nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Catholic Ireland dead? Mod Warning in Post #563

lbc2019

With that resounding 87% Yes in the exit poll for the divorce referendum surely that signifies the final nail in Catholic Ireland's coffin?

I for one am delighted.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

It's a myth that protestantism is more liberal than catholicism.

I know a few pioneers. They don't drink but don't mind if other people do. On the other hand, I've met plenty teetotal Presbyterians who are firmly opposed to any alcohol being served at social events they're attending. We're taking about weddings with a dry bar, birthday parties with nothing stronger than Schloer.

Then you have the left-footers that are so anti-gambling they won't allow a pack of cards in the house, won't allow their kids play the Lotto, have extremely conservative views on abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage etc.

The Catholic Church has plenty of faults and is deeply flawed but holding up the Prods as some sort of beacon of tolerance is seriously misguided.

Depends on the flavor of protestant I think, Presbyterians are pretty much what you're describing, at least here and Scotland. Other countries different levels such as the U.S.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Again I wouldn't assume that that statistic makes that proposed referendum a waste of time. It's an interesting statistic but in isolation it tells us nothing of interest about how many of those people are there by choice vs circumstance, how many want to work, what impact not having an income has on their lifestyle etc.

It makes the proposed referendum a waste of time because no matter what the outcomes of either a referendum or the data provided by a census, at the end of the day they’re only representative at a national level and don’t get down into the nitty gritty and nuances of people’s lives. It doesn’t matter how many people of whatever gender are there whether it’s by choice or circumstance because ultimately the State should be fulfilling its obligation to provide support for those people. Instead we’re cheering over Government “generously” extending parental leave for men? I think that’s silly, but I understand the enormous benefit it will be to other men - the support is there for them.

In the same way as you wouldn’t assume anything from census figures, I wouldn’t assume anything from either census figures or referendum outcomes, but I can understand why people would argue correlations in the data which suit their purposes, like declaring “Catholic Ireland” dead, and all the assumptions that come with that.

It’s still no reflection of the reality where only last week for example I was attending a Communion and at the after-party I got talking to one woman about her son who was in a wheelchair. Takes a lot to floor me but when she came out with “they won’t pay for my sons wheelchair, but they’ll pay for abortions. If women want abortions they should pay for them themselves, aren’t I right?” I couldn’t help myself saying “No, you’re not!”, before I got up and left her stew.

I would say the same to anyone who thinks that because they pay taxes they’re entitled to a say in what services are or aren’t provided for anyone else, regardless of their means and whether they pay taxes themselves or not. That’s how we got to a point in history before where the poor were holed up in poorhouses so the rest of civilised society didn’t have to look at them. That evolved into the mother and baby homes, and today we have the “homelessness hubs”. They’re all the same thing, all funded by Government who prefer to outsource the care of these people rather than provide proper services for the benefit of all people.

[Deleted User]

DubInMeath wrote: »

Depends on the flavor of protestant I think, Presbyterians are pretty much what you're describing, at least here and Scotland. Other countries different levels such as the U.S.

Not much difference between rural Church of Ireland and all Presbyterians / Methodists in my experience.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edgware wrote: »

Catholic Ireland may be gone but maybe Christian Ireland has got stronger. Great community spirit, great support of charities,
greater acceptance of differences. Extremism of any religion, political system is to be avoided

Are those things not often DESPITE Christianity, rather than good examples if?

For example when you say "acceptance of difference" remember that the 10 commandments central to very many of the over 33,000 variations and instances of Christianity specifically refer to having false gods. Which does not exactly make a useful initial step towards fostering inter-faith tolerance.

As for charities, our church appears to be little more than a (highly profitable) charity broker at the best of time. It is unclear what it, or any religion, really has to do with charity at all. And in fact the more secular countries last time I was shown figures on the subject (which admittedly was not recently) had a higher per capita charity level than religious countries like the US.

yasmina wrote: »

They are the only kids in the school of 100 who don't "do religion"

Similar here. Anecdote that amused me at the time, but is probably boring to retell.... but I will anyway....

Here in Germany you have to register in the local town hall of any city or town you move into. Our little town had one day a month when they were open for this service. So there was always a queue of 10-20 individuals or couples.

They write your religion down when you register as a "code". Two digits. The Christians and Muslims and even the Indian in front of us got their code written down right away, the Town Hall people knew their code from memory.

When we got there and said "Atheist / No Religion" they actually looked our code up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As determined by whom, you?

Says the guy who was declaring what pro-choice means and telling people who identify with the term that they are doing so incorrectly. Seems if people do not meet YOUR PERSONAL definitions it is ok to tell them that... but if someone else does it then not so. Bit rich.

But it is interesting of course that in a survey conducted during the Eucharist Congress than 8% of Catholics do not even think there is a god. Given this is probably the lowest bar many people might set for qualification for the term..... it seems no one at all, least of all posters here, have "determined" what the word means. It seems to have no actual meaning and sure anyone who wants to call themselves a Catholic can do so.

Sure who needs language to mean anything huh? We can all make words mean what we want any time we want. Communication would really work well then. Our species struggles to communicate even when we agree on terms.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Phew, that’s ok then. For a minute there I thought the Catholic Church had changed it’s position and I hadn’t got the memo.

Would that they would send some memos. Then perhaps the number of "Catholics" I meet who do not know what the church actually believe/teach on most issues..... even the ones seemingly most core to the faith....... might dwindle.

So far though as I said to you before the only "Catholic Education" people I have met appear to get in these Catholic Schools is that they ARE catholic. Nothing much else.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do agree with you though that one doesn’t need religion to be a dick to others

"You do not need to be mad to work here, but it helps".

You do not need to be religious to be a dick to others, but it helps. Quite often by giving people reasons or justifications for it that they otherwise would not have. Like recent Bishops declaring atheists to be not fully human. Or the "Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve" mantra used by the anti-homosexual.

We can certainly expect some such people to hate atheists or homosexuals anyway. But religion certainly gives them justifications and reasons they can reach for where ACTUAL arguments, evidence, data and reasoning is not available to lend substance to their positions.

And then they get to pass off the claims of bigotry too. "Don't shoot the messenger" type comments of "Oh I have nothing against homosexuality you see, it is this god over here that says......." so they then get to pretend their bigotry is second hand and merely relayed by a messenger from the actual source.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I could also have said if you’re Irish you support the abuse, rape and murder of children. If you’re a man? Yup - guilty. Any other characteristics I can draw associations between you and people who abuse, rape and murder children makes you as guilty as them.

Some distinction should of course be made between a characteristic you can not change, or should not be expected to reasonably change..... and those that one can change very easily. Supporting an organisation who has been known not just to have an issue with rape but has been known to harbour the criminals, facilitate the crimes, confound investigation, and cajole victims at many levels of the hierarchy in the organisation.......... is not really comparable with the Gender one was born with.

Sure someone who is horrified at the sexual crimes of one's own gender does have the option to say "Screw that I am changing Gender" but that does not come at quite the same level as withdrawing ones membership, finances, and support for the local clubhouse pertaining to their hobby of choice.

Your conflation of the two is spurious at best. It is not about an attribute they "have in common" as you put it. It is to do with who they actively support socially and financially and what those people have done with that support.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there are a minority of people within the organisation who used their authority to commit child abuse. It shouldn’t mean that the whole organisation or those who are members of the organisation should be accused of supporting child abuse. .

If however said GAA started protecting the abusers and rapists, moving them to other clubs away from their accusers, started cajoling or influencing the abusers to silence them, refused to pay reparations that were demanded of them, confounded investigations by withholding data or telling their people in position of power NOT to report information the legal authorities, all the while dictating to society at large their doctrine of sexual morality..... and this was happening throughout the varying levels of authority within then GAA...... you might start comparing like with like there.

And in THAT situation they yes, I would indeed question the moral position of anyone who is a paying up member of the GAA in that they are supporting such an organisation and such crimes by doing so.

But until you start to compare like with like here, your analogies are failing badly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t assume you have a religion.

It kinda does. The current question last time I checked (perhaps they changed it any my data is out of date) is "What is your religion?".

Not do you have one. Not if you have one. Nothing. Straight away, what is it. So the question itself does make that assumption.

The ANSWERS to it do offer "no religion" as a choice of course, so one can pedantically suggest that means the question itself does not assume you have a religion even though it does.

That said though the "no religion" option is not well placed. Not just at the bottom of the list but also AFTER the "OTHER" option which has 2 lines of white space. At minimum the "No religion" option should be BEFORE the "other" option. That is really remarkably bad placement for any survey let alone a census. Leaving white space for a final "If other please specify" style answer is common practice of course. But usually at the END of a list, not in the middle with other options after it.

But at best it would be better to have a more "Do you have one" and "If so what" structure. Suggestions like that are here.

[Deleted User]

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

Not much difference between rural Church of Ireland and all Presbyterians / Methodists in my experience.

Not in my experience to be honest, at least those I know.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It kinda does. The current question last time I checked (perhaps they changed it any my data is out of date) is "What is your religion?".

Not do you have one. Not if you have one. Nothing. Straight away, what is it. So the question itself does make that assumption.

The ANSWERS to it do offer "no religion" as a choice of course, so one can pedantically suggest that means the question itself does not assume you have a religion even though it does.

Who’s being pedantic only the people who are assuming that people don’t understand the question? It’s not as though it hasn’t been explained already in terms anyone can understand -

On its specialised website Census.ie, the Central Statistics Office says that everyone should answer the question whether they have a religion or not, but it also gives some guidance about how they answer it.

The CSO says that the question is not about how often they attend church or how they are brought up, but rather how they feel.

“People should answer the question based on how they feel now about their religious beliefs, if any,” the CSO says.

The question is asking about the person’s current religion or beliefs and not about the religion the person may have been brought up with. If the person has a religion they can identify that religion by ticking one of the tick box categories, or by writing in a description of your religion or beliefs in the write-in boxes.

“If they do not have a religion, they should go to the end of the question and mark the ‘No religion’ box.”

'What is your religion?' People are being urged to think hard about that come census night

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who’s being pedantic only the people who are assuming that people don’t understand the question?

In science we assume we are wrong. That is how science works. We do not go around proving ideas right, so much as we fail repeatedly to prove them wrong and they become established science.

Similarly the pedantry is likely to be your own here. Assuming people do not understand the question is GOOD practice when conducting any survey. Especially one that is expensive to run and for which the data could potentially change policy.

So yes, it is right to assume people will not understand the question. So simply asking "What is your religion?", and the built in assumption that you therefore have one, is really not good practice here. It is not their failure to understand the question that is at fault here. It is a poorly framed question.

The answers do not help much either. We really should not have answers in a Progression where something low on the list is potentially a subset of something higher up the list. The safe assumption is people will not read the entire list every time, but will tick the FIRST one that they feel applies to them. Given "No Religion" is a potential Subset of "Other" for example.... it is simply dumbass to have it AFTER "other". It should at the very least be before "other".

Worse if you look at the descriptive text WITH the question, it expressly mentions answers 1-5 and 6, but does not at all mention 7. So not only is it hidden down the end, they contrive not to mention it either.

There are also issues I could go into about why having the answer as a check box multiple choice is not a good idea either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not as though it hasn’t been explained already in terms anyone can understand -

Explaining it on a website is a not a good move either. It assumes access to that media and the competency to use it. Which not everyone has. Some have one or the other, some have neither. The move should be to make it as clear as possible at the location of the question.... have further data WITH the survey if required.... and have yet further and more detailed information on a website as a last resort.

A good example of this is the Passport Application. It comes with the form you must fill out and send back. Each question explains pretty clearly what answer is required. It then comes with an EXTRA information sheet separate further explaining each question so you can refer back and forth. If something is still not clear, you can then go to a third source of information.

But the ideal should always be to have the question as clear as possible first, and following intelligent practices like NOT having the question make assumptions about the answer and NOT having answers low on the list being potentially sub sets of answers higher up. To name but two.

Having information on a website that no one is likely to actually read saying "Actually the question is about how you feel!" is about as useful as the Demolition notice Arthur Dent had to find in the basement of the local townhouse in Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. He was not likely to know the notice was even there and/or worth reading.

But that the description you quote is not even remotely similar to that on the actual Census..... is just seriously weird to be honest. You quote “People should answer the question based on how they feel now about their religious beliefs, if any,” the CSO says. Reading the actual question on the census itself states nothing about your feelz. At all. Even a little bit.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Reading the actual question on the census itself states nothing about your feelz. At all. Even a little bit.

My point is that it was well publicised at the time. You’re free of course to draw what conclusions you like from the data as it was provided, but accusing anyone else of being pedantic in these circumstances - I’m finding it more difficult than usual to take your efforts seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that it was well publicised at the time.

I am aware what your point is, and that is the point I am countering above so merely re-stating your point in response hardly progresses the conversation.

We can not assume people will understand questions. Or that they will bother to, or even know to, access descriptive information at an external source.

We can OFFER those things to improve the situation of course, nothing wrong with that, but the ideal should still be to make the question, and it's associated answers, as clear up front on the actual page as possible.

This does involve assuming people will misunderstand every question..... and phrase them in a way to most effectively minimise the impact of that....... and to structure their ability to answer along best practice guidelines.

The question DOES make the assumption you are denying it makes in how it is phrased, and the structure of the question and it's associated answers does little to nothing to mitigate this failure.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m finding it more difficult than usual to take your efforts seriously.

Alas going on historical experience your level of expression of difficulty in taking me or my points seriously appears to directly scale with your inability to actually rebut anything I said. So forgive me if I in turn do not take this empty filler sentence as anything more than the guff and fluff it is.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So forgive me if I in turn do not take this empty filler sentence as anything more than the guff and fluff it is.

You’re forgiven.

topper75

sabat wrote: »

I'd take the cardinals and bishops over the insidious dykofascist quangistas any day of the week.

Uffff! I'm going to need a third choice there please Carol!

Although I must say dykofascist is a magnificent word.

suicide_circus

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone, It's with O'Leary in the grave.

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

Romantic Ireland's dead and gone, It's with O'Leary in the grave.

Strange quote to use given its nothing to do with Catholicism.

[Deleted User]

topper75 wrote: »

Uffff! I'm going to need a third choice there please Carol!

Although I must say dykofascist is a magnificent word.

That poster still hasn't answered a question asked in another thread as to how it was that the richest religion in the world managed to have children die of malnutrition while under it's care, given that they were better off with the nuns than their unwed mothers, so I'm not surprised at their articulate and well thought out post.

Hawkeye123

If the referendums are defeated it could signal the beginning of a resurgence of our Catholic heritage.

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121868743#Comment_121868743

They will likely be defeated as they were poorly thought out, poorly worded, poorly explained and a huge chunk of people understandably dislike our current government so it's a form of protest. What does "Catholic heritage" really even mean? Why do you think this will indicate a resurgence?

Mass attendances are in the toilet and dropping year on year, COVID gave them a huge extra kicking. Take your pick when it comes to scandals historic and current, the majority of people are done with the Catholic church, they might still put Catholic on a census form but it means very little.

https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/a-catholic-crisis-why-priests-in-ireland-are-fading-into-history-and-not-being-replaced

https://www.euronews.com/2023/02/02/irish-catholic-church-in-terminal-decline-since-sexual-abuse-scandals

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121868743#Comment_121868743

Not sure if it signals a resurgence but it definitely shows the church, and it’s fellow travellers, still hold more “sway” than previously thought.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121868743#Comment_121868743

No.

It looks like turnout will be below 40% so there isn't some large mass of Christian soldiers marching to victory.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121868743#Comment_121868743

Or just that they were rushed and poorly worded.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121868743#Comment_121868743

What kind of heritage was it? Do you think every church goer believed in the transubstantiation?

eagle eye

Catholic Ireland is alive and well. I've even had my kid go to first holy communion so as not to be an outsider.

I'm not religious but I can see the many who go to church every Sunday.

As regards homophobia and things like that, they are not as prevelant as they once were. Most people except the right wing deeply religious have moved with the times. I'm not sure but I don't think the catholic church go on about gay people being sinners anymore.

Hawkeye123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871178#Comment_121871178

Of course not. Every church goer had a unique set of beliefs which in turn were based on what they understood or misunderstood. If every Pope in history sat in the same room and discussed the faith, they would not agree on everything because the Popes were never infallible. But, at the end of the day, the Catholic Church is the one God founded and that is why it is under attack by the forces of evil 24/7. And yes, the evil has perpetrated the church itself. But, that is not a reason to forsake the Church. Catholics remain Catholic out of loyalty to God. I think Catholicism and Judaism have that in common, our founding was by God.

[Deleted User]

Hopefully.

cj maxx

I’ve only read the post above , but there’s alot of differences between various Presbyterian churches . But religious Ireland is dead . Apart from the deep South

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872270#Comment_121872270

Personally I think Irish Catholic identity has a lot to with political identity, being Catholic means not Protestant and therefore not British. The more Catholic you are, the more Irish you are.

All the scandals that happened in Ireland didn't just impact faith, but I think trust in the institutions that were supposedly the moral guidance for the country. In my opinion once religion starts to go beyond the personal and community it gets too murky, trying to tie an entire country to a religion is messy. As a country Ireland tied itself to Catholicism, but yet suffered hardships (mass unemployment, mass emigration and the you know what).

I was thinking recently of a neighbour who lost a child in a traffic accident, the priest was called to help console her and offer comfort etc. Now I'm sure through out their career the priest had to deal with a lot of that, taking on roles that most people couldn't deal with. Decent priests had a thankless job, they were probably more the face/outlet for the abuse scandals than the people who should have been.

tldr: keep it small and personal

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872270#Comment_121872270

All of this based on a book. If you were given that book and knew nothing about it you'd say it was a great fantasy novel. There's so many good stories in it. Great way to control the masses.

The biggest laugh is a fisherman from West Asia ending up in Italy.

Many years ago for fun I used to tell staunch Catholics that I just seen a cloud lower from the sky and a man step on it and go up on it she disappear.

The almost unanimous response was that, in a joking manner, I must have a mental problem that needs sorting.

Then I'd remind them that they all believe that this happened nearly 2000 years ago. 😁

forrestgeorge

Catholic Ireland, in fact Catholics world wide will come back stronger than ever, we are in a transition phase between the two types of Catholics.

The "Turn the other cheek" Catholic has been the majority for living memory but that is changing, the second type Luke 22:36 " and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

We are going to see a swing to Catholics that will stove your head in .....and then ask God for forgiveness, pretty standard for long periods of time in the last 2000 years.

The more woke progressive madness is pushed, the more Catholics will morph into the Luke 22:36 type, the push to rebrand podophiles into MAPS and accept them will be the straw that broke the camels back.

Firework are on the cards in the next few years.

silliussoddius

So Qanon revenge fantasy catcholicism.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121871265#Comment_121871265

That particular reason for going to first communion pretty much proves that the church is an empty shell, with no substance. Or maybe your kid heard about the fundraising aspect of first communion?

Hawkeye123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121872877#Comment_121872877

I don't think you can say Catholicism was the cause of economic hardship. That would have been the protectionist policies of De Velera. Even though he would have been opposed to communism, he didn't know how capitalism works. Tariffs are a bad idea and Ireland should be telling the rest of the EU and the US that imposing tariffs did not work well for us in the past.