Catholic Church, Mass Attendance

pearcider wrote: »

Modern Ireland is just as miserable and even more-so when you adjust for

Then by all means do so! You have not cited anything here but your own assertions so far. By all means show us the "before" and "after" figures and calculations, and show what, and how, you adjusted for in the intervening transitions.

For example you trot out phrases like "suicide and mental health". Let's see your workings on those. What were they before? What are they now? And how have you adjusted for, and normalized for, other factors such as our ability to diagnose such things improving, our accuracy in recording such things increasing, and our willingness to openly discuss such topics increasing?

pearcider wrote: »

that’s where bankrupt moral relativism and communism have led us.

This is quite an assertion, not least because we do not live in a communist country. You are making an outright A led to B assertion here. How do you back this up? Something more substantial than the old "Go read a book" tripe I would hope?

It is always easy, though simplistic, to vaguely wave our hands at something we hate and blame it for something else we have. But alas society is not that simplistic, but a complex interplay of actions and reactions and interactions. There is a LOT of things in play in how our society and the well being of it's members change over time. Changing technologies. Changing population sizes. Changing circumstances. Evolving social moralities. And much much more.

Also "moral relativism" is deeply vague from you here. What exactly do you mean? And what do you propose as an alternative? The historical situation where we pretended morality was some objective standard external to us, handed down from on high by an invisible and seemingly imaginary being in the sky? Give over, we do not need to return to that tripe.

Too much experience has told me that often when people trot out the phrase "moral relativism" what it turns out is ACTUALLY their issue is that the majority do not hold the moral positions THEY do and "moral relativism" means nothing more than "I Think I am right and you're all wrong". So by all means show us what is wrong with the dominant moral positions of our current society at this time, and what should change.

pearcider wrote: »

Which of course was the plan all along.

That is an even more explicit and egregious assertion than the one above, and highly specific. So I trust you have some substantiation for it too?

pearcider wrote: »

nor am I here for a debate.

This is a discussion and debate forum. If you are not here for debate then it would appear you are admitting to being here to soapbox your positions and assertions? Would that be a fair appraisal or is there a third option I am missing?

pearcider wrote: »

I will say this. That western civilization is built upon the foundation of Christianity is not in dispute.

Usually when people say "not in dispute" or "fact!" or similar, it is because they are trying to cover up what they know to be the weakest, not strongest, attribute in their diatribe. I suspect this situation is no different.

To uncover this the first useful question would be to ask what you actually mean here. Historically the majority of people were Christian. But that does not mean our society was built on a foundation of Christianity. Historically the majority of people in our society who plucked chickens were likely Christian too. That does not mean the Chicken Plucking industry was founded on Christianity either.

There is a difference between "X was founded on Y" and "X was founded by people who also happened to be Y". And your diatribe needs a lot more substance to make the distinction between those two that you appear to wish to make.

pearcider wrote: »

The fact that the west has very recently fallen into the evils of atheistic socialism

There is that vague throwing around of labels again. "I do not like things like socialism so if I merely CAL Something socialism then I have indicted it and need do no more" is an approach we see often, but they lack substance.

Just calling things "evil" does not make it so you see. If you want to discuss recent changes in our society or morals and explain how and why they are "evil" then you might have some substance. Otherwise you would just be raving incoherently.

The big changes recently for example in Ireland are the Marriage and Abortion referendums. Merely calling them "evil" or "atheistic" or "socialistic" would not explain how and why they came about. The reason we voted on them as we did is the people AGAINST it could not muster a single moral or ethical argument against them. I suspect nor can/shall you.

pearcider wrote: »

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.

And keep your tinfoil hat from falling off as you charge! I suggest the best approach to your personal war would be to identify some specifics, rather than this vague daggers in the darkness nonsense above, and then muster some actual moral and ethical and substantive arguments against them to explain what is wrong or problematic with the specific moral positions, or policy issues, you see there.

pearcider wrote: »

People like you give me a good laugh. How old are you exactly that you can state the old Ireland was so miserable?

How old are you?
The Catholic Church abused, raped, murdered and sold children in old Ireland. The Church and Old Ireland were (and are) not some bastion of morality.

pearcider wrote: »

Same sex marriage give me a break. In most civilizations homosexuals would be put to death.

Are you saying that homosexuals should be put to the death? While claiming to be more civilised than the rest of us?

pearcider wrote: »

Women’s rights. Women had no rights anywhere in the world and in any culture until enlightened Christians made it so.

Historically, women had better rights than Christian women in a few cultures (e.g. traditionally, Muslim women had far more financial equality than christian women, such as retained ownership of property after marriage). The West may have overtaken such cultures relatively recently, but it started from a worse position than many. We are still waiting for a referendum in Ireland to remove the part of the constitution that says a woman's place is in the home.

pearcider wrote: »

Fact is your entire western civilization was built by Christianity and would not exist without it. Go read a book.

I will say this. That western civilization is built upon the foundation of Christianity is not in dispute.

I thought democracy was ancient greek? The basis of laws (don't steal, don't kill) are even older. Which positive part of modern western civilization are you under the impression could only have come from Christianity?

pearcider wrote: »

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.

Is all socialism atheistic or is catholic socialism different?

wow this thread went down hill fast.

Move topic to another forum and then mod every post to shut down discussion!


Im out.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And the Greeks liberally (see what I did there...) borrowed from the Persians.


Code of Hammurbi dates back to about 1754 BCE - it's the laws of Mesopotamia all written down. In writing. Writing that the people of Babylon who could read could read and know what actions were going to be sanctioned.

All the available evidence demonstrates that long before Patrick- or indeed Palladius who was Rome's official representative to cater to the Christians in Ireland, and pre-dated Patrick - the Gaelic Irish had a complex legal system. A legal system older than the Code of Hammurbi, parts of it date to the Bronze Age.
When the Christians arrived the Gaelic Irish merely wrote down what was already in existence.
And you should see the rights women had!

Something I always want to ask people who say that we owe lots of advances to Christianity, and how Christianity was so much better than the systems before it, like Pearcider did above: would you give up Christianity for a better system?

pearcider wrote: »

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.

Do you think you can respond to my post without making such personal and insulting comments about someone you know nothing about? I grew up in the eighties, plenty of that auld ****e going on back then, mother and baby homes, interference in public referendums (divorce, abortion, etc). If you took note of my earlier post you’ll see I have no issue with people practicing their faith as long as doesn’t impact on the way I live my life, free from meddling interference from an unelected organisation thanks very much. Now back to my book..

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Which raises the question - why does the specific category of religious broadcaster exist?

If I wanted to set up a channel dedicated to the broadcasting of one-sided propaganda of any other type, BAI would tell me where to go

But a religous channel funded by obscure sources, ah that's grand says BAI.

Meanwhile every other station has to maintain balance and isn't allowed call for a referendum vote to go a particular way (and rightly so) and is allowed to receive commercial/licence fee income only. No rich benefactors from the US or elsewhere pushing their agenda on the Irish airwaves - unless their agenda is conservative catholic of course.

RTE already have a substantial amount of religious output - so why do we have two radio stations dedicated to christian propaganda as well?

maestroamado wrote: »

I agree, so we buy the schools back from them?

Seeing as most of them were built with public funding and all have been maintained with public funding, why would we be buying what we've already paid for?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Since when was 78% well over 80%? If you're going to quote figures then at least use accurate ones.

But we all know that many of those 78% are merely box-tickers who culturally identify with catholicism but never see the inside of a church from one end of the year to the other. It's disingenuous at best to use that census figure of an indicator of anything, really.... except the proportion of the population who whether in a serious fashion, or in a mere cultural sense, identify as catholic. It's certainly not a good basis for determining policy in relation to broadcasting, education or anything else really.

That's an outrageous slur. They probably will see the inside of the church at Christmas. Maybe Easter too. The odd wedding and funeral too.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because we don't own it? The state provides grant funding for all kinds of things on all kinds of terms and conditions, but it doesn't thereby acquire ownership of them, unless that is stated as one of the terms and conditions. The state doesn't get to retrospectively and unilaterally decide that the grant it gave to X to undertake a particular project was actually the purchase price of property belonging to X.

This isn't 'grant funding'. The State actually pays the builder to build new schools and extend existing schools. The State pays maintenance funding to each school.

So why would the State pay twice for the same thing?

Maybe they should take it off the debt owed to the State by the religious orders in the abuse settlement.

Most national schools have never been owned by the State and, of the few that were owned by the State, I think the majority still are. I don't know if there are any national schools at all which were once in state ownership but are now owned by churches.

For a long time the funding model was basically - the patron acquired and provided a site, the state paid to put up a school building; the state paid to run the school. This didn't on the face of it confer any financial benefit on the patron; it's true that the site they owned had a building erected on it at no cost to them, which would normally enhance the value of the site very considerably, but on the other hand they couldn't benefit from that - they had to allow the school to use the site; they got no rent from the site; they couldn't raise money by mortgaging it; they couldn't sell it. In financial terms, they effectively wrote off the cost of acquiring and providing the site; they never expected any financial return from it. (And, as we know, that wasn't their motivation; what they got in return for providing the site was influence over the running of the school.)

In later years, the funding model became more sophisticated, and I think in the case of newer schools there is a condition that, if the property ceases to be used as a school, the capital grant money must be repaid. I don't know what arrangements there are about interest.

The upshot of all this is that the state doesn't own most of the school properties, and it can't simply expropriate them on the grounds that it has invested money in them. Even if an Irish government were to try that, they'd be shot down in flames, if not in the Irish courts then in the European Court of Human Rights. A democratic states with pretensions to respecting the rule of law cannot behave like this.

Setting the value of schools owned by diocesan trusts againt liablities owned by religious orders is also a non-runner, for much the same reason.

The good news is that the real issue here is not who owns schools; its how schools are run. Any campaign that focusses on bringing school properties into public ownership is basically a campaign to put truckloads of taxpayers' money in the trouser pockets of bishops. Focussing instead on facilitating the withdrawal of churches from school patronage, and I think the whole problem becomes a lot easier to solve.

The good news here is that the real issue is not who owns schools; it's how schools are run.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

. . . In 1850 less than 4% of the NS had direct RCC control over their boards, by 1900 that figure was 85% . . .

I think this is the key to it. I don't know what the total number of national schools contructed by 1850 was but I'd be reasonably confident that it was very small, since the system was only legislated for in 1837, and they had Other Priorities for much of the 1840s, what with the Famine and all. And, of the schools constructed by 1850, I seriously doubt that many are still in service as schools. And they would be small, old schools in remote/depopulated areas, so as a percentage of the, um, national school estate by value, they'd be trivial.

Which is why I say that the great bulk of national schools that we have today have never been in state ownership, and have never been governed under the Stanley system (which collapsed fairly quickly, because it was not well-adapted to Irish conditions to begin with).

You can lament the fact that the Stanley system did not survive, or that a better-designed system that might have survived wasn't put in place to begin with. But it's a historical what-if; the situation we are in now with regard to the ownership of school properties is not a product of the Stanley system, and virtually all of the the state funding that went into building up the present system was not paid in with any understanding or expectation, on either side, that it would build schools operating under the Stanley system. I don't think the fact that the Stanley system was once contemplated provides either a moral or a political argument for expropriating school properties now. (And I've already said that I think legal arguments for expropriation are a complete non-runner.)

Peregrinus wrote: »

Most national schools have never been owned by the State and, of the few that were owned by the State, I think the majority still are.

The (about 8, IIRC) Model Schools are owned by the Dept of Education. But they are all of either RCC or CoI patronage!

This didn't on the face of it confer any financial benefit on the patron

They got to proselytise kids for free, so a benefit certainly.

(And, as we know, that wasn't their motivation; what they got in return for providing the site was influence over the running of the school.)

Indeed.

Even if an Irish government were to try that, they'd be shot down in flames, if not in the Irish courts then in the European Court of Human Rights. A democratic states with pretensions to respecting the rule of law cannot behave like this.

Ironic, isn't it. The religious bodies have instant access to high-powered lawyers to protect their property rights. Parents and teachers who have their human rights violated every single day in religious patronage schools by these same bodies have no such access, and even if they could afford to fight a case all the way to the ECHR their child's education / career would be irreperably damaged by the time they could obtain vindication in court.

Setting the value of schools owned by diocesan trusts againt liablities owned by religious orders is also a non-runner, for much the same reason.

Yet these orders have had no difficulty in recent years realising the value of playing fields long attached to schools and using these large sums for their own purposes.

Focussing instead on facilitating the withdrawal of churches from school patronage, and I think the whole problem becomes a lot easier to solve.

And we've all seen the fierce rearguard actions they fight aganst any change, even in dioceses where the head guy says that he is all in favour of divestment...


With religious orders and religious education in Ireland, it's heads they win, tails you lose.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They didn't need government funds for their schools when they still had tithe income, presumably after disestablishment their stance changed.



And we still have any number of posters on boards peddling those myths as fact... :rolleyes:

Don't forget their opposition to 1916, and the War of Independence until it looked like the Brits might lose... Christian Brothers were very quiet about that...

Not forgetting the RCC's discouragement of the use of the Irish language in the 19th century, another area where they like to portray themselves as saviours and guardians.
Ironically, given the stance of Arlene and her jolly crew in Stormont, it was Protestants who did most to preserve the language which may partly explain the RCC's opposition to it.