Identifying as a Roman Catholic discussion

robdonn

Jack Killian wrote: »

This sums up, presumably, what the thread was intended to be about.

They're defying / disagreeing with their church.

The question then becomes whether that is a "real" catholic or the so-called "a la carte" version, which to me is not a catholic, as you can't play soccer if you repeatedly handle the ball - you should switch to a GAA or rugby club.

However, if this was the only thing they disagreed with, and they didn't want it as an option for themselves, but just didn't want to impose it on non-members via the real /
State laws, and voted accordingly, then it could be argued that they were simply being more christian and open-minded.

But would their church agree ?

Goal keepers can handle the ball... :P

I really should have called them "self-described Catholics" or something to that effect. The majority of people in Ireland who are self-described Catholics do not agree with all of the teachings of the Catholic church, topics just as divorce, contraception and same-sex marriage show this quite clearly.

So we have to ask "What makes someone a Catholic?" If a Catholic can still be Catholic yet disagree with some of the church's teachings (an "a la carte" Catholic, as you said), then yes a Catholic can support abortion. If they can't go against the teachings of the Church then a lot of people have been putting down the wrong answer in the census.

So who gets to decide what a Catholic is? I'm sure the church would like to say that strict adherence is a neccessity, but then their numbers would plummet!

smacl

robdonn wrote: »

So who gets to decide what a Catholic is?

Someone wants to call themselves a Catholic, they're a Catholic as far as I'm concerned. Who is anyone to dictate the religion of someone else, regardless of how they choose to observe their religion of choice.

Jack Killian

robdonn wrote: »

Goal keepers can handle the ball... :P

I really should have called them "self-described Catholics" or something to that effect. The majority of people in Ireland who are self-described Catholics do not agree with all of the teachings of the Catholic church, topics just as divorce, contraception and same-sex marriage show this quite clearly.

So we have to ask "What makes someone a Catholic?" If a Catholic can still be Catholic yet disagree with some of the church's teachings (an "a la carte" Catholic, as you said), then yes a Catholic can support abortion. If they can't go against the teachings of the Church then a lot of people have been putting down the wrong answer in the census.

So who gets to decide what a Catholic is? I'm sure the church would like to say that strict adherence is a neccessity, but then their numbers would plummet!

This is my point. We're not talking about a general organisation where members get to vote, or can be part-members; we're talking about an organisation that is so arrogant and dogmatic as to believe that its own canon "law" overrules the laws of the land.

And as I said, I'm not talking about an occasional lapse; I'm talking about people who make major conscious decisions and plans (e.g. moving in together) that are polar opposites to what their club demands.

It seems to me like another Irish solution to an Irish problem; and as you say they're happy to run with that as their membership numbers would plummet.

It is, after all, an organisation which closed down the opt-out route when people started using it; the Borg and Hotel California spring to mind.

smacl

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm talking about people who make major conscious decisions and plans (e.g. moving in together) that are polar opposites to what their club demands.

It is, after all, an organisation which closed down the opt-out route when people started using it.

If you look at the above, you see the obvious contradiction faced by many Irish Catholics. They've joined the club for life. They're not happy with many of the older club rules and cranky officials so they ignore them and stop visiting the clubhouse. At the same time they still ardently follow the team.

Another way of looking at it is the Catholic church actually consists of the sum total of people who consider themselves Catholic, as opposed to the relatively few who make up the hierarchy. While democracy is antithetical to religious hierarchy, in a society such as Ireland religious attitudes are largely determined by the population of nominal believers. As those believers lose contact with the hierarchy by not going to church, attitudes between the hierarchy and the nominal Catholic diverge.

Jack Killian

smacl wrote: »

If you look at the above, you see the obvious contradiction faced by many Irish Catholics. They've joined the club for life. They're not happy with many of the older club rules and cranky officials so they ignore them and stop visiting the clubhouse. At the same time they still ardently follow the team.

Another way of looking at it is the Catholic church actually consists of the sum total of people who consider themselves Catholic, as opposed to the relatively few who make up the hierarchy. While democracy is antithetical to religious hierarchy, in a society such as Ireland religious attitudes are largely determined by the population of nominal believers. As those believers lose contact with the hierarchy by not going to church, attitudes between the hierarchy and the nominal Catholic diverge.

Well summed up.

In my case I cut out the unnecessary middleman and deal with my conscience and a hope that if there is an "all seeing" God then he'll see how I'm trying to live.

Cabaal

Jack Killian wrote: »

They're defying / disagreeing with their church.

The question then becomes whether that is a "real" catholic or the so-called "a la carte" version, which to me is not a catholic,

So called "a la carte" Catholics by far and above make up the majority of Catholics in Ireland. While you might not except them as Catholics its evident that the Irish Catholic Church does not share your personal view.

They are more then happy to allow them to baptise kids so the kids can go to local school, or allow couples that never go to mass to get married in a church etc

In this day and age only a very small number of people in Ireland are against ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, condom use, divorce, marriage equality, abortion, sex before marriage. Thankfully we've progressed as a nation.

Jack Killian

Cabaal wrote: »

So called "a la carte" Catholics by far and above make up the majority of Catholics in Ireland. While you might not except them as Catholics its evident that the Irish Catholic Church does not share your personal view.

They are more then happy to allow them to baptise kids so the kids can go to local school, or allow couples that never go to mass to get married in a church etc

Really ?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-priests-should-not-baptise-children-just-to-help-with-admission-to-schools-716826.html

And even worse was the snide claim at the end:

The big problem that we have is that Cathloic schools in areas which are very good, everybody wants to go to them, and you have to have some criteria for a judgement

Many areas of the country have no non-denominational school.

smacl

Jack Killian wrote: »

In my case I cut out the unnecessary middleman and deal with my conscience and a hope that if there is an "all seeing" God then he'll see how I'm trying to live.

I'm just an atheist and secularist, and if someone calls themselves a Catholic, Christian, Muslim or whatever else take it at face value.

Cabaal

Jack Killian wrote: »

Really ?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-priests-should-not-baptise-children-just-to-help-with-admission-to-schools-716826.html

Thats only lip service,
The local priests will very rarely turn down the chance to pour some water on a baby, even if they've never ever seen the parents step foot in the church.

The same applies for weddings, for example I know one person that even outright told the priest that they wouldn't be doing the accord marriage course (they already haven't gone to mass outside of births, deaths, marriages) and that the priest could either marry them in the church like their other half wants or they'll just leave the church bit.

The priest responded straight away that it wasn't a problem and he'd marry them in the church.

If the Catholic Church in Ireland really only wanted "real Catholics" this would never ever happen,

Jack Killian

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats only lip service

So he's engaging in deception ?

Hope he goes to confession so! Then again, in that scenario we'd never find out, because their track record shows that even in the extreme cases when it's a crime and society could be done a service, the "their law rules" and the urge to protect the organisation comes first.

So a "little white lie" would never be admitted to, despite the damage that would do.

Cabaal

Jack Killian wrote: »

So he's engaging in deception ?

Well yes and no,
He's just saying something to make it look like the church cares. But the reality is the church doesn't care and is happy to take in the new "Catholics" even if it never see's them in the church.

He knows what he's doing.

its like the time the catholic church claimed they'd stop doing the state marriage part in church's if marriage equality passed. It was a pathetic attempt to instill fear into people and it failed so badly.. They knew they weren't going to stop doing it and so did everyone else.

If they had stopping doing the state part of marriage in church's then they'd risk loosing people from church weddings.

This is why they didn't stop and this is why they won't stop "Catholics" who never go to mass, don't believe in the church stance on sex before marriage, condoms, divorce, abortion and marriage equality etc from using its services for births, deaths and marriages.

I'd have more respect for the catholic church in Germany, first off they sort the true believers from the fakers by getting income from the people that describe themselves as Catholics through the "church tax".

Second off, they have told people that if they don't pay the church tax then they can't use the church's services. It seems only right, those church's cost money to maintain.

I'd personally like to see such a tax in Ireland, it ensures that the church has enough funds to keep itself going without depending on small donations during mass. It also knows who its true believers are.

Jack Killian

Cabaal wrote: »

Well yes and no,
He's just saying something to make it look like the church cares. But the reality is the church doesn't care and is happy to take in the new "Catholics" even if it never see's them in the church.

He knows what he's doing.

its like the time the catholic church claimed they'd stop doing the state marriage part in church's if marriage equality passed. It was a pathetic attempt to instill fear into people and it failed so badly.. They knew they weren't going to stop doing it and so did everyone else.

If they had stopping doing the state part of marriage in church's then they'd risk loosing people from church weddings.

This is why they didn't stop and this is why they won't stop "Catholics" who never go to mass, don't believe in the church stance on sex before marriage, condoms, divorce, abortion and marriage equality etc from using its services for births, deaths and marriages.

I'd have more respect for the catholic church in Germany, first off they sort the true believers from the fakers by getting income from the people that describe themselves as Catholics through the "church tax".

Second off, they have told people that if they don't pay the church tax then they can't use the church's services. It seems only right, those church's cost money to maintain.

I'd personally like to see such a tax in Ireland, it ensures that the church has enough funds to keep itself going without depending on small donations during mass. It also knows who its true believers are.

Don't forget that they also lose state funding and teacher salaries for schools.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Catholic identity discussion split to new thread from Can a Catholic support abortion thread.

robdonn

Ooooh, I started a thread.

Matt Markinson

Has anyone figured out what's a Catholic yet ? Or does it change from agenda to agenda ?

Absolam

So far it seems to vary by agenda;

From the Christian side there seems to be a desire to embrace anyone who wants to get involved with the faith even if it's only on a superficial level (understandably if there's even the slightest hope that that engagement could be deepened over time and a soul thereby saved), and of course the 'ontological bond' created by baptism which means that no one baptised is ever lost to God anyway, they're only wandering in the wilderness.

From the anti-theist side there's a desire to limit the apparent size of the Church, because that in some way reduces the Church's influence on society. If it can be said that anyone who doesn't fully observe all Catholic rites and beliefs cannot be counted as a Catholic, then a new secular dawn will... dawn, and we'll all get lollipops or something.

Everybody else just gets on with their lives, throws a nod in the direction of whatever tradition seems to make people happy every now and then, and really only wrestles with the notion at census time for long enough to discover there isn't a 'couldn't care less' option and tick whatever seems least inappropriate to their mood on the day then move on.

smacl

I think you're perhaps generalising to suit your own stance there.

Absolam wrote: »

From the Christian side there seems to be a desire to embrace anyone who wants to get involved with the faith even if it's only on a superficial level (understandably if there's even the slightest hope that that engagement could be deepened over time and a soul thereby saved), and of course the 'ontological bond' created by baptism which means that no one baptised is ever lost to God anyway, they're only wandering in the wilderness.

This doesn't seem to pan out so much on this forum. For example, from a post here;

hinault wrote: »

So be it.

The Church must oppose divorce, abortion, etc.
The Church was founded on the basis that marriage is for life, all human life is God given.

If the membership of the Church believe that divorce is justified and that abortion is justified, then that membership is no longer part of the Catholic Church.

What society deems as being justified may well be in conflict with church teaching on topics like divorce. So be it.

It's up to society to decide for itself what it deems as being justifiable.
For the Catholic, they know what is justified - and they have to make the decision to support what the Church justifies, and what society justifies. Where there is a conflict, each Catholic must decide. So be it.

Any Catholic who votes to support divorce or abortion automatically excommunicates themselves for the Church.

There seems to be more than a few posts here, from a number of posters, more concerned with a very conservative doctrinaire approach to religion than taking in all comers. I think you possibly queried some of these yourself, indicating a broad spectrum of Catholicism out there rather than the consensus indicated in your post. Same holds true for us feelthy heathens;

From the anti-theist side there's a desire to limit the apparent size of the Church, because that in some way reduces the Church's influence on society. If it can be said that anyone who doesn't fully observe all Catholic rites and beliefs cannot be counted as a Catholic, then a new secular dawn will... dawn, and we'll all get lollipops or something.

Seeing at least as much of this from the conservative Christian side on this board to be fair. And as someone who is a secularist and atheist, I've made a point over a number of posts that I consider anyone who calls themselves a Catholic to be a Catholic.

Matt Markinson

Does anyone know what's a "devout catholic", is it as vague as catholic, I've heard that one bandied about a few times, but can't work out what they are or what it means.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

I think you're perhaps generalising to suit your own stance there.

Well... maybe spinning to provide a counterpoint to the usual portrayals

smacl wrote: »

This doesn't seem to pan out so much on this forum. For example, from a post here;

Yes, I agree, Hinault isn't exactly a poster boy for ecumenical Catholic inclusivity, but you can't say he doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve!

smacl wrote: »

There seems to be more than a few posts here, from a number of posters, more concerned with a very conservative doctrinaire approach to religion than taking in all comers. I think you possibly queried some of these yourself, indicating a broad spectrum of Catholicism out there rather than the consensus indicated in your post.

Well, I can't claim to have indicated a consensus on the subject in my post, only that there is a desire there, which often is uncharitably portrayed as a grasping attempt to hold on to numbers no matter what, but which more reasonably is an attempt to be as relevant and supportive as possible whilst carrying out a mission to bring people closer to God.

smacl wrote: »

Same holds true for us feelthy heathens;

Yes, I've no doubt the fora like these bring out the extreme viewpoints in any discussion; polemic is simply more entertaining than thoughtful & reasonable debate.

smacl wrote: »

Seeing at least as much of this from the conservative Christian side on this board to be fair. And as someone who is a secularist and atheist, I've made a point over a number of posts that I consider anyone who calls themselves a Catholic to be a Catholic.

We have indeed, which is not to say there hasn't been some wonderfully vitriolic anti theist contributions... particularly when it comes to telling 'real' theists how they ought to be behaving in order to deserve the name.

LordSutch

Matt Markinson wrote: »

Does anyone know what's a "devout catholic", is it as vague as catholic, I've heard that one bandied about a few times, but can't work out what they are or what it means.

I presume a devout Roman Catholic would be the opposite of an 'a là carte' Catholic?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

We have indeed, which is not to say there hasn't been some wonderfully vitriolic anti theist contributions... particularly when it comes to telling 'real' theists how they ought to be behaving in order to deserve the name.

Indeed, when the average Irish Catholic (if there even is such a thing) seems to be picking up flak from all sides. It always amuses me to see some atheists reading the bible to give out to Catholics, who quite possibly have only ever skimmed it, in order to have a moan at Catholicism. Given that most nominal Catholics in this country rarely attend their church, tend to support equal rights, and get up to all sorts of things that fall foul of what their hierarchy would ask of them, having either atheists or more staunch Catholics quote the bible at them seems laughable.

I do think as people stop going to church, their moral compasses will be set more according to societal norms rather than religious ones. and the Catholic church's influence will fall into decline. I suspect many nominal Catholics choose to remain so on the basis that being selfless, kind and good are core to their notion of their religion, but interpret this in the context of how their society operates rather than what the bible tells them, and believe this will get them past the pearly gates when the time comes. If this is the case, I certainly have no issue with it even if it is not in line with my own beliefs.

Matt Markinson

LordSutch wrote: »

I presume a devout Roman Catholic would be the opposite of an 'a là carte' Catholic?

I'm not so sure. I understand what an a la carte Catholic/Christian is, but what's the difference between a an 'ordinary' Catholic/Christian and a 'devout' Catholic/Christian. Perhaps it depends on the agenda of the person using the terms ? I don't know. Maybe someone here has a handle on it.

As opposed to an obviously la carte Catholic / Christian, do people think a plain Catholic/Christian is someone who is only a little bit a la carte now and then, whereas a devout Catholic/Christian is one who's not ? Or is devout used to distinguish a sincere one from a cultural one ? Or is is a fundamentalist vs orthodox thing ? Devout also seems be often used sometimes in a derogatory fashion, and other times as a compliment, again seemingly depending on the user of the term.

Personally, I'm interested in how people use these terms to better understand them.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

There seems to be more than a few posts here, from a number of posters, more concerned with a very conservative doctrinaire approach to religion than taking in all comers. I think you possibly queried some of these yourself, indicating a broad spectrum of Catholicism out there rather than the consensus indicated in your post. Same holds true for us feelthy heathens;

Anyone who considers themselves Catholic are bound by what the Church decrees.
This binding applies to new comers and those who of born and raised in the Faith.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

I do think as people stop going to church, their moral compasses will be set more according to societal norms rather than religious ones. and the Catholic church's influence will fall into decline. I suspect many nominal Catholics choose to remain so on the basis that being selfless, kind and good are core to their notion of their religion, but interpret this in the context of how their society operates rather than what the bible tells them, and believe this will get them past the pearly gates when the time comes. If this is the case, I certainly have no issue with it even if it is not in line with my own beliefs.

I think your analysis is accurate.

I agree that there are lots of people who consider themselves "catholic" and who adhere only to certain parts of Catholic practice and doctrine, but who do not accept and do not adhere to large tracts of Catholic practice and doctrine.

The Church therefore has a dilemma if it is to retain and grow members.
Does the Church compromise with society?
Or should the Church stand apart from society by not compromising?

Many traditionalists point to the fact that because the Mass was changed following Vatican II, that the travails we see with the Church have occurred.
Traditionalists hold that if the Church returns to pre vatican II practice that this will repair the problems for the Church and for society.

Matt Markinson

hinault wrote: »

Many traditionalists point to the fact that because the Mass was changed following Vatican II, that the travails we see with the Church have occurred.
Traditionalists hold that if the Church returns to pre vatican II practice that this will repair the problems for the Church and for society.

But to use your own choice of words are so called traditionalists / extremists not "bound by what the Church decreed" in Vatican II ? Yet they seem to try and twist, spin and misrepresent Vatican II just as much as any extremist on the "liberal" side does. Neither of these groups seem to have any respect for the teaching authority of any Popes in the last 50 years and the majority of Bishops.

hinault

Matt Markinson wrote: »

But to use your own choice of words are so called traditionalists / extremists not "bound by what the Church decreed" in Vatican II ? Yet they seem to try and twist, spin and misrepresent Vatican II just as much as any extremist on the "liberal" side does. Neither of these groups seem to have any respect for the teaching authority of any Popes in the last 50 years and the majority of Bishops.

What was Vatican II?

Traditionalists point out that Vatican II was not a council of change, but that change happened regardless.
The main change being to the format and content of the Mass, the Mass that had remained unchanged for centuries became altered after Vatican II.

Liberals point out that Vatican II was a council of change, and that the change which resulted conforms to what Vatican II stipulated.

In the meantime, there have been 5 papacies since Vatican II - and the fissure between liberals and traditionalists remains.

Jack Killian

hinault wrote: »

What was Vatican II?

Traditionalists point out that Vatican II was not a council of change, but that change happened regardless.
The main change being to the format and content of the Mass, the Mass that had remained unchanged for centuries became altered after Vatican II.

Liberals point out that Vatican II was a council of change, and that the change which resulted conforms to what Vatican II stipulated.

In the meantime, there have been 5 papacies since Vatican II - and the fissure between liberals and traditionalists remains.

Did the Pope - the "infallible" one who speaks with God - decree it as a council of change or not ?

Matt Markinson

hinault wrote: »

In the meantime, there have been 5 papacies since Vatican II - and the fissure between liberals and traditionalists remains.

And they are the cause of that and nothing new.

The Pharisees of extreme "tradition" or "liberalism" will always be with us, and they will have to paddle their own canoe's. . . . remember, Christ had a soft spot for sinners with sincerity, and none for the self righteous.

hinault

Matt Markinson wrote: »

And they are the cause of that and nothing new.

The Pharisees of extreme "tradition" or "liberalism" will always be with us, and they will have to paddle their own canoe's. . . . remember, Christ had a soft spot for sinners with sincerity, and none for the self righteous.

Christ did forgive the sinner who sincerely sought repentance. After forgiving the sinner Christ said "go, and sin no more"

Every sphere has tensions between traditionalists and liberals. This tension should be a healthy one.

KingBrian2

If your born Catholic you remain a Catholic unless you are excommunicated by the Pope otherwise were all Catholic regardless of our beliefs. Nothing in the Catholic manual that says atheists, agnostics or lay Catholics are not part of the Christian family.

hinault

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If your born Catholic you remain a Catholic unless you are excommunicated by the Pope otherwise were all Catholic regardless of our beliefs. Nothing in the Catholic manual that says atheists, agnostics or lay Catholics are not part of the Christian family.

That is not correct for a number of reasons.

Excommunication is reserved solely to the Pope. Nor are we all Catholic regardless of our beliefs either.

With respect, the subject of excommunication is an extremely complex and nuanced one.

KingBrian2

hinault wrote: »

That is not correct for a number of reasons.

Excommunication is reserved solely to the Pope. Nor are we all Catholic regardless of our beliefs either.

With respect, the subject of excommunication is an extremely complex and nuanced one.

How exactly are you supposed to get excommunicated? I rarely hear it done, infact I rarely if at all know about it. Don't even know if Martin Luther was excommunicated for defying Rome.

Jack Killian

hinault wrote: »

Christ did forgive the sinner who sincerely sought repentance. After forgiving the sinner Christ said "go, and sin no more"

Every sphere has tensions between traditionalists and liberals. This tension should be a healthy one.

So would he forgive a second time, with the subject having disobeyed an explicit instruction ?

hinault

KingBrian2 wrote: »

How exactly are you supposed to get excommunicated? I rarely hear it done, infact I rarely if at all know about it. Don't even know if Martin Luther was excommunicated for defying Rome.

The excommunicated person has excommunicated themselves from the Church.

That excommunication may be formally notified to the person - by papal encyclical, by canonical court.
Not all cases of excommunication require formal notification however.
Excommunication called latae sententiae can result without notification.

Commit a mortal sin and more likely than not you excommunicate yourself

Exsurge Domine was the papal encyclical that issued the formal decree of excommunication of Martin Luther.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

I do think as people stop going to church, their moral compasses will be set more according to societal norms rather than religious ones. and the Catholic church's influence will fall into decline. I suspect many nominal Catholics choose to remain so on the basis that being selfless, kind and good are core to their notion of their religion, but interpret this in the context of how their society operates rather than what the bible tells them, and believe this will get them past the pearly gates when the time comes. If this is the case, I certainly have no issue with it even if it is not in line with my own beliefs.

I suspect it has always been the case that peoples moral compasses are set according to societal norms; the Church (or kirk, or mosque, or synagogue, or whatever) has simply been a more substantial aspect of that society. I think that social hub has gradually been relegated, first by books, then radio, then tv, then social media. I don't think we're so much seeing a huge change in religion as we are in the extent to which people feel connected to a wider society, and that exposure to a greater range of opinions and viewpoints tends to result in a less parochial perspective. It doesn't mean they're more or less Christian/Catholic/Muslim whatever, just that what their idea of what it is to be that is different from what others expect it to be. The Catholic Church of today would be unrecognisable to a Christian two millenia ago; the same in another two millenia will probably be true.

Absolam

KingBrian2 wrote: »

If your born Catholic you remain a Catholic unless you are excommunicated by the Pope otherwise were all Catholic regardless of our beliefs. Nothing in the Catholic manual that says atheists, agnostics or lay Catholics are not part of the Christian family.

That's not true; even if excommunicated, if you're baptised (not born) as a Catholic you remain a Catholic. Simply a Catholic in a state of grave sin.

hinault wrote: »

That is not correct for a number of reasons.
Excommunication is reserved solely to the Pope. Nor are we all Catholic regardless of our beliefs either. With respect, the subject of excommunication is an extremely complex and nuanced one.

A person can be excommunicated latae sententiae, which requires no act by the Pope, only the commission of the sin. I wouldn't say they are excommunicating themselves though; they are excommunicated by virtue of the act (and their understanding of the act) they have engaged in, and there is no need for that excommunication to be pronounced by the Church for it to have effect.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think we're so much seeing a huge change in religion as we are in the extent to which people feel connected to a wider society, and that exposure to a greater range of opinions and viewpoints tends to result in a less parochial perspective. It doesn't mean they're more or less Christian/Catholic/Muslim whatever, just that what their idea of what it is to be that is different from what others expect it to be. The Catholic Church of today would be unrecognisable to a Christian two millenia ago; the same in another two millenia will probably be true.

Agreed entirely with the shift away from a parochial society to a more connected one, but I don't think we need to go back two millennia to see a radically different church than that of today in Ireland; forty years would probably suffice. Rolling back to those more parochial times, the people of authority in a small parish tended to be the priest, the gárda, the teacher and the doctor. The priest got to address all of the parish members at least once a week, and encountered very few competing voices or dissenting opinions. Today, there are only a small fraction of the number of local Irish priests, people don't go to church to listen to them, and even then once they step out of the church they are bombarded with diverse views, opinions, and noisy media from every angle. The last significant point of influence the church enjoys over the larger population is in primary education, and even then it is via a printed curriculum often delivered in a half-hearted manner by disinterested lay teachers, rather than first hand by the clergy.

I think for the church to survive it will be in much poorer societies, which remain parochial in nature. I think once the church is in a position that it has to follow its flock rather than lead them it is on the way out. Whether it can re-invent itself and become more socially relevant once again remains to be seen.

smacl

hinault wrote: »

The Church therefore has a dilemma if it is to retain and grow members.
Does the Church compromise with society?
Or should the Church stand apart from society by not compromising?

I imagine this depends on what you consider the church to be. Do you think of it primarily in terms of scripture, the hierarchy and the relatively small numbers of devout followers, or is it the really made up of the massive numbers of more casual followers? Not being a member of either group it is not for me to say, but certainly without the majority of society subscribing to the church if only on a nominal basis it will cease to have any significant influence on society moving forward.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

The excommunicated person has excommunicated themselves from the Church.

That excommunication may be formally notified to the person - by papal encyclical, by canonical court.
Not all cases of excommunication require formal notification however.
Excommunication called latae sententiae can result without notification.

Commit a mortal sin and more likely than not you excommunicate yourself

Exsurge Domine was the papal encyclical that issued the formal decree of excommunication of Martin Luther.

Lets be honest here,
What your saying is all nonsense,

In the vast majority of cases the Vatican hasn't even bothered to strip priests of their titles after they've been caught abusing children.

If they can't be bothered to do that for something so sickening then they sure as hell don't care about if the avg joe believes that communion is eating Jesus or believes in marriage equality.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Agreed entirely with the shift away from a parochial society to a more connected one, but I don't think we need to go back two millennia to see a radically different church than that of today in Ireland; forty years would probably suffice. Rolling back to those more parochial times, the people of authority in a small parish tended to be the priest, the gárda, the teacher and the doctor. The priest got to address all of the parish members at least once a week, and encountered very few competing voices or dissenting opinions.

i think you'd need to go back a bit more than 49 years ago for that to be all true, but yes the point is certainly true; society and the Church have both been changing over the last two thousand years and the pace of that change has been accelerating over that time as well. I think both will continue to do so, and in ways we cannot imagine any more than our ancestors, even 40 years ago, could have imagined us.

smacl wrote: »

Today, there are only a small fraction of the number of local Irish priests, people don't go to church to listen to them, and even then once they step out of the church they are bombarded with diverse views, opinions, and noisy media from every angle. The last significant point of influence the church enjoys over the larger population is in primary education, and even then it is via a printed curriculum often delivered in a half-hearted manner by disinterested lay teachers, rather than first hand by the clergy.

Yes, I think the Church has changed from what most people think of as 'the Church', but I think it would be a mistake to think that because it's different that it's failing. Only time will tell whether that is the case, or it's simply more change.

smacl wrote: »

I think for the church to survive it will be in much poorer societies, which remain parochial in nature. I think once the church is in a position that it has to follow its flock rather than lead them it is on the way out. Whether it can re-invent itself and become more socially relevant once again remains to be seen.

I think it will simply be different from what we think of as the Church, just as now it is different from what people thought it was 500 years ago, or 500 before that, and so on.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

I imagine this depends on what you consider the church to be. Do you think of it primarily in terms of scripture, the hierarchy and the relatively small numbers of devout followers, or is it the really made up of the massive numbers of more casual followers? Not being a member of either group it is not for me to say, but certainly without the majority of society subscribing to the church if only on a nominal basis it will cease to have any significant influence on society moving forward.

You're asking several questions here.

The gospels indicate that Jesus Christ upon whom the Church is founded willed that there be a hierarchical structure for His Church.
He conferred authority on only a select number of followers, out of hundreds of followers.
Among the set number of followers to whom He gave authority, He selected one follower to lead the entire number of followers.
So a hierarchical structure is a given.

Is the Church to be only a small set of followers? That is a very good question. What is known is that Catholic Church teaching has been imparted to literally billions of people during the past 2,000 years. How many of those billions of people can be truly said to have conformed fully in thought and behaviour to the principles of the Catholic Church? Is the size of the Church the number of people who have received Catholic Church teaching, or the number of who's behaviours and thoughts have conformed to Catholic Church teaching?

I'd argue that the Church is the number of people who's thought and behaviour conforms to Catholic Church teaching. And therefore this number must be far smaller than the number to whom Catholic Church teaching has been imparted to.

In respect of society? Christ taught that the world (society) hates His church.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Lets be honest here, What your saying is all nonsense, In the vast majority of cases the Vatican hasn't even bothered to strip priests of their titles after they've been caught abusing children. If they can't be bothered to do that for something so sickening then they sure as hell don't care about if the avg joe believes that communion is eating Jesus or believes in marriage equality.

Well, let's be really honest here, what you're saying has nothing to do with what hinault is saying. That you think the one follows the other is the real nonsense.

Jack Killian

Absolam wrote: »

Well, let's be really honest here, what you're saying has nothing to do with what hinault is saying. That you think the one follows the other is the real nonsense.

In fairness it has.

If they won't act on something as sickening as that then they're hardly going to act on minor stuff.

Absolam

Jack Killian wrote: »

In fairness it has. If they won't act on something as sickening as that then they're hardly going to act on minor stuff.

I'm afraid not; hinault was talking about excommunication, a medicinal penalty enacted to invite the person to repent, be absolved and return to full communion with the Church. Cabaal and yourself are talking about punishing people for their acts (for instance by stripping them of their titles). These are different things; were such a priest to be excommunicated for his sins and in time through repentance reconciled with the Church (which would obviously mean no stripping of titles), I'm pretty sure it wouldn't satisfy Cabaals desire for temporal punishment;I don't believe he would consider it to be justice.

I have to say it's odd to see people disparaging the Church for not dispensing temporal justice on the one hand, whilst being so averse to the Church being involved in civil affairs on the other.

Jack Killian

Absolam wrote: »

I'm afraid not; hinault was talking about excommunication, a medicinal penalty enacted to invite the person to repent, be absolved and return to full communion with the Church. Cabaal and yourself are talking about punishing people for their acts (for instance by stripping them of their titles). These are different things; were such a priest to be excommunicated for his sins and in time through repentance reconciled with the Church (which would obviously mean no stripping of titles), I'm pretty sure it wouldn't satisfy Cabaals desire for temporal punishment;I don't believe he would consider it to be justice.

I have to say it's odd to see people disparaging the Church for not dispensing temporal justice on the one hand, whilst being so averse to the Church being involved in civil affairs on the other.

That's more than a little disingenuous, to be honest.

Firstly, "stripping of titles" is irrelevant; the aim would be to ensure that someone is brought to justice. Actual justice, not made up club rules / canon law.

Similar to someone going to prison where it is then viewed by many that they have "served their time", your "temporary" scenario could apply; temporarily excommunicated from society.

However, given that sex offenders and child rapists are not allowed by state law to be anywhere near kids, it may post a problem for the church, as the record of what they did remains with them to avoid them doing it again. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. But that's the law, and why you or the church would not want this to apply would be a mystery.

Your last paragraph has me confused - you seem to be blurring the lines between being "involved in state affairs" with "acting according to state laws"; if I report a crime I am merely the latter, not the former, and anyone against me being the former would have no issue with the latter - bar of course the guilty party.

Absolam

Jack Killian wrote: »

That's more than a little disingenuous, to be honest. Firstly, "stripping of titles" is irrelevant; the aim would be to ensure that someone is brought to justice. Actual justice, not made up club rules / canon law. Similar to someone going to prison where it is then viewed by many that they have "served their time", your "temporary" scenario could apply; temporarily excommunicated from society.

Not in the least; expecting the Church to punish lawbreakers as if it were a civil power, but not to act as a civil power, that's disingenuous. If you think stripping of titles is irrelevant you need to take it up with Cabaal; it was his suggestion. I didn't posit a 'temporary' scenario at all, so I can't help you there, but if it helps excommuncation is as temporary as a sinner wishes to be, since all it takes is repentance and absolution to end it. I suppose a prison sentence is also temporary in the case of temporal justice, but i think equating the Church's treatment of sinners with the States treatment of lawbreakers is silly; hence my answer to Cabaal; one has nothing to do with the other.

Jack Killian wrote: »

However, given that sex offenders and child rapists are not allowed by state law to be anywhere near kids, it may post a problem for the church, as the record of what they did remains with them to avoid them doing it again. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. But that's the law, and why you or the church would not want this to apply would be a mystery.

I've no idea why you imagine either I or the Church wouldn't want it to apply; that's a pretty mystifying assertion.

Jack Killian wrote: »

Your last paragraph has me confused - you seem to be blurring the lines between being "involved in state affairs" with "acting according to state laws"; if I report a crime I am merely the latter, not the former, and anyone against me being the former would have no issue with the latter - bar of course the guilty party.

Perhaps I can make it clearer so; Cabaal made it clear that he felt the Church had some role in punishing people for their offences; his example was stripping them of titles, and obviously they're under no obligation to do something like that if they're simply acting according to the laws of the State. So, in looking for them to punish offenders he is expecting them to act as he would expect a civil power would, yet has routinely disparaged the Church's involving itself in civil matters.

Jack Killian

Absolam wrote: »

Not in the least; expecting the Church to punish lawbreakers as if it were a civil power, but not to act as a civil power, that's disingenuous. If you think stripping of titles is irrelevant you need to take it up with Cabaal; it was his suggestion. I didn't posit a 'temporary' scenario at all, so I can't help you there, but if it helps excommuncation is as temporary as a sinner wishes to be, since all it takes is repentance and absolution to end it. I suppose a prison sentence is also temporary in the case of temporal justice, but i think equating the Church's treatment of sinners with the States treatment of lawbreakers is silly; hence my answer to Cabaal; one has nothing to do with the other.
I've no idea why you imagine either I or the Church wouldn't want it to apply; that's a pretty mystifying assertion.

I don't think I inferred that you wouldn't it to apply.

The church, however, has a track record.

Perhaps I can make it clearer so; Cabaal made it clear that he felt the Church had some role in punishing people for their offences; his example was stripping them of titles, and obviously they're under no obligation to do something like that if they're simply acting according to the laws of the State. So, in looking for them to punish offenders he is expecting them to act as he would expect a civil power would, yet has routinely disparaged the Church's involving itself in civil matters.

Within its own organisation though. Not interfering with civil matters at all.

If an organisation wants to be above reproach then it needs to act with disciplinary procedures within its scope too, regardless of civil action.

Absolam

Jack Killian wrote: »

I don't think I inferred that you wouldn't it to apply. The church, however, has a track record.

No? Did you not say "why you or the church would not want this to apply would be a mystery."? I don't think the Church has a track record of not wanting it to apply either, to be fair.

Jack Killian wrote: »

Within its own organisation though. Not interfering with civil matters at all.

How many other organisations do you think should punish people for crimes? Is that not vigilantism?

Jack Killian wrote: »

If an organisation wants to be above reproach then it needs to act with disciplinary procedures within its scope too, regardless of civil action.

So you've decided that they should want to be above reproach, and a means to do so is taking their own action against criminals. That's an odd idea you have of being above reproach if I may say so. I would certainly think you were reproachable if you decided to take punitive action against lawbreakers, regardless of civil action.

Jack Killian

Absolam wrote: »

No? Did you not say "why you or the church would not want this to apply would be a mystery."? I don't think the Church has a track record of not wanting it to apply either, to be fair.

A subtle terminology difference - I said "would" not "don't".

So it would be a mystery if it were the case.

Did the church we're referring to kick out criminals ? Excommunicating them ? If not then I rest my case.

How many other organisations do you think should punish people for crimes? Is that not vigilantism?

Nowhere near it. If someone gets drunk and assaults someone at the local sports club, their membership gets revoked. Absolutely no vigilantism whatsoever. Rules of decent - and reasonably expected - behaviour.

So you've decided that they should want to be above reproach, and a means to do so is taking their own action against criminals. That's an odd idea you have of being above reproach if I may say so. I would certainly think you were reproachable if you decided to take punitive action against lawbreakers, regardless of civil action.

If the above social club wants to attract decent members and show that they don't tolerate despicable acts, then they ensure that lowlifes are not members.

Kick them out - or in that church's terms - excommunicate them.

Not at all sure how that makes me reproachable, to be honest ? You might explain when you get a chance.

Matt Markinson

The 2014 the vatican reported to the UN that since 2004, it punished 3,420 priests for various levels of sexual abuse including defrocking 848. These figures relate to the cases handled by the Vatican, and not individual diocesan tribunals, so the actual global number of sanctioned priests is higher. The majority of the abuse took place between the late 60's to early 90's. That's the facts we know of. People can draw their own conclusions, particularly with regard to the obvious negligence incompetence and mismanagement within certain sections of the Church. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in early 2014, issued a report asserting that the Pope and the Catholic Church had not done enough to prevent and deal with the abuse.

hinault

Matt Markinson wrote: »

The 2014 the vatican reported to the UN that since 2004, it punished 3,420 priests for various levels of sexual abuse including defrocking 848. These figures relate to the cases handled by the Vatican, and not individual diocesan tribunals, so the actual global number of sanctioned priests is higher. The majority of the abuse took place between the late 60's to early 90's. That's the facts we know of. People can draw their own conclusions, particularly with regard to the obvious negligence incompetence and mismanagement within certain sections of the Church. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, in early 2014, issued a report asserting that the Pope and the Catholic Church had not done enough to prevent and deal with the abuse.

United Nations aren't the arbiters of truth.

In respect of abuse, every allegation concerning abuse should be investigated.
And if the investigation finds evidence of abuse then legal due process should be initiated by the civil authorities to establish whether or not the evidence is factual and truthful.

All clergy found to have been guilty of abuse should be defrocked and laiscised.