10 into 10 to keep it at an even 10. 2 is the same for Catholics and Protestants. Its the same set of rules, just ordered differently.

I suppose historically you'd have to give the Catholics the nod on the subject as they were around for a thousand years or so before the Protestants.

Gerry T

nagirrac wrote: »

No. The Protestant 10 commandments break the original Catholic 1 into 1 and 3 (other Gods and graven images), which pushes the Lord's Day/Sabbath out from 3 to 4, and then combine the Catholic 9 and 10 into 10 to keep it at an even 10. 2 is the same for Catholics and Protestants. Its the same set of rules, just ordered differently.

I suppose historically you'd have to give the Catholics the nod on the subject as they were around for a thousand years or so before the Protestants.

NO.
The protestant no 2 is different and puts both commandments out by one
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath_3.htm
The graven images is number 2. The catholic church did away with 2 because it likes statues and shrines, something the protestants don't do. Not that its relevant but I'm not protestant. I would have thought a simple thing like the foundation of catholic religion wouldn't debate the 10 commandments, makes you wonder how much of the written records are made up.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

I am also sickened by the "pick and mix" approach many self proclaimed Catholics hold these days. It shows a profound lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine- these people more than likely do not know that a document such as the Catechism exists.

I think the crux of the problem is the moral relativism and hedonism which is rampant nowadays, on top of the fact that most Catholics do not even attempt to familiarize themselves with the teachings of their Church. Most people are happy to sit on the fence- go to the odd mass or a wedding and claim they are "deeply religious". They will not stand up for their Church in debates about abortion, fornication exc.

These people need to realize that Catholicism is not an easy path to follow nor was it ever meant to be. It involves "bearing the cross", whatever shape or form it may take.

tommy2bad

Brodie Rotten Bug wrote: »

I am also sickened by the "pick and mix" approach many self proclaimed Catholics hold these days. It shows a profound lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine- these people more than likely do not know that a document such as the Catechism exists.

Whereas I'm encouraged by the pick n mix attitude, it shows their thinking about it and reaching their own conclusions, hopefully following their conscience and guided by the spirit. I doubt my parents generation understood their faith any better, other than learning the catechism they probably never thought about faith again.

Brodie Rotten Bug wrote: »

I think the crux of the problem is the moral relativism and hedonism which is rampant nowadays, on top of the fact that most Catholics do not even attempt to familiarize themselves with the teachings of their Church. Most people are happy to sit on the fence- go to the odd mass or a wedding and claim they are "deeply religious". They will not stand up for their Church in debates about abortion, fornication exc.

I must be missing out on the hedonism, could you let me know where it's going on?Stand up for their church? Why should they if they are not convinced the church is right? I do get what you mean but it was ever thus, just that their was a lot less questioning of the churches position on things. Did that make them better Catholics or just as bad as the Catholics today who follow the crowd?

Brodie Rotten Bug wrote: »

These people need to realize that Catholicism is not an easy path to follow nor was it ever meant to be. It involves "bearing the cross", whatever shape or form it may take.

And that might be the the truth but I don't think He meant making a cross for your own back.

nagirrac

Gerry T wrote: »

NO.
The protestant no 2 is different and puts both commandments out by one
http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath_3.htm
The graven images is number 2.

The source for the ten commandments is the same (Exodus and Deuteronomy), and yes, the division and numbering varies. Catholics and Lutherans follow the ten commandments as set out by St. Augustine, whereas Calvinists and other Protestant churches have a different division, this is where the confusion is. In summary, it depends on what Protestant tradition you are referencing. As an aside, why would you go to an atheist site to get an answer to a theological question?

As to graven images and Catholics, I will let an informed Catholic answer, but I think your statement that Catholics did away with the concept is incorrect, as far as I know they have clarified what graven images refers to. The Catholic long form first commandment, from their catechism, includes the phrase "you shall not make for yourself a graven image", so I don't think they removed it. What I believe happened historically is that St. Augustine in the 5th century combined the earlier commandments 1 and 2 (from Origen I think in the 3rd century), into commandment 1. All Christians followed this until Calvinism I believe.

Gerry T wrote: »

I would have thought a simple thing like the foundation of catholic religion wouldn't debate the 10 commandments, makes you wonder how much of the written records are made up.

The written records i.e. the bible, are the same, there is no numbering of the laws in Exodus or Deuteronomy. Catholics don't debate the numbering of the 10 commandments as far as I know. I will let a Catholic answer this as well, but I don't think the foundation of the Catholic faith is the 10 commandments, I think its the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the gospels. Although Jesus did reference Old Testament law, he also narrowed it down to "love God and love your neighbor" which is the essence of all Christian belief.

hinault

Brodie Rotten Bug wrote: »

I am also sickened by the "pick and mix" approach many self proclaimed Catholics hold these days. It shows a profound lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine- these people more than likely do not know that a document such as the Catechism exists.

I think the crux of the problem is the moral relativism and hedonism which is rampant nowadays, on top of the fact that most Catholics do not even attempt to familiarize themselves with the teachings of their Church. Most people are happy to sit on the fence- go to the odd mass or a wedding and claim they are "deeply religious". They will not stand up for their Church in debates about abortion, fornication exc.

These people need to realize that Catholicism is not an easy path to follow nor was it ever meant to be. It involves "bearing the cross", whatever shape or form it may take.

A good post

Gerry T

nagirrac wrote: »

The source for the ten commandments is the same (Exodus and Deuteronomy), and yes, the division and numbering varies. Catholics and Lutherans follow the ten commandments as set out by St. Augustine, whereas Calvinists and other Protestant churches have a different division, this is where the confusion is. In summary, it depends on what Protestant tradition you are referencing. As an aside, why would you go to an atheist site to get an answer to a theological question?

I'm not, this came up in an earlier post, someone referenced commandment 2 and I just commented is it really number 2. Point being the 10 commandments were handed out, in written tablet, not once by God but twice. These are the laws of God, surely there can be no ambiguity and where are the tablets - no one can find them. Doesn't sound plausible to me.

nagirrac wrote: »

As to graven images and Catholics, I will let an informed Catholic answer, but I think your statement that Catholics did away with the concept is incorrect, as far as I know they have clarified what graven images refers to. The Catholic long form first commandment, from their catechism, includes the phrase "you shall not make for yourself a graven image", so I don't think they removed it. What I believe happened historically is that St. Augustine in the 5th century combined the earlier commandments 1 and 2 (from Origen I think in the 3rd century), into commandment 1. All Christians followed this until Calvinism I believe.

The protestant religion gives the graven image its own commandment, my understanding is that's why they don't have statues in churches. The real point is with something so fundamental in religion like the ten commandments they can't agree

nagirrac wrote: »

The written records i.e. the bible, are the same, there is no numbering of the laws in Exodus or Deuteronomy. Catholics don't debate the numbering of the 10 commandments as far as I know. I will let a Catholic answer this as well, but I don't think the foundation of the Catholic faith is the 10 commandments, I think its the teachings of Jesus as expressed in the gospels. Although Jesus did reference Old Testament law, he also narrowed it down to "love God and love your neighbor" which is the essence of all Christian belief.

I agree with the "love your neighbour" bit as a way to live your life. But Christians do have different interpretations on the 10 commandments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments here orthodox Christians are similar to protestant interpretations in comparison to the RCC.
It's not that important, like I say there is debate over the commandments, but they were written in stone by God. The one bit of hard evidence, but can't be found.

tommy2bad

Gerry T;
.. . where are the tablets - no one can find them

Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion; theirs a monk who will go in and check it's still their if you ask, or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion
Or it could be....Hangar 51
http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Hangar_51

Gerry T

tommy2bad wrote: »

Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion; theirs a monk who will go in and check it's still their if you ask, or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion
Or it could be....Hangar 51
http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Hangar_51

Well someone needs to ask him to pop in and take a photo so we can sort out which is 2, 3, 9 and 10 !

The Monk that is !

Peregrinus

According to the scriptural history, both the fragments of the first set of stone tablets recording the conversation (which were smashed by Moses in a fit of rage) and the second set (which Moses made) were kept in the Ark of the Covenant. When the Temple of Solomon was constructed, the Ark was kept there.

In 597 BC, Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians and the Temple was looted and destroyed. If the Ark was still there (and there almost certainly was something there being venerated as the Ark) it was likely carried off to Babylon as booty. (There is a tradition that it was hidden somewhere to prevent this happening, but there is no evidence for this.)

At this point the Ark disappears from history. If, as seems most probably, it was carried off to Babylon, it never came back. Babylon itself fell to the Persians in 539 BC, and the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem, brining with them the Temple vessels but not, it seems, the Ark. The Jews rebuilt a Temple (the "Second Temple") but there is no suggestion that it ever contained the Ark. It had a raised platform where the Ark was supposed to stand. The Second Temple was sacked and destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. The Roman general Pompey is known to have entered the Holy of Holies before its destruction; he did not find the Ark. The Arch of Titus in Rome records the sack of Jerusalem and has carving illustrating the event; the Menorah (seven-branched candlestick) which was also in the Holy of Holies is seen being carried in the Roman victory parade, but no Ark.

So, basically, the tablets of stone disappeared with the Ark, probably around the time of the Babylonian captivity. As noted, there is a tradition that they were hidden to prevent them being taken to Babylon; tradition identifies the hiding place as a cave on Mount Nebo, which is in modern Jordan.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a tradition that the Ark was actually removed from the Temple much earlier, around 950 BC, and was brought to Ethiopia where, it is claimed, it still is. There is no historical support for this claim.

As for the numbering of the commandments, the scriptural texts of the Ten Commandments contains no numbering at all and, rather inconveniently, the text of the commandments is spread across not ten, but twelve verses (and even those verse numbers are not original, but are a later interpolation by editors). Nevertheless scripture does repeatedly refer to them as the ten commandments (or the ten words) so later commentators have divided the text into ten distinct parts. But exactly where you put the divisions is a matter of choice. Hence all Christian traditions have the same commandments; they just group them slightly differently for the purposes of making ten of them.

We have no reason to think that the tablets of stone, if we had them, would settle the issue. They likely contained the scriptural text of the commandments without any division into ten parts.

Galwayguy35

I must admit I am one of the a la carte Catholics, can't see why it would annoy anyone else though because it doesn't affect them in any way.

Nick Park

If the 'a la carte' thing is based on someone reasoning through their beliefs, then I think it is a thoroughly good thing.

I am the pastor of a church, and I would much rather have a member who thinks seriously about their faith and disagrees with me on something, than someone who swallows everything they are told without ever thinking about it.

diveout

I think it's a good thing; otherwise you have fundamentalism.

El_Duderino 09

Brodie Rotten Bug wrote: »

I am also sickened by the "pick and mix" approach many self proclaimed Catholics hold these days. It shows a profound lack of understanding of Catholic doctrine- these people more than likely do not know that a document such as the Catechism exists.

I think the crux of the problem is the moral relativism and hedonism which is rampant nowadays, on top of the fact that most Catholics do not even attempt to familiarize themselves with the teachings of their Church. Most people are happy to sit on the fence- go to the odd mass or a wedding and claim they are "deeply religious". They will not stand up for their Church in debates about abortion, fornication exc.

These people need to realize that Catholicism is not an easy path to follow nor was it ever meant to be. It involves "bearing the cross", whatever shape or form it may take.

While I don't disagree that most Catholics don't have a clue about what the religion actually says, I do think that's how the religion survives in this country. Imagine if every 'census catholic' in the country read the catechisms and realised they never believed half of it. Some might turn to god while most would realise they were never really catholic to begin with.

Catholics claim to represent 83% of the country because the census says 83% are catholic. However you are suggesting that they don't actually represent that many people at all. Any time there is a debate on with any social dimension, the Catholics get a say because they represent 83% of the country.

It has always been thus. It's not so far back when these matters were dealt with in Latin specifically to keep them out of the hands of the common man. The idea that the common man should read the catechisms is a new and very progressive move on your part and is sure to bring the 'census catholic' numbers in line with reality. I commend you

Careful what you wish for