Mass numbers expected to fall by 1/3 in Dublin

Cabaal

And the inevidibal decline of the Catholic church in Ireland continous on its way

Mass attendance in Dublin to drop by one-third by 2030
Number of priests serving in parishes expected to fall by 60%, report says

Weekly Mass attendance levels in Dublin are currently put at 20-22 per cent (of the population), while being as low as 2-3 per cent in some working-class parishes.

Ironic really, the working class areas were once a stronghold for catholic mass attendance and now they result in such low mass attendance. Of course in Dublin these areas also provided some of the highest yes vote percentages back in May. Yet another confirmation that the church is completely out of touch with the avg Joe on the street.

You can't preach hatred and then expect people to come and listen to it,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

mfceiling

That's the way the world is going.

My middle girl is doing her communion this year and the priest would put you off going to mass.

Standing up at the altar and telling the kids that the only true family in Ireland is daddy, mammy and kids. 2 of the girls in my daughters class are single parent families. Now I know he was talking about same sex parents but an 8 year old wouldn't. There has been a few complaints about him to the school.

To be fair I know another priest and he seems to be more progressive and in touch with the real world.

Hard to think the church will have much sway in another 20 years tbh.

lazygal

They're the rules though, only straight people should be able to get married, have sex and therefore have children. If you don't like the rules why stay in the club?

iDave

That's just the RC church though. Can Clonskeagh mosque expect a similar decline?

desertcircus

lazygal wrote: »

They're the rules though, only straight people should be able to get married, have sex and therefore have children. If you don't like the rules why stay in the club?

That touches on something I've been wondering for a while. The Catholic church is intensely fixated on adherence to the rules, to the extent that it probably reduces its ability to reduce the incidence of "sin" in the world. Is the role of the Church to maximise behaviours it sees as moral, or to maximise the number of people who follow its rules totally? A church which officially and publicly declared that it was no longer interested in campaigning against gay rights, contraception and gender equality - and followed that up by refocusing more or less entirely on the "don't be a dick to each other" aspects of its teachings - would probably be a good deal more successful in terms of reducing the overall level of "sin".

lazygal

desertcircus wrote: »

That touches on something I've been wondering for a while. The Catholic church is intensely fixated on adherence to the rules, to the extent that it probably reduces its ability to reduce the incidence of "sin" in the world. Is the role of the Church to maximise behaviours it sees as moral, or to maximise the number of people who follow its rules totally? A church which officially and publicly declared that it was no longer interested in campaigning against gay rights, contraception and gender equality - and followed that up by refocusing more or less entirely on the "don't be a dick to each other" aspects of its teachings - would probably be a good deal more successful in terms of reducing the overall level of "sin".

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

The Randy Riverbeast

lazygal wrote: »

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

Maybe those bits are a metaphor/out of context/don't apply anymore.

looksee

This is all a very clear indication that the churches are not about god, but about enforcing the detail of each churches' interpretation of what god wants.

If they were to accept that god is more important than the man-made organisation, and that it does not matter how the individual recognises and worships him, the churches would have a great deal more to offer society. As it is they are a liability.

The officials of a church, be they priests, ministers or whatever, are to a large extent about power and authority rather than god, and the further up the chain of command they go, the less the original purpose of teaching and leading worship matters to them. A lot like politicians really.

seamus

lazygal wrote: »

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

The problem is that people don't examine their faith to ensure it's still logical, instead they distort logic in order to retain their faith.

All doctrine, not just Catholic doctrine, is littered with convenient loopholes to answer the "what about" questions in a way that lets people comfortably ignore the facts. "God works in mysterious ways" is the most used one, but in the cases you describe, the loophole is that the Pope is allowed to re-interpret the bible because he is God's representative on earth.

But why didn't the bible just mean what it said? The loophole invented for that, is that the bible was written to be an eternal book and so is designed to relevant to man during all stages of humanity's development.

All nonsense of course, but it lets people pretend that everything is hunky dory.

You also have the latest fun, where people call themselves Catholic and then claim that the bible means whatever you want it to mean, that you interpret it to suit yourself.

Eh, no, that's exactly not how Catholicism works.

looksee

You also have the latest fun, where people call themselves Catholic and then claim that the bible means whatever you want it to mean, that you interpret it to suit yourself.

Eh, no, that's exactly not how Catholicism works.

Exactly. What is Catholicism and how does it work. Does god have anything to do with it at this stage? Or is it just a platform for human power, wealth and authority, a circular construct with no real, basic meaning at all?

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

You also have the latest fun, where people call themselves Catholic and then claim that the bible means whatever you want it to mean, that you interpret it to suit yourself.

Eh, no, that's exactly not how Catholicism works.

..and then do things like communion ceremonies despite finding some of the views offensive. Even my own father, who voted yes to marriage equality, never goes to mass (SIN!SIN!SIN!), is certainly more pro than anti choice and thinks the whole kit and kaboodle is nonsense, will tick the catholic box in the census. If people thought more critically about what they believe, I am sure they could find a more appropriate denomination for them to follow.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Don't the rules come from God though? So if they start changing the rules, might that be an admission that God got it wrong, or they misinterpreted the rules of God and therefore may be unreliable leaders in what's a sin in other elements of life, or that the whole house of cards is subject to the whims of humans and not divine revelation?

They've already changed the rules on a number of issues, after all slavery is bad now!

seamus wrote: »

All doctrine, not just Catholic doctrine, is littered with convenient loopholes to answer the "what about" questions in a way that lets people comfortably ignore the facts.

Did you say loopholes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS4wptwMfwQ

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

They've already changed the rules on a number of issues, after all slavery is bad now!

Yes, and a foetus isn't a person if it might cost them money!

PopePalpatine

looksee wrote: »

Exactly. What is Catholicism and how does it work. Does god have anything to do with it at this stage? Or is it just a platform for human power, wealth and authority, a circular construct with no real, basic meaning at all?

That's the great thing about Catholicism - it's very vague and no-one knows what it's all about. :pac:

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

I liked this quote;

Most people are “decent, respectful and grateful; they are amazingly unfazed; no embarrassment or apology for the fact that they are unfamiliar with what happens at a Mass these days.

Its like he is saying "How dare they "get on with their lives" in a decent way, while mostly ignoring the church, and not even being ashamed of it. I didn't spend 5 years studying this crap in a seminary just so people could call me up to say a few words at a funeral, and the rest of the time just ignore me."

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I liked this quote; Its like he is saying "How dare they "get on with their lives" in a decent way, while mostly ignoring the church, and not even being ashamed of it. I didn't spend 5 years studying this crap in a seminary just so people could call me up to say a few words at a funeral, and the rest of the time just ignore me."

I think it shows an astounding disconnect with the rest of the world.

He seems to think that it's strange or remarkable that people don't know the catholic mass inside-out. Which I think is probably the very definition of "parochial". He is so firmly embedded inside the church mindset that he doesn't understand why someone wouldn't be embarrassed if they had to be told what to do in a church.

Personally I find the "new" mass to be great, because now I don't really know what's going on. With the old mass, you'd go to a wedding or funeral and old reflexes learned at a tender age would sometimes come back to haunt you. But now it's all different I can just sit there and look around.

Cabaal

seamus wrote: »

Personally I find the "new" mass to be great, because now I don't really know what's going on. With the old mass, you'd go to a wedding or funeral and old reflexes learned at a tender age would sometimes come back to haunt you. But now it's all different I can just sit there and look around.

Got to agree,
Also the new mass had the added benefit of pissing off alot of the older ground who regularly go to mass. I still hear them bitch about it now and then,

recedite

The priest seems to think that by learning off a few magic words and wearing a special outfit, he has an entitlement to be revered by everybody as a pillar of society.
But if he's a pillar, then society is a big circus tent that has packed up and moved to a new location down the road. It turns out the pillar wasn't necessary after all, it was just in the way :pac:
The marble pillar stands in the middle of a field at the previous site, wondering to itself; How the f**k is that tent staying up now?

Bristolscale7

A lot done. More to do.

Huntergonzo

Ah we'll screw it up some way, that's a guarantee, humans seem inherently hard wired to fall for insane shíte. The RCC has survived this long even after all the extraordinary evil and cruel things they've done and indeed continue to do, so I wouldn't be optimistic about their long, long overdue demise and anyway even if they did finally fúck off and leave us alone (which is highly unlikely), some other evil charlatans would likely take their place.

The Randy Riverbeast

Interesting how baptisms are going up, people must really want their children to be raised as RC even though the parents don't have much interest in the religion themselves :pac:

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ah we'll screw it up some way, that's a guarantee, humans seem inherently hard wired to fall for insane shíte. The RCC has survived this long even after all the extraordinary evil and cruel things they've done and indeed continue to do, so I wouldn't be optimistic about their long, long overdue demise and anyway even if they did finally fúck off and leave us alone (which is highly unlikely), some other evil charlatans would likely take their place.

The RCC is safe enough, it might be losing people in the Western world but it still has the poorer parts of the world. They just start to tone down the fire and brimstone to look cool and down with the kids here while telling people if they use contraception they will get AIDs elsewhere. They have to be very careful with not going for the god says no line in political matter, instead claiming they want to protect children.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Mass numbers falling?
God help this country

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Mass numbers falling?
God help this country

Samaris

seamus wrote: »

Personally I find the "new" mass to be great, because now I don't really know what's going on. With the old mass, you'd go to a wedding or funeral and old reflexes learned at a tender age would sometimes come back to haunt you. But now it's all different I can just sit there and look around.

The more recent times I've gone to Mass, I've mostly just wished they'd stop changing the words!

"Peace be with you,"
"And also with...[mumble] on your spirit.."

Also I'm quite often somewhere where the Rosary is said a lot, which I can cope with (although I'm surreptitiously dropping fingers from the hands clasped so I can keep count when I have to say the lead part), but the Nicene Creed, oh, that one gets me every time. The version they use goes from;

"Suffered death and was buried
On the third day he rose again.." which is the version I learned

to

"Suffered death and was buried
He descended into hell." (here, a big bell clangs in my head)

The worst bit is everyone stops solemnly on that point, while I'm now mumbling alone "on the third-grble.."

Nodin

Samaris wrote: »

The more recent times I've gone to Mass, I've mostly just wished they'd stop changing the words!

"Peace be with you,"
"And also with...[mumble] on your spirit.."

Also I'm quite often somewhere where the Rosary is said a lot, which I can cope with (although I'm surreptitiously dropping fingers from the hands clasped so I can keep count when I have to say the lead part), but the Nicene Creed, oh, that one gets me every time. The version they use goes from;

"Suffered death and was buried
On the third day he rose again.." which is the version I learned

to

"Suffered death and was buried
He descended into hell." (here, a big bell clangs in my head)

The worst bit is everyone stops solemnly on that point, while I'm now mumbling alone "on the third-grble.."

What the jaysus madness is this? When did they bring that stuff in?

Samaris

The "And peace be with your spirit" thing was brought in a couple of years ago, maybe...two-three years now? It could be longer, but I only remember being caught out by it when I came back from England two years ago.

The "descended into hell" bit in the Nicene Creed is an older alternative of the prayer and not said in Church; that's one I'm only confronted with in a more private setting. I guess it's just their preferred method. Still catches me out something rotten though.

Hotblack Desiato

It looks like some serious spin has already been applied to those figures.

Weekly Mass attendance levels in Dublin are currently put at 20-22 per cent (of the population), while being as low as 2-3 per cent in some working-class parishes.

It doesn't even claim 20-22% of self-declared catholics, but 20-22% of the population. Not remotely credible. Especially as an RCC survey in 2011 put the figure for Dublin at 14%
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/archbishop-says-dublin-diocese-facing-crisis-1.11050

If some areas are 2-3% and yet the average is claimed to be 20-22%, there must be some areas significantly higher than that - but where? In Dublin it's just not credible at all.

Then further down, they're saying baptisms are up - in number possibly - ignoring the growing population and birth rate - and ignoring the schools admission issue also.

haveringchick

mfceiling wrote: »

That's the way the world is going.

My middle girl is doing her communion this year and the priest would put you off going to mass.

Standing up at the altar and telling the kids that the only true family in Ireland is daddy, mammy and kids. 2 of the girls in my daughters class are single parent families. Now I know he was talking about same sex parents but an 8 year old wouldn't. There has been a few complaints about him to the school.

To be fair I know another priest and he seems to be more progressive and in touch with the real world.

Hard to think the church will have much sway in another 20 years tbh.

You really need to report your parish priest to the Gardai for tiger kidnapping your family, if only to prevent it happening to some other family.

robindch

Samaris wrote: »

The more recent times I've gone to Mass, I've mostly just wished they'd stop changing the words!

And what about the standy-uppey and sitty-downey bits? Did the church ever get that straightened out?

Last time I was at a mass - a few years ago for the marriage of a few non-Irish friends - nobody had a clue of when they were supposed to stand up, sit down + slouch forward and the mass looked like a slow-motion exercise session at a lunatic aslyum.

Samaris

Well, it's falling in line with the amount of priests they're able to train too. This article is a bit out of date, but I doubt the pattern has changed;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/significant-drop-in-irish-numbers-of-priests-and-nuns-1.1856113

They're entirely right about how to solve it, but the order as a whole is stagnant. Although if any pope was going to bite the bullet and make the major changes needed, it'd be Pope Francis. He's far and away the most progressive pope they've had. Yis'd think that only two priests under the age of forty in the most populous diocese in the country would be a bit of a wake-up call though. But I rather suspect the Church is relying on their current strongest area, the African and possibly American churches, to start exporting missionaries to the old strongholds to fill in the gaps.

The daft thing is that these are not wholly unprecedented changes. Women did act as priests back in the early days of the church in Ireland. In fact, women made up a large portion of Jesus' following. A female "deacon" appears in the Bible (Paul), called Phoebe. Various other women were responsible for how the early Church came to be, and what social service roles they took over (Paula, Fabiola, etc). Female deacons were being ordained until the 4thC, and didn't disappear until the 12th. It's possible they had a slightly different role, ministering to women exclusively, but still, it's a construct. Marriage was allowed for quite a long time until it was banned, and I believe that partly had to do with a tax system in place at the time.

For the sake of a secular country, yeah, it's probably best that they keep on with being stubborn. But the practical, problem-solving part of me is a bit "seriously? You'd rather -die out- rather than change some man-made traditions that actually don't affect the word of Christ? Sheesh, you're unsalvageable."

Samaris

Well, it's falling in line with the amount of priests they're able to train too. This article is a bit out of date, but I doubt the pattern has changed;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/significant-drop-in-irish-numbers-of-priests-and-nuns-1.1856113

They're entirely right about how to solve it, but the order as a whole is stagnant. Although if any pope was going to bite the bullet and make the major changes needed, it'd be Pope Francis. He's far and away the most progressive pope they've had. Yis'd think that only two priests under the age of forty in the most populous diocese in the country would be a bit of a wake-up call though. But I rather suspect the Church is relying on their current strongest area, the African and possibly American churches, to start exporting missionaries to the old strongholds to fill in the gaps.

The daft thing is that these are not wholly unprecedented changes. Women did act as priests back in the early days of the church in Ireland. In fact, women made up a large portion of Jesus' following. A female "deacon" appears in the Bible (Paul), called Phoebe. Various other women were responsible for how the early Church came to be, and what social service roles they took over (Paula, Fabiola, etc). Female deacons were being ordained until the 4thC, and didn't disappear until the 12th. It's possible they had a slightly different role, ministering to women exclusively, but still, it's a construct. Marriage was allowed for quite a long time until it was banned, and I believe that partly had to do with a tax system in place at the time.

For the sake of a secular country, yeah, it's probably best that they keep on with being stubborn. But the practical, problem-solving part of me is a bit "seriously? You'd rather -die out- rather than change some man-made traditions that actually don't affect the word of Christ? Sheesh, you're unsalvageable."