Making Confirmation and regular attendance at Mass

kylith wrote: »

....

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.

..there theres irish mythology...

...The fish of knowledge...

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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?

It’s a Catholic community celebration. Only for Catholics. I can’t bring my son for Bar Mitzvah just because I fancy the day out.
The Jewish parents would object and rightly so.
That’s a Jewish community celebration for Jewish people only.
Can’t you see that?
Also, who said it needed to be toned down? You ? It doesn’t need to be toned down it just needs to be a Catholic only occasion.

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

Oh no I think it should be imposed on all the sacraments and I think the RCC in Ireland is moving in that direction thankfully.
Obviously if couples presenting for the sacrament of matrimony haven’t got proof of receiving the previous 2 or 3 sacraments then it will be a straightforward refusal which will be a relief for the priest, and possibly the couple themselves.
I think the children’s sacraments being targeted is because the children don’t have the personal autonomy to decide that they do or don’t understand the significance of the sacrament.
The children from genuine catholic families will have a very good grasp of the concept because they go to mass, probably live in a religious home, say prayers with parents etc
The rest are being frogmarched down to the church by parents who are treating the sacrament as part of an extravagant family occasion/rite of passage excuse to dress up and have a party.
That’s not fair on anyone.
It’s not fair on the other genuine kids, it’s not fair on the clergy who have to tolerate total disregard for the sacrament, but most of all it’s not fair on the kid who’s being led along by the nose by his own parents and is learning at their knee that you can tell lies and make promises that you don’t mean and you’ll get paid loads of money and have a great day and there’ll be no consequences.

How is it fair on the children, to be denied a sacrament because people think they're not Catholic enough, because of the (in)actions of their parents?

You said previously, non practising should mean no confirmation. But for marriage it's a matter of not being able to produce paper proof. Why the difference in requirements? Why not non practising = no sacrament at all? No weddings or funerals?

kbannon wrote: »

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?

Well I was referring to parishioners of the Catholic Parish. I think that was pretty clear. If your not a Catholic Parishioner then why would you have any opinion on wether communion day should be midweek or weekend?!? Like, why would you even care? How on earth could it even affect you?

Hannibal_Smith

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s a Catholic community celebration. Only for Catholics. I can’t bring my son for Bar Mitzvah just because I fancy the day out.
The Jewish parents would object and rightly so.
That’s a Jewish community celebration for Jewish people only.
Can’t you see that?
Also, who said it needed to be toned down? You ? It doesn’t need to be toned down it just needs to be a Catholic only occasion.

You were the one posting about How people weren't reverent enough. I came up with a suggestion which might restore the reverence and you have a problem with that too. :pac:

See previous posts on being a Catholic. I'm getting off the roundabout

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How is it fair on the children, to be denied a sacrament because people think they're not Catholic enough, because of the (in)actions of their parents?

You said previously, non practising should mean no confirmation. But for marriage it's a matter of not being able to produce paper proof. Why the difference in requirements? Why not non practising = no sacrament at all? No weddings or funerals?

It’s not unfair on the children to be denied a sacrament. It was a desicion made by their parents on their behalf.
When they decided to stop being Catholics by not going to mass or practicing any catholiscim at home they made that decision.
That’s very simple.
I hope we’re all agreed that the church/priest can’t force parents to practice their religion...?
The difference is that the children will have had that desicion made by their parents on their behalf, adults presenting for matrimony can make desicions for themselves.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

You were the one posting about How people weren't reverent enough. I came up with a suggestion which might restore the reverence and you have a problem with that too. :pac:

See previous posts on being a Catholic. I'm getting off the roundabout

No. The only way to restore the reverence is to remove the irreverent people. No need for genuine Catholics to be inconvenienced by a change in the routine at all .

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s not unfair on the children to be denied a sacrament. It was a desicion made by their parents on their behalf.
When they decided to stop being Catholics by not going to mass or practicing any catholiscim at home they made that decision.
That’s very simple.
I hope we’re all agreed that the church/priest can’t force parents to practice their religion...?
The difference is that the children will have had that desicion made by their parents on their behalf, adults presenting for matrimony can make desicions for themselves.

There is nothing to stop the child choosing to join any religion they want to as an adult.

Personally I think that no baptisms or the like should be done until the inductee has reached the age of reason. It should be a person's own choice whether they want to join a religion, not their parents'.

kylith wrote: »

There is nothing to stop the child choosing to join any religion they want to as an adult.

Personally I think that no baptisms or the like should be done until the inductee has reached the age of reason. It should be a person's own choice whether they want to join a religion, not their parents'.

Part of being a Catholic is handing down the faith to your children,
And absolutely if a couple wanting the sacrament of matrimony having not had the sacraments of reconciliation first eucharist or confirmation then the priest they speak to about this will be able to organize all the Catholic instruction they need to help them to get up to speed.
Many adults return to the church in later life.

Bob_Marley

kylith wrote: »

There is nothing to stop the child choosing to join any religion they want to as an adult.

Personally I think that no baptisms or the like should be done until the inductee has reached the age of reason. It should be a person's own choice whether they want to join a religion, not their parents'.

Thing is though, Catholics don't care what Catholic haters on the internet think they should do. Parents are entitled to bring children up in their culture.
People have been trying to exterminate Catholicism for 2000 years, hasn't work yet though, even the penal laws didn't work against them.
Can you imagine the outcry if Jewish or Muslims were told they were not allowed to bring their children up as such.

splinter65 wrote: »

Part of being a Catholic is handing down the faith to your children,
And absolutely if a couple wanting the sacrament of matrimony having not had the sacraments of reconciliation first eucharist or confirmation then the priest they speak to about this evil be able to organize all the Catholic instruction they need to help them to get up to speed.
Many adults return to the church in later life.

Nothing to stop parents talking about their faith to their children, just that the churches couldn’t baptise them until they’re old enough to make the decision for themselves. In some religions parents modify the bodies of their children. Surely it would be both a greater expression of commitment for the inductee to choose to have this done rather than having it done to them, as it would be more meaningful for someone to choose to be baptised.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Thing is though, Catholics don't care what Catholic haters think they should do. Parents are entitled to bring children up in their culture.

No-one’s saying they can’t, just that they can’t sign their children up for lifelong commitments when they’re infants and can’t make the decision for themselves. Why the anger toward the idea that people should be able to make their own decision about religion they’re signed up to?

I don’t hate Catholicism. I just want it to leave me alone.

Seth Brundle

splinter65 wrote: »

Well I was referring to parishioners of the Catholic Parish. I think that was pretty clear. If your not a Catholic Parishioner then why would you have any opinion on wether communion day should be midweek or weekend?!? Like, why would you even care? How on earth could it even affect you?

Because the indoctrination leading up to it is done principally during school time and therefore affects the education of all children within that school year, not just those whose parents want the kids to go through the experience. It's a waste of school time. Its a waste of tax payers money. It can affect the well being of children excluded from the event.
That's why!

Bob_Marley

kbannon wrote: »

Because the indoctrination leading up to it is done principally during school time and therefore affects the education of all children within that school year, not just those whose parents want the kids to go through the experience. It's a waste of school time. Its a waste of tax payers money. It can affect the well being of children excluded from the event.
That's why!

they don't send you children to Catholic schools, and instead of sectarian whining on the internet, get off your arse and cater to the massive demand for non Catholic places in your area, and set one up with other parents, just like Catholics, ET other denominations / non denominational had to where they have schools.

Míshásta

Can't believe how so many Irish parents are rearing their kids to be official hypocrites. Don't bother following any of the precepts of a Church but subject their children to religious instruction in the schools. If people got off their butts and campaigned, the education system would be changed to a more secular system.

Most Irish RC schools in practise always accommodated non-RC pupils. They were excused from religious class. Never heard that their parents converted moryah so their kids would not feel left out. I imagine they gently explained to their children that they were of a different faith. In rural areas with small protestant numbers, their children always attended RC schools without any fuss. .

Why can't parents arrange a big party for their children and invite relatives, on first communion and confirmation days, without going through a hypocritical religious ceremony.

I don't think it's doing the Church any good to be accepting this widespread desecration of the sacraments. Many ordinary Catholics are getting fed up paying through the nose for the maintenance of expensive buildings so that they can be used by non-practising non-subscribing people as a photogenic setting for their fancy-dress parties.

Míshásta wrote: »

....Don't bother following any of the precepts of a Church ....

...if they didn't follow ANY of them the kids wouldn't be attending communion or confirmation anyway...

kylith wrote: »

.... just that they can’t sign their children up for lifelong commitments when they’re infants and can’t make the decision for themselves. ...

I don’t hate Catholicism. I just want it to leave me alone.

...I suspect it might if you weren't trying to completely change it...

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that atheists generally do know more about religion than the religious adherents of any particular religion.

Pew findings in the US do suggest that sort of thing though.

I myself have always been amazed at how little people seem to know about the religions they claim to follow. The most striking example of this was when I was actually giving Bibles to Christians who never owned or had one before.

What was striking about that was how shocked they were at the size of it. They genuinely thought it would be MUCH smaller because A) they had never read it and

they had been fed the same cherry picked passages in Mass and School over their life they became convinced they must have heard it all.

I can only speak for myself of course, but if I genuinely believed the universe was created by an intentional agent, and that agent had a hand in writing, inspiring, co-authoring or in any way influencing a single book in my local library...... I would go out of my way to read that book quite closely. I could not NOT read that book. So it is interesting as a social and memetic phenomenon that people who DO have such beliefs about that book.... can't be arsed to even inform themselves on what one LOOKS like. Let alone read it.

Meanwhile my own experiences match that of Pew here in Ireland when I was collecting and experimenting on the magic crackers of Catholicism. Or the "Haunted Bread" as one TV Character once put it.

Much like yourself when it comes to religion I suspect, these people have ZERO substantiation for anything the purported to believe. But what they purported to believe fell into three main groupings. Those that thought the cracker ceremony was purely symbolic, those that believes a spiritual (but conveniently undetectable in any way) change actually came over the foodstuff, and those that thought a LITERAL physical change succoured (none of which my experiments with fire, chemistry, physics and more could detect).

Striking was that everyone, regardless of group, claimed to KNOW they were conforming to actual Catholic Teaching on the subject despite admitting openly they had never actually read Catholic Doctrine on the matter, nor do they recall anyone in school or mass ever informing them of it. They just "knew".

And yet I have not met an atheist myself who does not know what the ceremony mumbling Latin over dry tasteless bread is actually meant to symbolise and achieve.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

All of the people I describe above were schooled in Catholic Schools in Ireland however. Does not appear to have helped them know one iota about Catholic Doctrines however. Shows the efficacy of that school system you defend I guess.

But the Pew studies do find that not only do atheists tend on average to know more about a given religion than adherents of that religion....... when it comes to OTHER Religions they score even better. As the study says "Jews and atheists/agnostics stand out for their knowledge of other world religions".

Of course none of this is the "finger pointing" or "judgements" you might want to pretend it is. It is just commenting on social facts, nothing more. And once can discuss facts without passing judgements. But certainly something is amiss when someone can not read a simple question like "What is your religion" before going on tangents about their memberships which have NOTHING to do with the question actually asked.

But certainly it is comical (to go back to the main topic of the thread) for a priest to be worried about offering services to people who do not go to mass often enough. Perhaps he should be worrying about how informative and useful his masses have NOT been in actually letting people know what it is the church is even teaching in the first place. Perhaps rather than withholding services from irregular mass attendees, he might worry instead as to WHY attendance is falling off.

Or perhaps it is easier to slap (perceived) punishments on others for him than self-evaluate his own failings.

beauf wrote: »

...I suspect it might if you weren't trying to completely change it...

It’s already changed. Fish on Friday, anyone?

Odhinn

beauf wrote: »

...if they didn't follow ANY of them the kids wouldn't be attending communion or confirmation anyway...

As pointed out, they leave that to the schools.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

....And yet I have not met an atheist myself who does not know what the ceremony mumbling Latin over dry tasteless bread is actually meant to symbolise and achieve. ....

Well I'm convinced. All those people in the world who have no interest or contact with religion especially RC will likely be christian theologians.

nozzferrahhtoo

beauf wrote: »

Well I'm convinced. All those people in the world who have no interest or contact with religion especially RC will likely be christian theologians.

Hardly

But they do appear in my experience to have a solid grounding in the basics.

Though an atheist for example is not "people in the world who have no interest or contact with religion". Quite a lot of them have more contact with it than they care to. I for example would love to never have to deal with it ever again in any way. I am, alas, simply not let. It invades EVERY sphere of interest I actually do have.

All I can say is that if I was a believer in a creator of the universe, I would certainly do my best to learn all I can about it and what it wants and what it intends for me.

It does strike me as unusual that the people I would therefore most expect to do so, do not, and the people I would least expect to do so, do.

Would it not strike you as at all odd that someone who professes to believe the Bible is the one true insight into the mind of the creator of the universe has not gone out of their way to even see a bible and know how big it is, let alone what it actually contains?

It certainly strikes me as odd. Or at least it would if I did not subscribe to some working theories that actually explain it perfectly. Such as Daniel Dennetts "Belief in Belief" concept for example. A theory that appears to fit observation quite neatly.

kylith wrote: »

It’s already changed. Fish on Friday, anyone?

Yeah having a meat roll on a friday is exactly the same as trying to enforce radial change on a religion you're not part of. I expect (though many don't) the Spanish Inquisition will be along shortly.

Odhinn wrote: »

As pointed out, they leave that to the schools.

I never seen a baptism in a school. So if they left that to a school they wouldn't be able to get communion or confirmation. Of course we'd have to ask some random atheist of the street for their expert opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hardly But they do appear in my experience to have a solid grounding in the basics.

Though an atheist for example is not "people in the world who have no interest or contact with religion". Quite a lot of them have more contact with it than they care to. I for example would love to never have to deal with it ever again in any way. I am, alas, simply not let. It invades EVERY sphere of interest I actually do have.

All I can say is that if I was a believer in a creator of the universe, I would certainly do my best to learn all I can about it and what it wants and what it intends for me.

It does strike me as unusual that the people I would therefore most expect to do so, do not, and the people I would least expect to do so, do.

Would it not strike you as at all odd that someone who professes to believe the Bible is the one true insight into the mind of the creator of the universe has not gone out of their way to even see a bible and know how big it is, let alone what it actually contains?

It certainly strikes me as odd. Or at least it would if I did not subscribe to some working theories that actually explain it perfectly. Such as Daniel Dennetts "Belief in Belief" concept for example. A theory that appears to fit observation quite neatly.

So now you reckon most (as people in any religion) won't haven't even seen a bible.

...With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.[3][4] It sells approximately 100 million copies annually....

... oookkkkayyyy....

...this thread would make you seriously consider that some people do exist in an alternative universe....it bears no relation to the one I'm in anyway...

Even if you had no contact with religion your whole life and simply watched movies you'd know about most of this stuff that apparently people in religions don't know but atheists do. Maybe people in religions don't read books, or watch movies etc.

beauf wrote: »

...this thread would make you seriously consider that some people do exist in an alternative universe....it bears no relation to the one I'm in anyway...

Even if you had no contact with religion your whole life and simply watched movies you'd know about most of this stuff that apparently people in religions don't know but atheists do. Maybe people in religions don't read books, or watch movies etc.

Banning religion is a communist dictatorship “thing” so some atheist posters don’t want to be seen as advocating for that.
What they would be mildly interested in however, as far as I can ascertain, is some sort of written exam for Catholics ( no other religion or denomination mind, just Catholics) and if you fail this exam you are forbidden by law from describing yourself as a Catholic, thus reducing (presumably) the still fairly hefty percentage of Catholics in the country who are apparently oppressing and subjugating everyone else.
That’s my probably daft take on all this.

Odhinn

beauf wrote: »

I never seen a baptism in a school. So if they left that to a school they wouldn't be able to get communion or confirmation. Of course we'd have to ask some random atheist of the street for their expert opinion.

It's strange that you resent knowledge.

Odhinn wrote: »

It's strange that you resent knowledge.

Studying the Bible and reading about catholic dogma and doctrine and Canon Law, particularly when you are coming at the whole thing with an almost overpowering negativity and resentment, doesn’t give you any insight into what being a Catholic is, so there’s no real aquisition of “knowledge”.
When you are studying something with a view to using that information in an effort to ridicule somebody else’s beliefs, belittle them and embarrass them then you haven’t acquired knowledge, you’ve just gathered up weapons.

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

Studying the Bible and reading about catholic dogma and doctrine and Canon Law, particularly when you are coming at the whole thing with an almost overpowering negativity and resentment, doesn’t give you any insight into what being a Catholic is, so there’s no real aquisition of “knowledge”.
When you are studying something with a view to using that information in an effort to ridicule somebody else’s beliefs, belittle them and embarrass them then you haven’t acquired knowledge, you’ve just gathered up weapons.

So If I know that sunday is a day of obligation and that the purpose of sex should, bar very narrow circumstances, be reproduction, and a catholic doesn't, then its not really knowledge because weapons.

Righty-ho.

splinter65 wrote: »

Studying the Bible and reading about catholic dogma and doctrine and Canon Law, particularly when you are coming at the whole thing with an almost overpowering negativity and resentment, doesn’t give you any insight into what being a Catholic is, so there’s no real aquisition of “knowledge”.
When you are studying something with a view to using that information in an effort to ridicule somebody else’s beliefs, belittle them and embarrass them then you haven’t acquired knowledge, you’ve just gathered up weapons.

Maybe you should look at yourself when it comes to an ‘effort to Ridicule’. I, and many other atheist, were raised in the RCC. I was a member of a church choir for over a decade. I went to the bible to read, study, and learn about my religion; and what I learned there inspired me to atheism.

Again, I say it is telling that atheists know more about religion than believers and have more respect for the sanctity of sacraments than believers.