Catholic Church, Mass Attendance

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2020 11:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But it's a done deal. The state can't go back and expropriate the properties simply because it regrets having done the deal, any more than the patrons could turn around and evict the schools if they wished to turn the properties to more commercially advantageous purposes.

The state got what it bargained for out of the deal that it did. So did the patrons. If either of them now wishes to set off on a different tack, that needs to be done by negotiation and agreement. Even though one party is the state and the other is a private party, the rules apply to them both. That's what the "rule of law" means.

Yes, it is a done deal.

A huge transfer of assets from the State to one particular religion combined with the handing over control of much of the education system to that same religion enabling it to continue to gain adherents.

It may not be possible to now change the terms but it is possible to acknowledge what happened. To combat this mistake belief that the RCC were some benign benefactors who should be credited with us having an education system.

It is possible to ensure that State funds are not used on capital projects where the ownership is in the hands (clutches) of religious orders.
As we have seen by the Maternity Hosp debacle - far from seeking to retain ownership of assets, the State is still finding 'reasons' to transfer them to religious orders.

That is outrageous in a Republic.

Buy the damn land if you must, or find an alternative, but no foundation should be laid on school/hosp until it's owner is clearly The State and therefore the Irish people.

Quite simply - the State shouldn't be using taxpayers money increasing the value of assets that do not belong to the State.

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2020 12:01pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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

Indeed.

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.

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.

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.

It's almost like people have been educated to think a certain way when it comes to the RCC. :rolleyes:

The first thing that needs to happen is this nonsense that schools cannot be non-denominational if they are to receive State funds. I would go so far as to say the default setting should be non-denominational.

No State funded school should endorse any religion. This does not mean religion cannot be taught as an academic subject.

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2020 12:22pm

Marhay70 wrote: »

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.

The greatest irony of all is that Irish Republicanism was born among Ulster Presbyterians.

The much lamented late Prof Donnchadh Ó Corráin would on occasion go on an absolute rant about how the Irish language and heritage would ironically have fared better under British rule. He would catalogue, in great detail with references to primary sources, the utter failures of the Irish State to protect our heritage when compared to steps taken in Scotland and Wales.
Once heard an absolute eejit call Donnchadh a 'West Brit' for critically comparing the Irish State with the UK - let's just say that was the cnoc that eejit perished upon as a proud (but in his view betrayed) Cork republican gave him chapter and verse - in Old and New Irish and finally in English when it was apparent that the eejit in question had less than a cúpla fócal to his name.

Fritzbox · 07-05-2020 12:36pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The first thing that needs to happen is this nonsense that schools cannot be non-denominational if they are to receive State funds. I would go so far as to say the default setting should be non-denominational.

Is this true? Would be amazing if it is.

The much lamented late Prof Donnchadh Ó Corráin would on occasion go on an absolute rant about how the Irish language and heritage would ironically have fared better under British rule. He would catalogue, in great detail with references to primary sources, the utter failures of the Irish State to protect our heritage when compared to steps taken in Scotland and Wales.

Such a suggestion doesn't really survive any historical and comparative analysis.

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2020 12:44pm

Fritzbox wrote: »

Is this true? Would be amazing if it is.

Such a suggestion doesn't really survive any historical and comparative analysis.

Dept. of Education rules. Best that can be hoped for is 'multi- dom'

And yet a world renowned expert in Irish history was able to do just that.

Tell you what - do a google on what happened to the 'Great Houses'. Start with Coole House and work out from there.

Peregrinus · 08-05-2020 2:34am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

. . . Quite simply - the State shouldn't be using taxpayers money increasing the value of assets that do not belong to the State.

But it does that all the time. So does the EU. So do lots of other states. This isn't a treatment afforded only to churches, it isn't a treatment afforded only in Ireland, and it isn't a treatment afforded only to schools and hospitals.

Usually the purpose of the state funding a project is not to increase the state's landed estate; it's to secure the societal benefits that the project is expected to bring. Hence the state engages in all kinds of expenditure that increases the value of properties not in state ownership, from assisting in the provision or improvement of sports facilities or cultural facilities to building roads and subsidising public transport (which signficantly increase the value of property served by those roads or by that public transport).

I'd warn against getting hung up on the ownership of property. The ownership of property is not the central issue here. You are being brainwashed by neoliberal doctrine of the supreme and transcendant value of capital!

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2020 10:44am

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it does that all the time. So does the EU. So do lots of other states. This isn't a treatment afforded only to churches, it isn't a treatment afforded only in Ireland, and it isn't a treatment afforded only to schools and hospitals.

Usually the purpose of the state funding a project is not to increase the state's landed estate; it's to secure the societal benefits that the project is expected to bring. Hence the state engages in all kinds of expenditure that increases the value of properties not in state ownership, from assisting in the provision or improvement of sports facilities or cultural facilities to building roads and subsidising public transport (which signficantly increase the value of property served by those roads or by that public transport).

I'd warn against getting hung up on the ownership of property. The ownership of property is not the central issue here. You are being brainwashed by neoliberal doctrine of the supreme and transcendant value of capital!

It's not the ownership of land that primarily concerns me - it's the State tacitly endorsing a religion - in contravention of the Constitution - in a nod n' wink way.
Through mental gymnastics worthy of a Jesuit the State 'demonstrates' that granting one religion control over education - and in some situations healthcare (in particular for women) - and funding them to do so isn't endorsing.

It bloody well is.

This must be the first time I have ever heard demanding the State has full control of assets as neoliberal. :P

Marhay70 · 08-05-2020 11:36am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's not the ownership of land that primarily concerns me - it's the State tacitly endorsing a religion - in contravention of the Constitution - in a nod n' wink way.
Through mental gymnastics worthy of a Jesuit the State 'demonstrates' that granting one religion control over education - and in some situations healthcare (in particular for women) - and funding them to do so isn't endorsing.

It bloody well is.

This must be the first time I have ever heard demanding the State has full control of assets as neoliberal. :P

We have to remember how close the RCC came to becoming the State religion in 1937. Eamon de Valera was a man with whom I wouldn't have had much in common in my youth but as time has passed I've come to recognise how skilled in diplomacy he was. Mc Quaid was said to be apoplectic at his stance and also at his referral to the Church of Ireland as just that. We really dodged a bullet there.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2020 11:51am

Marhay70 wrote: »

We have to remember how close the RCC came to becoming the State religion in 1937. Eamon de Valera was a man with whom I wouldn't have had much in common in my youth but as time has passed I've come to recognise how skilled in diplomacy he was. Mc Quaid was said to be apoplectic at his stance and also at his referral to the Church of Ireland as just that. We really dodged a bullet there.

I have always felt that Dev was, as usual, Jesuitical, in how he dealt with that.
Although he didn't give in to McQuaid's demands to make Roman Catholicism the official State Religion, by acknowledging the 'special position' of the RCC - following that by 'recognising' other religious denominations exist - he gave enough wriggle room for the RCC to be the de facto State religion.

You still hear it today - "Ireland is a Catholic country" - no, it isn't. It is a country with a lot of Catholics. Not quite the same thing.

Marhay70 · 08-05-2020 12:22pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have always felt that Dev was, as usual, Jesuitical, in how he dealt with that.
Although he didn't give in to McQuaid's demands to make Roman Catholicism the official State Religion, by acknowledging the 'special position' of the RCC - following that by 'recognising' other religious denominations exist - he gave enough wriggle room for the RCC to be the de facto State religion.

You still hear it today - "Ireland is a Catholic country" - no, it isn't. It is a country with a lot of Catholics. Not quite the same thing.

Jesuitical insofar as he recognised that political union of Ireland would be made all the more difficult if such a clause were to be inserted into the Constitution, as was his decision to include other Christian positions too, albeit with an inferior place
It was, quite simply, what we today would recognise as a fudge, however given that Dev was, throughout his life, a devout Catholic, I think it was a brave stance to take at that time. Mc Quaid was a potent force in Ireland and not one to cross.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2020 12:53pm

Marhay70 wrote: »

Jesuitical insofar as he recognised that political union of Ireland would be made all the more difficult if such a clause were to be inserted into the Constitution, as was his decision to include other Christian positions too, albeit with an inferior place
It was, quite simply, what we today would recognise as a fudge, however given that Dev was, throughout his life, a devout Catholic, I think it was a brave stance to take at that time. Mc Quaid was a potent force in Ireland and not one to cross.

He could have made no mention of religion. It was an option.

The 1922 Constitution made no mention of religion, which when you think about it was a more effective tactic if one was considering eventual Irish unification.

Giving voice to the 'special position' of the RCC was playing right into the hands of Unionists who claimed Home Rule was Rome Rule - and they weren't a million miles from the truth.

There really was no imperative for Dev to even produce a new Constitution. The 1922 was more than fit for purpose, plus technically Ireland was still the Free State when Dev wrote his so the political situation hadn't changed.

Marhay70 · 08-05-2020 1:17pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He could have made no mention of religion. It was an option.

The 1922 Constitution made no mention of religion, which when you think about it was a more effective tactic if one was considering eventual Irish unification.

Giving voice to the 'special position' of the RCC was playing right into the hands of Unionists who claimed Home Rule was Rome Rule - and they weren't a million miles from the truth.

There really was no imperative for Dev to even produce a new Constitution. The 1922 was more than fit for purpose, plus technically Ireland was still the Free State when Dev wrote his so the political situation hadn't changed.

I agree that there was no need to mention religion but Dev was under pressure from both the RCC and members of his own party to do so.
On another note, just heard the the Vatican has agreed to release the land at St. Vincent's Hospital to allow the Children's Hospital to go ahead. So nice of them, I wonder if the situation had arisen twenty years ago , would they have been so accommodating.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2020 3:39pm

Marhay70 wrote: »

We have to remember how close the RCC came to becoming the State religion in 1937. Eamon de Valera was a man with whom I wouldn't have had much in common in my youth but as time has passed I've come to recognise how skilled in diplomacy he was. Mc Quaid was said to be apoplectic at his stance and also at his referral to the Church of Ireland as just that. We really dodged a bullet there.

The state had to be seen to be treating protestants fairly

Even as the IRA was burning out what was left of the landed gentry and I don't think a single prosecution was ever attempted

Even as divorce and contraception were banned in accordance with RC doctrine

Even as a strict censorship regime was imposed which gave control of it to the most doctrinaire of doctrinaire RCs

Even as married women were mostly forbidden from working (it was reversed for teachers only because of a shortage, the rest lasted until 1973!)

Even as an irredentist constitution was brought in which recognised the 'special position' of the RCC

Even as boycotts and intimidation occurred and the organs of the state turned a blind eye

It was not a "warm place" to be a non-catholic.

Although the state did (and still does) afford CoI schools certain privileges, such as enhanced access to school transport, and they retain the ability to nakedly discriminate in admission on grounds of religion.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:03pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

When the current batch of dyed in the wool elderly mass goers die off, attendances will go through the floor, their children and grandchildren no longer will have to keep them happy with empty gestures.

Just a couple questions esp if you are in Ireland which many in this thread seem to be.

Did you grow up Catholic and are you still Christian? If so, do you attend services of ANY denomination now. (at least before the quarantine)?

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:16pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Instead of being smart and dismissing it as a desperate attempt to be cool, maybe you could consider that a lot of anti Catholic sentiment is based on personal experience of the various abuses they carried out.

It's easy to see mass as a positive when your overall experience of the church is one of kindness, please remember that some of us still carry trauma from past abuse and find that interpretation insulting.

I definitely agree with you. I always had a good experience in the Catholic Church growing up ( I am in the USA), but I know a certain percentage did not. The church should have done a better job of protecting children from that. They have paid the price now with decreasing attendance. I DO believe however that the church serves a good purpose and function overall.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-05-2020 2:22pm

Indian82 wrote: »

I DO believe however that the church serves a good purpose and function overall.

That was the subject of the intelligence squared debate which the pro catholic side lost by a landslide. The topic was "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World" and seemingly the "pro" side found the motion impossible to defend well.

So I have to say I would take some convincing before I ended up sharing the same belief as you on the subject.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:28pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Mass attendances usually decline in good times and can increase in bad times.

Forget about the religion part of it, but churches can be very peaceful places for the mind. Some churches are very old, hundreds and hundreds of year old and can be pleasing to the eye.

My view is we are all trying to make it through this life, and what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for someone else. A faith does help some people, but if one doesn't have a faith then it doesn't help that person. I don't understand what a person gets out of being bitter towards a religion, it is not causing happiness for them. I don't know why people want to hang onto the unhappiness, while wanting to take away what brings happiness to others.

I use to view people based on what they believed in terms of them having a religion or none. But I know looking back I was wrong. The main aim in this life is to survive and to cope. There are various things people do that helps them cope, religion is one for some. Some take it too far, but then some do with other coping mechanisms too.
People have a lot of different coping mechanisms and this is one that can get overlooked. Maybe as a person gets older and is getting closer to facing their destiny, the purpose of their life can come into question, for some maybe death terrifies them as its the final destination, for some death is just part of a longer journey and in these cases maybe they are having a better life due to their faith.
For this reason I don't think religion of any kind will be disappearing anytime soon, but the churches are like the shops on the high street and will have to move with the technological age.

Well said. Religion and churches serve many purposes. They DO have to rid themselves of any bad priests that still remain. I think here in the US they have gone a long way to do that. I also think they will eventually have to open up more to women and married priests if it is to continue to thrive.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-05-2020 2:28pm

Indian82 wrote: »

Just a couple questions esp if you are in Ireland which many in this thread seem to be.

Did you grow up Catholic and are you still Christian? If so, do you attend services of ANY denomination now. (at least before the quarantine)?

Most here would have been brought up catholic but would now be atheist (although may or may not use that word to describe themselves)

Over 90% of primary schools are still catholic so a full catholic education is still very much the default. The difference between today and when I was growing up is that few parents today even go through the motions of church attendance.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-05-2020 2:32pm

Indian82 wrote: »

They DO have to rid themselves of any bad priests that still remain. I think here in the US they have gone a long way to do that. I also think they will eventually have to open up more to women and married priests if it is to continue to thrive.

Fat chance. Here in Ireland the bishops who covered up for paedophiles are still in office. The very few coming through the seminary appear to be ultra-conservative.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:36pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if it was subsumed into the state. Similar to the UK or some of the Scandinavians. Obviously most people don't believe in the religious nonsense hut the tradition and rituals can be a fun addition to an occasion.

It's what people already do when they only go to church for occasions like funerals and coming of age ceremonies like first communion and confirmation.

I also wouldn't mind of the Catholic Church died out in Ireland as long as people can replace the social scene of attending church with something else.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind, but it's probably not going to die out. And as mentioned before, the church does MANY charitable things. For your distrust in the church, I have an equal distrust of the state determining what is best for people. That has an ugly history as well. Many would say even uglier.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:42pm

Patois wrote: »

evil sick fcuks everywhere, infecting every thing. plenty of sickos in television/movie industry so lets boycott that... hhahaha a

Yes - We know all about that here in the US. Epstein. Weinstein. And because they had money and influence other powerful people were all over them. I bet nothing is investigated deeply about some of the connections those powerful people had with those scumbags. Not that Epstein dying was a great loss, but a trial would have been interesting to see what would come out of it.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:46pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that you just have been allowed to ask those questions.

I think you know what he means. Has anybody in authority or with some power (govt, media, etc) asked those questions?

crossman47 · 16-05-2020 2:54pm

Indian82 wrote: »

Just a couple questions esp if you are in Ireland which many in this thread seem to be.

Did you grow up Catholic and are you still Christian? If so, do you attend services of ANY denomination now. (at least before the quarantine)?

I live in Ireland and I am a practising (badly) catholic. I do not do this for the sake of any priest or bishop but for my own solace (which I am sure I would also find in other Christian churches). But I must add that I admire many priests and nuns who do nothing but good and are led by their christian calling, people like Brother Kevin or Sister Stan today and nuns and priests in the past who provided healthcare for all when the state did not.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 2:58pm

Marhay70 wrote: »

Wouldn't disagree with any of that but they also have the slogan of "come in here and listen to us if you want to live forever" which is far and above anything the likes of Google have to offer and stems from their roots in Christianity. This is why they still have a significant number of people attending Mass regularly, it's the fear factor, more powerful than any other.

I kind of think Jesus originated that 'slogan', no? He also said 'Follow me.' If you have a problem with that and the concept of Christianity then fine, be honest and state that and we will understand your basic philosophy.

I agree many have abused the authority entrusted to them. But most try to do their best
and follow Jesus' principles. But we are human and we all fail. Forgiveness was also a big part of Jesus' teachings. Jesus picked a flawed man who had even betrayed him to lead his church. That man suffered persecution and went to his death because of his beliefs and proclaiming Jesus' words.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-05-2020 2:58pm

Indian82 wrote: »

the church does MANY charitable things.

Does it though. They have a business model which seems to me to be desribable as a "Charity Broker". Which is that they provide a face for people to donate money to, which they then redistribute. Not before, if you look at the sheer wealth in places like the Vatican, skimming a nice healthy % for themselves off the top.

I would prefer to donate directly towards a charity, than a charity broker myself.

Further a lot of the "charity" that missionaries and churches tend to do.... seems actually to be more a front for evangelising the vulnerable. They might do some work while they are there, but I remain entirely unconvinced that their primary goal is charity in many locations.

Finally charity is not always a good thing. Overall it has a good rep, but it is not always the best thing you can do for people. I am not sure I trust the church to make that distinction well.

Indian82 wrote: »

If you have a problem with that and the concept of Christianity then fine

Well one "concept of Christianity" seems to be scapegoating, with human sacrifice replacing the goat. And yes, I very much do have a moral and ethical issue with Scapegoating as a concept.

Indian82 wrote: »

But we are human and we all fail. Forgiveness was also a big part of Jesus' teachings.

And of mine. But people need to SEEK forgiveness with an open heart. Not try to cover up the crime, silence the victims, and use the hierarchy of their organisation to have them transferred to other jurisdictions to keep them safe.

I find myself morally and ethically unable to afford forgiveness to those who not only did not seek it, but sought the exact opposite.... to compound and cover up their crimes. And I hold equal ire for those who facilitated such cover ups, as I do for the people who actually perpetuated the crimes in question.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-05-2020 3:04pm

Indian82 wrote: »

I'm sure you wouldn't mind, but it's probably not going to die out. And as mentioned before, the church does MANY charitable things. For your distrust in the church, I have an equal distrust of the state determining what is best for people. That has an ugly history as well. Many would say even uglier.

I didn't suggest the state should tell people what to do. I did say I'd be fine with the Catholic Church being like the state religions in the UK and Scandinavia. Those religions are there if people want them for rituals and tradition sake and they stay out of the way if people don't want them, which is ideal In my opinion.

I don't think the Catholic Church will die out completely. There are still followers of all kinds of religions that used to be more common. There are wicca followers and other pagan religions in Ireland. Isn't yer man Ken Barlow from coronation street (popular soap opera in the UK) a Druid? Religions don't have to die out completely to lose their influence over the society. I'd be fine if Catholicism loses its influence over society.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 3:06pm

Marhay70 wrote: »

Far be it from me to be defending the RCC but the same is true of most religions. It stems from a time where people thought that Gods lived in certain places and so brought them all their most precious possessions in an effort to get a favourable response whether it be a good harvest or a victory in battle etc. etc. In fact Christianity only became the main religion in the Western world because the Emperor Constantine thought that the Christian God helped him in a critical battle.

That may have been a contributing factor, but didn't his mother who was already a Christian have a lot to do with that?

splinter65 · 16-05-2020 3:07pm

Indian82 wrote: »

I'm sure you wouldn't mind, but it's probably not going to die out. And as mentioned before, the church does MANY charitable things. For your distrust in the church, I have an equal distrust of the state determining what is best for people. That has an ugly history as well. Many would say even uglier.

The current acting minister for children had a master plan which basically centered around all children being in full time daycare from the end of maternity leave through to school and part time day care after that. Apparently all the parents of all the children would be at work all of the time despite numerous reports that that’s not what parents want at all. It does appear that that’s what Ms Zappone thought was best for all of us though. Unfortunately for her irish parents didn’t think much of this and she was rejected at the last election. It was a good attempt though.

Indian82 · 16-05-2020 3:14pm

Isabelle Uneven Sleuth wrote: »

Btw, you have still to answer my previous questions.

For such a devote Catholic as you like to state here on boards do you adhere to all of their teachings:
- Have you had sex before marriage?
- Have you used contraception?
- Do you read the bible?
- Do you regularly go to confession and tell the priest your actual sins?

Do you live by any rules?

Always follow the speed limit, never drove after having a few too many? The perfect citizen?
I bet you still pay your taxes and give it to your infallible government that strives to be bigger and tell us what to do and make decisions for us because they know best.

smacl · 16-05-2020 3:15pm

Indian82 wrote: »

Just a couple questions esp if you are in Ireland which many in this thread seem to be.

Did you grow up Catholic and are you still Christian? If so, do you attend services of ANY denomination now. (at least before the quarantine)?

Grew up atheist, both parents atheist, grandparents on one side Catholic on the other side Jewish.

I'm of the opinion that the church do a certain amount of good but the balance lies very much in the other direction. The combination of atrocious scandals and a regressive morality that is totally out of kilter with that commonly held by the majority of the population has left the Catholic church here very much in decline. Again just my opinion, but Catholicism in this country has more to do with tradition than firmly held religious beliefs.

Catholic Church, Mass Attendance

Comments