Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Catholic Church, Mass Attendance
Options
Comments
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Re the second paragraph. So you believe it because you've always believed it. That doesn't sound like an evidence based position. When you don't have evidence, isn't it normal to suspend belief until there's evidence?
And a non interventionist god isn't likely to leave any evidence behind. So it sounds like wishful thinking rather than a reasoned belief.
Are you quoting someone else again? Because that’s not what I said. Don’t do Cathy Newman on it. I came to the conclusion that God exists through deductive reasoning too. Deductive reasoning starts with some basic assumptions, and goes from there. If you understand anything about human nature you would understand that no, it’s absolutely not normal to suspend belief without evidence - quite the opposite, we make assumptions about things all the time and then make the evidence fit our hypothesis, and if the evidence doesn’t fit out hypothesis by God we’ll either make it fit, or we’ll discard it in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance we experience. There’s no evidence for the claim that a person can change their biological sex for example, but by God, or rather by law at least, we’ll make it a reality.
I understand that from your perspective it appears to be wishful thinking on my part that I want to believe God exists, because you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. I don’t particularly feel like I need to provide you with evidence of my attempts to become non-religious, suffice to say it involved copious amounts of alcohol and enough drugs to put Pablo Escobar to shame, but without that evidence I can understand why you formed the conclusion you have, or in your terms what constitutes wishful thinking on your part. I wouldn’t call your position wishful thinking, because I understand that you will have come to the conclusion you have through deductive reasoning - that which makes complete sense to you. I feel that trying to justify my beliefs to you would cause us both a great deal of cognitive dissonance, not good for your mental health, not good for mine, so that’s why I don’t really get into online pissing contests about the existence of God. I believe, you don’t, we’re cool as far as I’m concerned. One of the reasons why I don’t post as regularly as I used to in this forum is because I reached a point where I was sick of the snivelling and grovelling, shìtty attitudes of a small handful of posters. With no disrespect meant towards your moderating decisions smacl and you weren’t a moderator at the time when I chose to no longer participate in the forum, but I don’t agree that the thread should have been moved to A&A when it was about Catholicism in Ireland, the amount of anti-religious posters should have had no influence, religious posters are well able to hold their own in a robust exchange of opinions. Bit strange IMO tbh to move it to a forum where anti-religious posters are granted free reign to sneer and belittle the idea of religion. I don’t understand your decision, but I can’t argue with your reasoning. Instead I’ll just unsubscribe from the thread now that it’s in a forum I’m not all that interested in participating in.0 -
Interesting figures on todays Irish Times around viewership figures on RTE amongst other platforms.
In the words of RTE , very large numbers are tuning into their services. 248,200 watched Mullingar Cathedral on Good Friday 36.6% of available audience share . RTE daily masses are getting 150 -200,000 viewers .
Facebook live church streams are reaching record numbers with 8,500 watching mass on Knock Shrine Easter Sunday and even Dundrum Catholic church in Dublin having 1,000 viewers of their sunday mass that day.
Whilst many on here seem to hate the thought of people saying a few prayers it seems plenty others are happy to have a bit of religion in their lives.
I'm guessing you're referring to Breda O'Brien's piece here. If you look at church attendance statistics, as of 2016 about 35% of Irish Catholics attend weekly mass nationwide. Given that 3.7 million people in this country identify as Catholic you'd expect about 1,295,000 people to attend mass each Sunday. The 248,200 represents about a fifth of this so just 1 in 5 regular mass goers would appear to have tuned in to this religious broadcast. Given that Good Friday is a major religious event, these numbers suggest to me that religious practice is not transferring at all well to the online world.
In the same article BoB notes 'Over 1.5 million people have watched online services in Knock since March 1st.' Given that's over eight weeks, that would equate to 10.36 million mass attendances for the same period indicating an 85% drop off rate.
I've no problem whatsoever with people saying a few prayers but would suggest the current pandemic has put a major dent in religiosity in this country.0 -
In the same article BoB notes 'Over 1.5 million people have watched online services in Knock since March 1st.'
It would be interesting to see the detail behind this claim. Who did the counting - l
the lads from Joe.ie? What is the basis for deciding that somebody watched - how long did they watch for?
Self declared web figures are meaningless.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »It would be interesting to see the detail behind this claim. Who did the counting - l
the lads from Joe.ie? What is the basis for deciding that somebody watched - how long did they watch for?
Self declared web figures are meaningless.
Are they?
I tune into mass daily live streamed from our cathedral on Twitch at 11am (it’s also broadcast on local radio).
On Sunday last Twitch indicated that there were 769 devices also being used to livestream that mass.
On weekdays there would be between 250 and 350 and when there are funerals it would be at Sunday’s levels.
In our parish there are 2 churches with 6 masses at the weekend and 3 masses every day, all suspended now.
Ordinarily every service in the cathedral is broadcast on local radio anyway.
Taking into account that there may be 2, 3 or more people sitting in front of each device then that would mean that there could be well into the 1000s participating in the celebration of mass on Sundays
That’s just our cathedral, there are hundreds of other churches all over the country live streaming.
The parish uploads it’s newsletter to the parish website and the weekly contributions are only slightly down on what they’d usually be which means people are either dropping envelopes into the parish centre or paying by debit card over the phone.0 -
n 1979, Pope John Paul II visited the Republic of Ireland, and approximately 2.7 million people – 79% of the population – came out to honour him. At the time, contraception, divorce, and homosexuality were illegal, and John Paul II was a god. All gone and I am glad. Most priests over 70 and only a handful training in Maynooth. They ruled for too long with an Iron fist and nobody,Even the government dared question them. The Chickens finally came home to roost and it all came out, Finally. I always hoped I would see it in my lifetime and I have.
I am almost 70 and saw first hand the abuse,the cover up's,denials, sent to a different parish etc. I will die happy.
Walter Mitty0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »Are you quoting someone else again? Because that’s not what I said. Don’t do Cathy Newman on it. I came to the conclusion that God exists through deductive reasoning too. Deductive reasoning starts with some basic assumptions, and goes from there. If you understand anything about human nature you would understand that no, it’s absolutely not normal to suspend belief without evidence - quite the opposite, we make assumptions about things all the time and then make the evidence fit our hypothesis, and if the evidence doesn’t fit out hypothesis by God we’ll either make it fit, or we’ll discard it in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance we experience. There’s no evidence for the claim that a person can change their biological sex for example, but by God, or rather by law at least, we’ll make it a reality.
I understand that from your perspective it appears to be wishful thinking on my part that I want to believe God exists, because you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. I don’t particularly feel like I need to provide you with evidence of my attempts to become non-religious, suffice to say it involved copious amounts of alcohol and enough drugs to put Pablo Escobar to shame, but without that evidence I can understand why you formed the conclusion you have, or in your terms what constitutes wishful thinking on your part. I wouldn’t call your position wishful thinking, because I understand that you will have come to the conclusion you have through deductive reasoning - that which makes complete sense to you. I feel that trying to justify my beliefs to you would cause us both a great deal of cognitive dissonance, not good for your mental health, not good for mine, so that’s why I don’t really get into online pissing contests about the existence of God. I believe, you don’t, we’re cool as far as I’m concerned. One of the reasons why I don’t post as regularly as I used to in this forum is because I reached a point where I was sick of the snivelling and grovelling, shìtty attitudes of a small handful of posters. With no disrespect meant towards your moderating decisions smacl and you weren’t a moderator at the time when I chose to no longer participate in the forum, but I don’t agree that the thread should have been moved to A&A when it was about Catholicism in Ireland, the amount of anti-religious posters should have had no influence, religious posters are well able to hold their own in a robust exchange of opinions. Bit strange IMO tbh to move it to a forum where anti-religious posters are granted free reign to sneer and belittle the idea of religion. I don’t understand your decision, but I can’t argue with your reasoning. Instead I’ll just unsubscribe from the thread now that it’s in a forum I’m not all that interested in participating in.
No, I'm not responding to someone else. said the following: "It’s as I explained earlier and something I’ve always believed". So yes, you said you believe it because you've always believed it. And thats not an evidence based belief. That's just a belief that you've always believed (as you said).
Maybe you have evidence for the existence of a god and maybe you'll share that evidence. In the absence of evidence, it's just wishful thinking. It's the same as everything else. You either believe because you have evidence or you believe because you'd like it to be true (wishful thinking)0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Andrew with the greatest of respect I suggest you go back through the thread where I’ve already pointed out to you that I’ve answered your question posed in three different ways already with the same answer. You’re not satisfied with the answer I’ve given you so you’re continuing to press and press until I give you the answer you really want. I could give you the answer you want, but I wouldn’t be telling the truth. I’d literally be giving you the answer you want, because that’s what you’re listening for - you’re not listening for an answer (because I’ve answered the same question three times already).
It wasn’t, until you brought up the question as to why cancer exists. We already know that cancer develops in many species, we just don’t have any good reason as to why specifically cancer? I don’t have any good reason yet either and I don’t understand what purpose cancer serves in terms of how it fits in with evolution. You raised a hypothetical and abstract scenario which suited your own purposes from your own perspective. I gave a real life example to demonstrate the complexity of circumstances for children who develop cancer and their families. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation for the existence of cancer myself, but when I witness the positive actions of a child like Donal Walsh when he developed cancer, and his attitude towards life and his attitude that it was part of Gods plan, again I find myself thinking “that’s one shìtty plan”, and the alternative being that God doesn’t have a plan, shìt just happens.
I’d also suggest though that you missed the point of Donals intervention (I can understand why too - as it doesn’t square neatly with the portrayal of misery you made out earlier) that you’re willing to overlook the fact that his intervention done a lot more good than had he not intervened and not raised nearly half a million euro for charity and there was now a Donal Walsh room in every Pieta House. I don’t agree with you that the best chance of mental health issues getting fixed is by the slow, painful treatment by expert professions. Having dealt with many of them in my lifetime, there are far too many who are only interested in pushing the latest trendy fad whether it be CBT, DBT, EMDR, mindfulness, etc, etc. The better ones will acknowledge that the same treatment doesn’t work for everyone, and there simply isn’t a one size fits all when it comes to addressing ill mental health. That’s why I dislike the broken leg analogy, not only because it’s incredibly simplistic and displays a woeful lack of understanding of the complexity of mental health, but because mental health isn’t something tangible, like a broken leg. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, but unfortunately for some people it’s often a bit like trying to help them understand transubstantiation when they have nothing to relate it to.
It was Stephen Fry btw who suggested that victims of sexual abuse should stop feeling sorry for themselves -
Stephen Fry criticised for telling 'self-pitying' abuse victims to grow up
As the President of a mental health charity at the time, one would expect that he would be more aware of the impact of his words on other people, but I had known long before then that Fry had disappeared up his own arsehole long before he ever made an appearance on Gaybo’s show to demonstrate what a small-minded snivelling, sneering shìtehawk he could be. Regarding him as a hypocrite was being kind.
Eh? How can you say it doesn’t change the outcome when that’s exactly what it does? It doesn’t jig with your perspective of how miserable life must be for children who develop cancer, because you’re ignoring the fact that reality is far more complex than the hypothetical you initially presented which suited your purposes - “children who develop cancer could only be miserable, because it’s a shìtty thing for anyone to have to cope with”, and you ignore the reality of those children who develop cancer whose circumstances that don’t suit your purposes. That’s why I used the analogy of evolution - because fcuk knows why larvae exist which can cause blindness in children, I can’t see why they exist or how they serve any useful purpose whatsoever, and the reason I can’t see it isn’t because they don’t serve a useful purpose in terms of evolution. It’s simply that I don’t yet understand their purpose. In exactly the same way, I pointed out to you that I don’t know the mind of God, so I don’t understand why humans can be brought to their knees by a virus which is so minuscule it can’t even be seen with the naked eye, but I don’t believe that there is any malicious intent in God, any more than I don’t believe there is any intent in evolution, as that’s leaning towards intelligent design, which is not a belief I subscribe to.One eyed Jack wrote: »You agree with what? I never argued that the question didn’t make any sense. The question makes sense, and it’s one I used ask myself many times, it’s how I came to the belief that while there is a God, he’s not an interventionist God. Andrew didn’t ask God, he asked a question in an open forum of people who are religious. The essence of the question is that God is a hypocrite because Andrew proposes there is a contradiction between a loving God, and a God who he believes causes or allows people to suffer. The point I was making to Andrew is that it isn’t so black and white, but rather it depends upon a person’s perspective of God. I happen to be of the belief that while it might appear to Andrew that God can’t possibly be a loving God if he causes or allows suffering, I don’t think he causes or allows suffering. I used the theory of Evolution and scientific inquiry to make the point - it starts with some basic assumptions and we kind of fill in the gaps in our knowledge with ideas that make sense based upon deductive reasoning.
The question of belief in an interventionist or non-interventionist God is based upon the belief that God exists in the first place, it doesn’t speak to whether or not he exists, it supposes that he does exist. So based upon the belief that he exists, then what type of God is he - a God on whose constant intercession we rely on for help, or a God to whom we look for guidance and protection throughout our lives? The answer to that will differ even among Catholics themselves, so I can only answer from my own perspective, whereas someone else may offer a different answer based upon their perspective. It’s as I explained earlier and something I’ve always believed - different people see different things, differently. I don’t know for certain that you understand that, I have no evidence that you understand it, but I believe that you do understand the concept that different people see different things, differently.
I've gone back through your posts again, and the only answers I can find from you are;
1) I don't have an answer
2) I don't see any conflict between a supposedly loving, caring, benevolent being who causes or enables your child to die in agony over months or years in front of your eyes.
If it wasn't a supreme being, it would be up on child neglect charges.
If you don't believe in an interventionist god, do you believe that your god intervened by sending his son to earth a couple of thousand years ago? It would be interesting to understand what justified that kind of intervention then, after millions of years of life on the plan - but no intervention now.
Is your god not responsible for evolution, given that they created a planet and inhabitants that evolve?
My point about Donal Walsh was that the main outcome doesn't change - he's dead, well before his expected time, resulting in a huge loss to his parents and family. I presume you're not suggesting that the purpose behind giving cancer to hundreds of children in Ireland is that one or two of them might turn out to be inspirational heroes, so it's worth torturing the others to achieve the questionable goal of inspiration?
Does the essence of your god change depending on people's perspective? Is the same god interventionist for some people and not for others, depending on their perspective?
It just doesn't add up.
For the record, I've no difficulty with people who practice any religion, once they don't impose it on the rest of up. I'm just trying to understand how or why any adult would believe in magic.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »....
For the record, I've no difficulty with people who practice any religion, once they don't impose it on the rest of up. I'm just trying to understand how or why any adult would believe in magic.
Mix of human nature and how civilisation develop.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-evolved-to-believe-in-gods
https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-they-mean/"Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of religion since there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion0 -
"Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of religion since there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Rather strange statement, given Shinto is a religion that started in Japan, predates Christianity and is still practiced by many today.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t understand what purpose cancer serves in terms of how it fits in with evolution.
A useful question to start that exploration with is why you suspect it has a "purpose" at all. Not everything that happens as a result of Natural Selection has a "purpose". And sometimes traits that survive and thrive do not even give an evolutionary advantage, contrary to many people's impression of what Evolution does.
You question why larvae exist and what their purpose is. Again I suspect you are taking a human centric perspective on this. What is their purpose to/for us. And that is an error. Their "purpose" in relation to evolution would be identical to humans. To exist and reproduce themselves. If you look at any life form on this planet and ask what it's purpose for existing is then that is an error. ALL life has the same purpose for it, it would seem.One eyed Jack wrote: »it’s often a bit like trying to help them understand transubstantiation when they have nothing to relate it to.
Well in my experience even the people who purport to believe in transubstantiation do not themselves understand it, and at times they can not even agree with each other on what they are meant to be believing about it at all. And I have not seen the catholic church, either in their schools, club houses, or magazines, making much of an effort to educate anyone on it either.
I suspect I know why that is though. If they are too clear on it they will lose some of the crowd. If they keep it vague with people believing whatever they want about it essentially, they appeal to more of their customer base for their business model.One eyed Jack wrote: »I came to the conclusion that God exists through deductive reasoning too.
I suspect going on innumerable past experiences, you are going to refuse to adumbrate that reasoning as per usual, if asked to do so?One eyed Jack wrote: »he was another miserable wanker, same vein as Fry
Oxford educated gobshìte
disappeared up his own arsehole
what a small-minded snivelling, sneering shìtehawk he could be.
Regarding him as a hypocrite was being kind.
snivelling and grovelling, shìtty attitudes
Odd to unsubscribe from a thread in a forum based on the attitudes of posters, when most of the insults, invective, negativity and so forth is coming from you. I do not think you have described the posters of this forum well at all. Rather, I think you are projecting poor behaviour onto people entirely innocent of it.
I genuinely have no idea what your issue with Fry is either. Clearly he said things you do not like and so you're going off on one at him. I hardly worship the guy myself, especially as I am not part of any kind of Personality Cult like Muslims or Christians. However he is a lot more educated, level headed, loving, empathic, and in touch with both reality and humanity than you give him credit for. I doubt you can back up any of the insults you have thrown his way, which is why you seem to just fling them and run.
Has he imperfections and areas needing improvement? Yes of course. But we ALL do. So for someone to go arbitrarily hating one person who is on that path over anyone else, does nothing for anyone except reveal your own biases and poor attitudes. But such is humanity. We as a species often like to ignore our own imperfections and lord it over others alas, ignoring who ACTUALLY has their "head up their own arse" in that equation.One eyed Jack wrote: »It was Stephen Fry btw who suggested that victims of sexual abuse should stop feeling sorry for themselves
Not quite what happened now is it? Read your own link for once. It says he have made "comments suggesting he had no sympathy for child abuse victims’ “self-pity” if it meant restricting free speech."
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, though you have an
ongoing tendency to ignore half of what people say if it makes the other half fit with what you want to imagine they are saying/doing at the time.
We should of course have empathy for child abuse victims, and support them in any way we usefully and meaningfully can. But NOT at the expense of other ideals we may hold dear.
He was specifically talking about trigger warnings and censorship of great literature at the time, which some people have suggested to protect people who were victims of abuse or other horrors, from having to read something that might trigger them.
Finally he seemed to attack "self pity" as an emotion. Not the people who feel self pity, but the emotion itself. He believes it to be one of the worst emotions we as humans engage with.
Nothing at all wrong with those positions. Certainly nothing you are going to get at with erudite and deeply thought out moves like merely calling him a "wanker".0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »It would be interesting to see the detail behind this claim. Who did the counting - l
the lads from Joe.ie? What is the basis for deciding that somebody watched - how long did they watch for?
Self declared web figures are meaningless.
I wonder how many 'watchers' were people like me who got caught out when RTE News Now would suddenly cut to Mass in the middle of Sean O'Rourke. :rolleyes:0 -
Rather strange statement, given Shinto is a religion that started in Japan, predates Christianity and is still practiced by many today.
I think the point is they don't see it as religion in the same way the West does. Which is why most Japanese don't identify as religious, even if they do some things we think of as religious.
But it's odd of considering their persecution of Western religions in their past.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I wonder how many 'watchers' were people like me who got caught out when RTE News Now would suddenly cut to Mass in the middle of Sean O'Rourke. :rolleyes:
None. RTÉ TV 1 and 2 had the full schedule of Easter Tridiumm services on those 2 main channels. If you were one of 286,000 watching the Passion of the Lord at 3 pm on Good Friday on RTÉ 1 tv then you were not “caught out”, it was because you chose too.
I suppose the 8500 live-streaming Knock Shrine on Easter Sunday accidentally found that too ... (rolls eyes).0 -
splinter65 wrote: »None. RTÉ TV 1 and 2 had the full schedule of Easter Tridiumm services on those 2 main channels. If you were one of 286,000 watching the Passion of the Lord at 3 pm on Good Friday on RTÉ 1 tv then you were not “caught out”, it was because you chose too.
I suppose the 8500 live-streaming Knock Shrine on Easter Sunday accidentally found that too ... (rolls eyes).
Oh dear.
It would seem a sense of humour is in short supply today.
One does wonder why if there was such a full schedule on the 2 main channels RTE News Now felt that need to suddenly cut to Mass - often in the midst of important news being conveyed by govt ministers.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »One of the reasons why I don’t post as regularly as I used to in this forum is because I reached a point where I was sick of the snivelling and grovelling, shìtty attitudes of a small handful of posters. With no disrespect meant towards your moderating decisions smacl and you weren’t a moderator at the time when I chose to no longer participate in the forum, but I don’t agree that the thread should have been moved to A&A when it was about Catholicism in Ireland, the amount of anti-religious posters should have had no influence, religious posters are well able to hold their own in a robust exchange of opinions. Bit strange IMO tbh to move it to a forum where anti-religious posters are granted free reign to sneer and belittle the idea of religion. I don’t understand your decision, but I can’t argue with your reasoning. Instead I’ll just unsubscribe from the thread now that it’s in a forum I’m not all that interested in participating in.
Mod warning: Firstly, referring to any other posters here as having "snivelling and grovelling, shìtty attitudes" is not acceptable even if you do not name them individually. Secondly, you're in breach of the charter questioning moderation in-thread, we have a feedback forum for that. Thirdly, the thread was going either here or to the Christianity forum and if it had been the latter the language of your post above would have breached even more its charter, as would many others in this thread.
You have obviously read the mod posts and instructions in relation to adhering to the charter, please do so in future0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Oh dear.
It would seem a sense of humour is in short supply today.
One does wonder why if there was such a full schedule on the 2 main channels RTE News Now felt that need to suddenly cut to Mass - often in the midst of important news being conveyed by govt ministers.
Oh dear indeed.
You seem to be a little bit lost. Let me explain.
Lots of Irish catholic’s attend mass every day in Lent. It’s traditional. When the churches closed suddenly RTÉ quite rightly decided to broadcast a morning mass every day to allow all these people to at least participate from home.
As well over 80% of citizens identified as Catholic in the last census then this would have seemed reasonable to any sensible person.
As RTÉ NEWS NOW switches between reruns of the last tv news program broadcast and live feed from RTÉ radio 1 then it must have seemed fair to broadcast the mass from this channel.
You could have just switched on the radio to listen to SO’R uninterrupted. RTE radio is a station on most tv package too so it was really just a case of you using your remote control.
You appear to doubt that the Easter Tritium was broadcast on the main RTÉ channels. It was. Here it is:
https://www.capuchinfranciscans.ie/rtes-broadcast-schedule-for-the-easter-ceremonies/0 -
splinter65 wrote: »Lots of Irish catholic’s attend mass every day in Lent. It’s traditional. When the churches closed suddenly RTÉ quite rightly decided to broadcast a morning mass every day to allow all these people to at least participate from home.
As well over 80% of citizens identified as Catholic in the last census then this would have seemed reasonable to any sensible person.
And just 35% of those Catholics were regular mass attendees according to the 2016 census, down from 91% in the 70s. As a tradition, mass attendance is one that is fading fast. The same is true across Europe as described in the following Pew Report. Lots of people identifying as Christian but relatively few practicing, with the majority not believing in God as described in the bible.
0 -
splinter65 wrote: »Oh dear indeed.
You seem to be a little bit lost. Let me explain.
Lots of Irish catholic’s attend mass every day in Lent. It’s traditional. When the churches closed suddenly RTÉ quite rightly decided to broadcast a morning mass every day to allow all these people to at least participate from home.
As well over 80% of citizens identified as Catholic in the last census then this would have seemed reasonable to any sensible person.
As RTÉ NEWS NOW switches between reruns of the last tv news program broadcast and live feed from RTÉ radio 1 then it must have seemed fair to broadcast the mass from this channel.
You could have just switched on the radio to listen to SO’R uninterrupted. RTE radio is a station on most tv package too so it was really just a case of you using your remote control.
You appear to doubt that the Easter Tritium was broadcast on the main RTÉ channels. It was. Here it is:
https://www.capuchinfranciscans.ie/rtes-broadcast-schedule-for-the-easter-ceremonies/
I think it's you who may be lost.
In this particular forum it's not a given that our license fees should be used to fund the national broadcaster given one particular religion ready access to the airways across multiple media.
Daily.
There already is a dedicated Roman Catholic radio station - I happened upon it while using my remote control to search for Radio One. It's called Radio Maria. It can be found on radio, saorview, on-line, and via an App. There is no reason the miniscule percentage of those who identified as Roman Catholic on the last census who actually participate in Mass couldn't have tuned into the daily service there.
Any sensible person would have realised that in a time of global and national crises it would be best to keep the dedicated news channel available should there be breaking news and they could have turned on their radio or used their remote control to switch to the existing channel dedicated to serving their particular needs.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I think it's you who may be lost.
In this particular forum it's not a given that our license fees should be used to fund the national broadcaster given one particular religion ready access to the airways across multiple media.
Daily.
There already is a dedicated Roman Catholic radio station - I happened upon it while using my remote control to search for Radio One. It's called Radio Maria. It can be found on radio, saorview, on-line, and via an App. There is no reason the miniscule percentage of those who identified as Roman Catholic on the last census who actually participate in Mass couldn't have tuned into the daily service there.
Any sensible person would have realised that in a time of global and national crises it would be best to keep the dedicated news channel available should there be breaking news and they could have turned on their radio or used their remote control to switch to the existing channel dedicated to serving their particular needs.
On what planet is 248,000, 36.5% of the possible viewer minuscule? You are of course entitled to your obvious deep dislike of RCC but don’t you think that that’s a bit ridiculous?
It’s funny that you’d suggest that switching channels. It’s Radio Maria, not TV Maria. Wether you like it or not enough of viewers wanted to watch mass being celebrated on TV during Lent rather then listening to it on radio to justify RTÉ broadcasting it. Unless you want to claim that RTÉ are falsifying numbers.
You could just as easily used your remote to turn to RTÉ Radio 1 to get continuous coverage of the covid crisis (well until Ronan Collins comes on at 12. What do you do then ?)
I assume you did ?0 -
I'm guessing you're referring to Breda O'Brien's piece here. If you look at church attendance statistics, as of 2016 about 35% of Irish Catholics attend weekly mass nationwide. Given that 3.7 million people in this country identify as Catholic you'd expect about 1,295,000 people to attend mass each Sunday. The 248,200 represents about a fifth of this so just 1 in 5 regular mass goers would appear to have tuned in to this religious broadcast. Given that Good Friday is a major religious event, these numbers suggest to me that religious practice is not transferring at all well to the online world.
In the same article BoB notes 'Over 1.5 million people have watched online services in Knock since March 1st.' Given that's over eight weeks, that would equate to 10.36 million mass attendances for the same period indicating an 85% drop off rate.
I've no problem whatsoever with people saying a few prayers but would suggest the current pandemic has put a major dent in religiosity in this country.splinter65 wrote: »On what planet is 248,000, 36.5% of the possible viewer minuscule? You are of course entitled to your obvious deep dislike of RCC but don’t you think that that’s a bit ridiculous?
It’s funny that you’d suggest that switching channels. It’s Radio Maria, not TV Maria. Wether you like it or not enough of viewers wanted to watch mass being celebrated on TV during Lent rather then listening to it on radio to justify RTÉ broadcasting it. Unless you want to claim that RTÉ are falsifying numbers.
You could just as easily used your remote to turn to RTÉ Radio 1 to get continuous coverage of the covid crisis (well until Ronan Collins comes on at 12. What do you do then ?)
I assume you did ?
smacl has already discussed the veracity of this 248,000 figure, As I do not read the Indo, and even if I did I would not read an opinion piece bit BoB I cannot comment on that - but 1 in 5 is pretty dire tbh.
You are intent on framing this as an anti-RCC argument when it is not. It is an anti any religion being given continual broadcast access by the national broadcaster. We do not have a State religion - why should the State broadcaster (part funded by a directly paid licence fee and dug out frequently from taxpayers money) allow one religion such access?
Particularly when a medium already exists to cater to the faithful of that religion?
I get that in your world you feel it is ok that all licence fee payers and taxpayers subsidise your religion even when they do not share it. But the fact is that this is a republic and your religion should not get special rights. No matter how traditional that may be.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Angelus is now for everyone, it is why RTE does have it on TV when if it was Catholics it would not be on air.
Riiiight.
It has the name of a catholic call to prayer.
It has the specific form of bell-ringing prescribed for that catholic call to prayer.
On the radio, it hasn't changed one bit. On the TV, they put up some vague feel-good imagery instead of a picture of a saint...
But it's still a catholic call to prayer, is still completely inappropriate for a state broadcaster, and nobody in RTE has the guts to axe it.If the Catholic Church was removed from health and education around the world
We're talking about Ireland. There is no need for them to have any involvement in the running of taxpayer funded institutions. It's using tax money to promote their religion - the constitution forbids this! While discriminating against non-catholic pupils, parents and staff.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
Jermaine Careful Schoolteacher wrote: »I’m glad to disappoint the haters but the church and mass are going nowhere.
Vastly more people were abused in their own home than any church, so by your logic people with a good family home are insulting for seeing it as a positive and happy experience.
If there was an organisation called something like "Defenders of Domestic Paedophiles" which had charitable status and got daily promotion on RTE then you might have something approaching a point.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
The post (which is perfectly intelligible) is about the relentless propaganda of old Ireland=bad, new Ireland=good, and how within this new conformity of thought evil thrives as it always does.
I already know the answers to those questions, but unfortunately the state and media prefer to root around the past for maximum sanctimony with little downside rather than tackle current problems.
That’s not the point though is it? It’s not just about paedophilia. None of those organisations you listed have the same level of influence on Irish society as the RCC did (and still continues to have). They don’t dictate the curriculum for the majority of school children in this country, they haven’t ever had cause to interfere in the sex lives of same sex couples, they don’t have a regressive attitude to women, etc, etc. There is a reason why people rightly berate old Ireland, it was a miserable place for a lot of us. The consequences of the churches influence are so far reaching within Irish society, you just can’t put it on a par with big tech,NGO’s or whatever. I’ve no problem with churches including the RCC, people should be allowed to express their faith (the cultural catholics I do take issue with) but the guiding principles of the church should not be allowed extend beyond the congregation, it has done untold damage to generations, we are still as a society trying to deal with the consequences.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »[...] I don’t know what the fcuk he was thinking! I don’t know what the fcuk he was thinking that he created a world filled with arseholes either, but here we are - evolution baby! [...] You have a beef with God or something, talk to Job, he was another miserable wanker, same vein as Fry who thinks he’s a fierce clever bastard altogether.One eyed Jack wrote: »[...] I had known long before then that Fry had disappeared up his own arsehole long before he ever made an appearance on Gaybo’s show to demonstrate what a small-minded snivelling, sneering shìtehawk he could be. Regarding him as a hypocrite was being kind.One eyed Jack wrote: »[...] I completely get that you see a contradiction, but I don’t. In a similar way, I might regard someone simply as an imbecilic arsehole, whereas you might regard them as a pillar of intellectual rigour. [...] A child could grasp the concept you appear to be struggling with as an adult.
Pots and kettles there, Jack.One eyed Jack wrote: »One of the reasons why I don’t post as regularly as I used to in this forum is because I reached a point where I was sick of the snivelling and grovelling, shìtty attitudes of a small handful of posters.
*cough*One eyed Jack wrote: »Bit strange IMO tbh to move it to a forum where anti-religious posters are granted free reign to sneer and belittle the idea of religion.
Best of luck. If you do return, as many do, please note that your posting style from the imported AH/CA thread would almost certainly result in a card here in A+A where you are expected to argue your case rather than rave incoherently.One eyed Jack wrote: »Instead I’ll just unsubscribe from the thread now that it’s in a forum I’m not all that interested in participating in.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Riiiight.
We're talking about Ireland. There is no need for them to have any involvement in the running of taxpayer funded institutions. It's using tax money to promote their religion - the constitution forbids this! While discriminating against non-catholic pupils, parents and staff.
I agree, so we buy the schools back from them?0 -
That’s not the point though is it? It’s not just about paedophilia. None of those organisations you listed have the same level of influence on Irish society as the RCC did (and still continues to have). They don’t dictate the curriculum for the majority of school children in this country, they haven’t ever had cause to interfere in the sex lives of same sex couples, they don’t have a regressive attitude to women, etc, etc. There is a reason why people rightly berate old Ireland, it was a miserable place for a lot of us. The consequences of the churches influence are so far reaching within Irish society, you just can’t put it on a par with big tech,NGO’s or whatever. I’ve no problem with churches including the RCC, people should be allowed to express their faith (the cultural catholics I do take issue with) but the guiding principles of the church should not be allowed extend beyond the congregation, it has done untold damage to generations, we are still as a society trying to deal with the consequences.
People like you give me a good laugh. How old are you exactly that you can state the old Ireland was so miserable? You know it all. You’re just parroting the usual communist inspired rubbish. Same sex marriage give me a break. In most civilizations homosexuals would be put to death. Women’s rights. Women had no rights anywhere in the world and in any culture until enlightened Christians made it so. People like you are the pinnacle of hypocrisy basking in the glory of western civilization since birth, a civilization which was literally built from a pagan and illiterate jungle culture with the life blood and dedication of devout Christians. And you have the temerity to think you know better. Fact is your entire western civilization was built by Christianity and would not exist without it. Go read a book.0 -
People like you give me a good laugh. How old are you exactly that you can state the old Ireland was so miserable? You know it all. You’re just parroting the usual communist inspired rubbish. Same sex marriage give me a break. In most civilizations homosexuals would be put to death. Women’s rights. Women had no rights anywhere in the world and in any culture until enlightened Christians made it so. People like you are the pinnacle of hypocrisy basking in the glory of western civilization since birth, a civilization which was literally built from a pagan and illiterate jungle culture with the life blood and dedication of devout Christians. And you have the temerity to think you know better. Fact is your entire western civilization was built by Christianity and would not exist without it. Go read a book.
I'd hazard a guess that these "enlightened Christians" of whom you speak were Protestants, the RCC has never been renowned for being reformist and still has difficulty with the concept of gay and womens' rights
I've been around this country for more than seventy years and my recollection of Ireland before the 1980s was that it was indeed a miserable place made all the more so by the dominant position of the RCC, I can remember seeing Government ministers arrriving in convoy to Arcbishops house to virtually prostrate themselves in front of the late unlamented John Charles Mc Quaid, seeking approval for legislation. The same man who dined on the best food off the finest china while children living not a stone's throw from his front door went without food for days on end. This was Ireland as I remember it in the 1950s and 60s.0 -
I'd hazard a guess that these "enlightened Christians" of whom you speak were Protestants, the RCC has never been renowned for being reformist and still has difficulty with the concept of gay and womens' rights
I've been around this country for more than seventy years and my recollection of Ireland before the 1980s was that it was indeed a miserable place made all the more so by the dominant position of the RCC, I can remember seeing Government ministers arrriving in convoy to Arcbishops house to virtually prostrate themselves in front of the late unlamented John Charles Mc Quaid, seeking approval for legislation. The same man who dined on the best food off the finest china while children living not a stone's throw from his front door went without food for days on end. This was Ireland as I remember it in the 1950s and 60s.
Modern Ireland is just as miserable and even more-so when you adjust for the economic progress in the intervening period. You only have to look at the rampant and vacuous materialism, the poverty and homelessness, the wealth inequality in both capital and education which is far more pronounced than the past, the drugs and alcohol addictions. Broken families, suicide and a mental health crisis that’s where bankrupt moral relativism and communism have led us. Into infantile servitude to the socialist state. Which of course was the plan all along.0 -
People like you give me a good laugh. How old are you exactly that you can state the old Ireland was so miserable? You know it all. You’re just parroting the usual communist inspired rubbish. Same sex marriage give me a break. In most civilizations homosexuals would be put to death. Women’s rights. Women had no rights anywhere in the world and in any culture until enlightened Christians made it so. People like you are the pinnacle of hypocrisy basking in the glory of western civilization since birth, a civilization which was literally built from a pagan and illiterate jungle culture with the life blood and dedication of devout Christians. And you have the temerity to think you know better. Fact is your entire western civilization was built by Christianity and would not exist without it. Go read a book.
MOD
Welcome to A&A.
In this forum we expect civility. We also expect a person to be able to discuss, not rant. Finally, attacking the poster is a complete No No and will be treated accordingly.
This is your only warning that posts such as this will not be tolerated.
I should warn you that posts such as this (but more civilly written) will also be thoroughly demolished by people who have not only read many many books - but in some cases written them.
Go read the charter.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »MOD
Welcome to A&A.
In this forum we expect civility. We also expect a person to be able to discuss, not rant. Finally, attacking the poster is a complete No No and will be treated accordingly.
This is your only warning that posts such as this will not be tolerated.
I should warn you that posts such as this (but more civilly written) will also be thoroughly demolished by people who have not only read many many books - but in some cases written them.
Go read the charter.
Easy there with the bold chief. I care not one jot what any atheist thinks of my post nor am I here for a debate. I only came here because the topic was moved here for some inexplicable reason presumably just another meddling moderator on a power trip. I won’t be reading any atheistic charter and you can keep your echo chamber of anti Christian sentiment to yourselves. I’m not here to persuade or debate with atheists for faith is a personal journey and I don’t like to waste my time.
I will say this. That western civilization is built upon the foundation of Christianity is not in dispute. The fact that the west has very recently fallen into the evils of atheistic socialism (as Hegel would put it the state is God walking on the earth) does not trouble me in the slightest. For the rotten bureaucracy of the atheistic world system will destroy itself and sooner than most might think.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.0
Advertisement