Making Confirmation and regular attendance at Mass

Odhinn wrote: »

So we could stop hearing about how catholic a country this supposedly is....

But, logically, the 78% who ticked Catholic in the Census are highly highly unlikely to go and be on this register (incidentally, how would this register work, where would it be stored, how will it operate for Data Protection purposes, how would it be protected from fraud etc) so wouldn’t that leave you with egg on your face?

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Probably. I wonder though whether it is trying to punish the non attending parents through the kids. I know for a wedding you have to get your baptismal and confirmation certs as proof you went through the process, but I don't ever remember hearing a priest refusing to marry a couple because of non attendance? Or having to approve you've attended before being allowed to marry. Same for funerals. Most of my family are non practising, but I don't ever remember anyone having to fight to have a religious ceremony. So why target the childrens' ceremonies?

They probably did back in the day.

Punishing doubt it. Its about getting the family and the other children to be regular mass goers. You can hardly apply influence if the people you want to influence aren't there to hear you.

Don't most clubs work this way they track attendance at meetings.

splinter65 wrote: »

But, logically, the 78% who ticked Catholic in the Census are highly highly unlikely to go and be on this register (incidentally, how would this register work, where would it be stored, how will it operate for Data Protection purposes, how would it be protected from fraud etc) so wouldn’t that leave you with egg on your face?

How does any record kept by the Catholic church work? I get baptised, record kept. I get confirmed, record kept. I get married record kept. I die, record kept. How are all of these operated for data protection reasons and protected from fraud? I want to leave the religion, record kept. Work it the same way as the other events in your Catholic journey.

If you cannot record that someone has left, and the church has no process for people leaving, how can a child be refused confirmation?

splinter65 wrote: »

What would be the point in a register for those who have left/want to leave? What would it be used for?

They want more eight for changing admission policies. I think its barking up the wrong tree tbh. No state school should have a exclusive policies. I think that would be a more successful approach. The census is loaded with too much baggage. Also it shouldn't dictate policy on admissions. I there were 70% women should that dictate admissions?

A lot of the problem is a growing deep unease and some anger amongst the genuine families about the total disrespect being shown at the actual ceremony itself (both communion and confirmation) for the sacraments.
The parish priest of Ballyfermit was on the LLS talking about this.
I’d be someone that would prefer that if only 10 genuine children got first communion then that would be great instead of the absolute circus it is right now.
I know our new parishioners especially the Poles and the Philippinos are horrified at the total disrespect and lack of reverence for the blessed sacrament and the bad manners of the parents.
Sunday mass is lovely, in the main, it’s the “big day out” that’s a disaster.
It shouldn’t be spoiled for the genuine ones.

hurler32

Whilst most here seem to hate religion and the Catholic Church in particular , there's still a lot of people attending mass ..
reckon there was 300 at a standard Saturday night mass in our parish last night(Munster) and the Sunday mass tends to be busier so call it 600 for both masses out of a population of 2000 , 30% with a lot of less frequent attendees also you could add on ... at a guess 50% of our parish in the course of a month would see the inside of local church ..

beauf wrote: »

They probably did back in the day.

Punishing doubt it. Its about getting the family and the other children to be regular mass goers. You can hardly apply influence if the people you want to influence aren't there to hear you.

Don't most clubs work this way they track attendance at meetings.

On the build up to communion and confirmation (from my memory) meant we spent every 5 minutes in a church

. Would that be sufficient proof of membership?

I guess other clubs do track attendance for membership, but you're probably told before you join that if you don't attend your membership will be cancelled. If that is the case with religion, so be it. But going from the passed few pages here, it seems there is no leaving so the door is open for you to come back and avail of your membership when you like. Prodigal son and all that

Bob_Marley

beauf wrote: »

The church could help by requesting kids make their communion and confirmation sacramental robes. Stop making it a circus.

Can you imagine the horror and outcry on boards though if they did ?

"Evil quasi Jewish religious cult forces children to dress in human sacrifice robes - we need abortion now to save them"

byhookorbycrook

Children in most schools do wear robes for the Confirmation.

They could also do it like the first confession. Ceremony in a chapel, parents only, uniform/robe only (for communion and confirmation) on a school day, mid week, with a party at the weekend.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

They could also do it like the first confession. Ceremony in a chapel, parents only, uniform/robe only (for communion and confirmation) on a school day, mid week, with a party at the weekend.

Why?

splinter65 wrote: »

Why?

Why not?

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why not?

There’s nothing wrong with First Eucharist and confirmation the way it is now, on a Saturday/Sunday as part of the daily mass. That’s why not. There’s no appetite for it to be changed amongst parishioners.
What objection have you got to it, as someone who’s not involved ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

They could also do it like the first confession. Ceremony in a chapel, parents only, uniform/robe only (for communion and confirmation) on a school day, mid week, with a party at the weekend.

And parents needing to take time off work.

It's a community celebration for all family and friends. What would changing the day of the week do to facilitate those who have no belief in it anyway?

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s nothing wrong with First Eucharist and confirmation the way it is now, on a Saturday/Sunday as part of the daily mass. That’s why not. There’s no appetite for it to be changed amongst parishioners.
What objection have you got to it, as someone who’s not involved ?

My SUGGESTION (ie not OBJECTION), was why not separate the event out and have the ceremony dealt with separately to the 'big day out. Then no one can complain about peoplenot being reverent enough.

Keep the day as it is, change the day into something else, it doesn't matter to me. There are more things to be worrying about :pac:

kylith

splinter65 wrote: »

This is the $64000 question.
Avowed atheists here could win Mastermind with the specialist subject RCC.

Strange, isn't it, that atheists know more about religion than 'believers'? And that the 'believers' have such little regard for their religion and sacraments?

Kace Prehistoric Raceway wrote: »

And parents needing to take time off work.

It's a community celebration for all family and friends. What would changing the day of the week do to facilitate those who have no belief in it anyway?

I think the point is it will drive them away...not facilitate them.

Kace Prehistoric Raceway wrote: »

And parents needing to take time off work.

It's a community celebration for all family and friends. What would changing the day of the week do to facilitate those who have no belief in it anyway?

It would tone it down. Do both parent need to be There? Both parents don't need to be there for first confession, do They? I only remember my mam being there.

If its a community celebration then why the whining about how others celebrate it? Why don't people just observe it as they see fit and kind their own business when it comes to others?

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

My SUGGESTION (ie not OBJECTION), was why not separate the event out and have the ceremony dealt with separately to the 'big day out. Then no one can complain about peoplenot being reverent enough.

Keep the day as it is, change the day into something else, it doesn't matter to me. There are more things to be worrying about :pac:

The day doesn’t need to be changed. Families who are not Catholics need to be excluded from the Sacrament.
Only accepting candidates who are practicing Catholics will facilitate that.
This is the case in England where children are not at an RC primary school but wish to receive the sacraments.

kylith wrote: »

Strange, isn't it, that atheists know more about religion than 'believers'? And that the 'believers' have such little regard for their religion and sacraments?

Its not like it ever changes....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

But, logically, the 78% who ticked Catholic in the Census are highly highly unlikely to go and be on this register (incidentally, how would this register work, where would it be stored, how will it operate for Data Protection purposes, how would it be protected from fraud etc) so wouldn’t that leave you with egg on your face?

That makes no sense in reply to what I posted.

Seth Brundle

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s nothing wrong with First Eucharist and confirmation the way it is now, on a Saturday/Sunday as part of the daily mass. That’s why not. There’s no appetite for it to be changed amongst parishioners.
What objection have you got to it, as someone who’s not involved ?

When were parishioners independently questioned on this?
My own preference would be for the school time spent on preparing for the RCC sacraments shoild be spent on academic and physical subjects. Schools should be spending more time on PE and not communion, etc.
Let the parents who are intrtested bring the kids to the church forn the sacrament prep!

kbannon wrote: »

When were parishioners independently questioned on this?
My own preference would be for the school time spent on preparing for the RCC sacraments shoild be spent on academic and physical subjects. Schools should be spending more time on PE and not communion, etc.
Let the parents who are intrtested bring the kids to the church forn the sacrament prep!

Are you a parishioner? Have you made your preferences known to the PP?

splinter65 wrote: »

The day doesn’t need to be changed. Families who are not Catholics need to be excluded from the Sacrament.
Only accepting candidates who are practicing Catholics will facilitate that.
This is the case in England where children are not at an RC primary school but wish to receive the sacraments.

And back around the roundabout we go.

If you're not Catholic, you can't make your confirmation. That rule already exists afaik?. Non practising does not make you a non Catholic it seems from the posts on the previous pages.

If your rule is to be imposed, it should be imposed for all religious ceremonies, including funerals and weddings. But it's not. It's only the childrens' ceremonies. Why?

Bob_Marley

kylith wrote: »

Strange, isn't it, that atheists know more about religion than 'believers'? And that the 'believers' have such little regard for their religion and sacraments?

I wouldn't be gloating too soon - You actually mean anti-Christians and sectarians, as atheists have nothing in common other than unbelief. And that so called knowledge is either misinformation or strawman arguments about Christianity.

Those practicing Catholics. When do they start doing it for real...

Seth Brundle

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you a parishioner? Have you made your preferences known to the PP?

Why should I have to discuss my child's education with a priest? Why should a priest dictate how children are educated and indoctrinated?

In terms of parishioners deciding school policy, I'm referring to inhabitants of an area and not just those who subscribe to your set of religious beliefs. So when have parishioners ever been consulted?

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Strange, isn't it, that atheists know more about religion than 'believers'? And that the 'believers' have such little regard for their religion and sacraments?

I wouldn't say that now at all (but then, I would say that :pac:), but no, I wouldn't find it strange that some people are going to be more interested in religion than others. I wouldn't agree that atheists generally do know more about religion than the religious adherents of any particular religion.

It stands to reason of course that if you attended school in Ireland, you'd be more familiar with Christianity for example (and the various denominations within Christianity), than you would be with Islam (or the various sects within Islam), so this whole 'atheists know more about religion than believers' stuff? I don't think so.

I also don't agree with the notion that anyone can determine for someone else the veracity of their faith, or how they regard their religion and sacraments. Thankfully at least most atheists I know are pretty much like myself and don't subscribe to all that finger-pointy nonsense and passing judgment on other people for what they see as those peoples failings and imperfections. Am I a perfect example of what a Roman Catholic should be? Am I fcuk! :pac:

But that's kinda the whole point of Roman Catholicism and Christianity, and if you don't understand that, then no, you don't know more about religion than believers.

kylith

Bob_Marley wrote: »

I wouldn't be gloating too soon - You actually mean anti-Christians and sectarians, as atheists have nothing in common other than unbelief. And that so called knowledge is either misinformation or strawman arguments about Christianity.

Who's gloating? I'm just remarking on a fact.

In what way is the knowledge misinformation or strawmen?

Personally if I claimed that something was so important to me that I insisted that not just my children but all children were taught it in school I'd be mortified if someone who thought it was all fairy stories knew more about it than me.