Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

swampgas · 16-01-2014 12:20PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's not the "right" religion. It's simply the same religion as the community who operate the school for their community.

Whether you like it or not, schools are established under a patronage model to allow religious communities to educate their children. Schools are/can also be established under other - non-religious patrons. But haven't been, in any great numbers, for some reason.

The problem here is that there is no well defined religious community any more. If Catholic can mean anything you like, and if most Irish "Catholics" don't bother with mass or sacraments or obeying the Pope, what do we need "Catholic ethos" schools for? Surely the indoctrination going on in RCC schools today is actually at odds with the beliefs of most of the parents?

Can Catholic schools also declare that Catholicism is what they say it is, and say that its a vague wishy-washy community of self-described Catholics? If that's the case, can these Catholic ethos schools fix their patronage (why should it be the Bishop?), and stop discriminating based on who has a baptismal cert or not?

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 12:28PM

swampgas wrote: »

The problem here is that there is no well defined religious community any more. If Catholic can mean anything you like, and if most Irish "Catholics" don't bother with mass or sacraments or obeying the Pope, what do we need "Catholic ethos" schools for? Surely the indoctrination going on in RCC schools today is actually at odds with the beliefs of most of the parents?

Can Catholic schools also declare that Catholicism is what they say it is, and say that its a vague wishy-washy comunity of self-described Catholics? If that's the case, can these Catholic ethos schools fix their patronage (why should it be the Bishop?), and stop discriminating based on who has a baptismal cert or not?

You have raised an excellent point there swampgas.

If there is no set of criteria which must be met to be considered a Catholic bar self-identifying as one - can there be such as thing as a specifically Catholic ethos?

smacl · 16-01-2014 12:31PM

robindch wrote: »

Distinguish between homoiousios and homoousios

Something to do with the ratio of chick peas to tahini?

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:34PM

robindch wrote: »

You weren't asked for an excuse. You were asked you to name names or withdraw your snide remark -- not your first either -- about other posters here in A+A.

Well Ok, if you insist.

Some of the posts I had in mind when I said: "Most catholics don't crave the sense of order and box-ticking that some people on here do." are:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already did. 84.2% people self identified as catholics in the census, yet only (at best) 30% of "catholics" attend mass.

robindch wrote: »

...the RCC has a more general set of rulebooks which explain what you have to do and what you have to believe in order for the church to consider somebody a "catholic".

Most people merrily ignore these rules. So the question is: are they still catholics?

While the answer seems clear enough to most posters here, you seem unable to accept it.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I can't understand why people who show no support for the Catholic church:

Don't go to mass, confession, don't believe/understand transubstantiation
Don't ally with the church's teachings on abortion, contaception, divorce, homosexuality
Don't really believe that Jesus is a god.

Yet they then turn around and say I want my children taught the church's teachings and I want them taught it in school (because I couldn't be arsed doing it myself probably!?)

Are these people hypocrites or nutters or both???

and more recently:

robindch wrote: »

You've already been corrected on this at least once -- people here are laughing at the catholics who can't agree amongst themselves on what they are.

That isn't pedantry, that's funny

King Mob wrote: »

But these religious communities evidently do not share much of anything. Polls show that they have a wide range of opinions on all topics including on whether or not they should actually adhere to any of the defining characteristics of their community.
If we are to go by what you are saying, the only thing that they do share is the name they call themselves. Nothing else.

Cabaal wrote: »

People like this are the future of the church and even they don't agree with the church,

To be honest this persons view is no different to all catholics views, they pick and choose what they want to believe, nothing more.

All of the above, in my humble opinion, seem to indicate that the writers would be far more comfortable (crave) a more ordered, clear-cut, black and white view of religious belief from everyone. It would sit better with them and allow better organisation of society.

It's just my opinion. Obviously people (the people above in particular may dissagree). I don't think it was a snide remark. It wasn't meant to be. There is nothing wrong with craving order in one's life. I just don't believe it is at all possible to really pin-down people on their religious beliefs given the huge number of variables involved. The best you can do, as I've said from the start of this debate, is to ask them the question and take their word for it - not to second guess.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:38PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You have raised an excellent point there swampgas.

If there is no set of criteria which must be met to be considered a Catholic bar self-identifying as one - can there be such as thing as a specifically Catholic ethos?

If that is the case, then your sister is free, in your eyes, to call herself a catholic if she wishes? Given that the criteria/Q&A list you completed with her would have no right or wrong answers which would indicate: Catholic/Not Catholic.

16-01-2014 12:39PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

All of the above, in my humble opinion, seem to indicate that the writers would be far more comfortable (crave) a more ordered, clear-cut, black and white view of religious belief from everyone. It would sit better with them and allow better organisation of society.

You've misrepresented my quote.

I was pointing out the problem your position leads to when you posit that Catholism is a community but also state that you dont need to adhere to any characteristics of that community.

A person who devotes himself entirely to the church and a person who is effectively as atheist as I am but still identify as catholic would be part of the same catholic community according to you.

swampgas · 16-01-2014 12:41PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

All of the above, in my humble opinion, seem to indicate that the writers would be far more comfortable (crave) a more ordered, clear-cut, black and white view of religious belief from everyone. It would sit better with them and allow better organisation of society.

It's just my opinion. Obviously people (the people above in particular may dissagree). I don't think it was a snide remark. It wasn't meant to be. There is nothing wrong with being craving order in one's life. I just don't believe it is at all possible to really pin-down people on their religious beliefs given the huge number of variables involved. The best you can do, as I've said from the start of this debate, is to ask them the question and take their word for it - not to second guess.

In a secular country nobody would care much how people self-identified (well, I would, because I'm a pedant). The frustrating thing for a lot of non-religious people is how the state is still very closely tied to the RCC, partly because it is assumed that "almost all Irish people are Catholic", and that's partly because people who simply want the "Catholic" label keep ticking the box in the census, despite their lack of adherence to Catholic dogma.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

You've misrepresented my quote.

I was pointing out the problem your position leads to when you posit that Catholism is a community but also state that you dont need to adhere to any characteristics of that community.

A person who devotes himself entirely to the church and a person who is effectively as atheist as I am but still identify as catholic would be part of the same catholic community according to you.

Thanks for clarrifying.

I am suggesting that one does not need to tick "yes" on ALL of the rules of the RCC church to identify oneself as a Roman Catholic. Whether a particular RCC community (or the larger church accepts you is kinda immaterial). The RCC is not looking over your shoulder when you complete the census form.

Your final paragraph still seems to indicate to me that you are baffled that people can choose to identify as a particular religion but have very (vastly) different points of view. I would suggest that you would prefer if people were more rational/black-and-white when doing this. But, heh, welcome to the RCC..........we take all comers.

Delirium · 16-01-2014 12:46PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Thanks for clarrifying.

I am suggesting that one does not need to tick "yes" on ALL of the rules of the RCC church to identify oneself as a Roman Catholic. Whether a particular RCC community (or the larger church accepts you is kinda immaterial). The RCC is not looking over your shoulder when you complete the census form.

Your final paragraph still seems to indicate to me that you are baffled that people can choose to identify as a particular religion but have very (vastly) different points of view. I would suggest that you would prefer if people were more rational/black-and-white when doing this. But, heh, welcome to the RCC..........we take all comers.

If someone ticks no to all of the rules for the RCC church, can they identify as Roman Catholic?

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:47PM

swampgas wrote: »

In a secular country nobody would care much how people self-identified (well, I would, because I'm a pedant). The frustrating thing for a lot of non-religious people is how the state is still very closely tied to the RCC, partly because it is assumed that "almost all Irish people are Catholic", and that's partly because people who simply want the "Catholic" label keep ticking the box in the census, despite their lack of adherence to Catholic dogma.

Who are we to say who should tick which box and identify themselves as a particular religious point of view on the census?

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:49PM

SW wrote: »

If someone ticks no to all of the rules for the RCC church, can they identify as Roman Catholic?

Yes. If they want to.

I, you or the RCC might have things to say about it, but it's entirely their call.

People identify themselves as all kinds of things all the time for all kinds of different reasons.

16-01-2014 12:51PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Thanks for clarrifying.

I am suggesting that one does not need to tick "yes" on ALL of the rules of the RCC church to identify oneself as a Roman Catholic. Whether a particular RCC community (or the larger church accepts you is kinda immaterial). The RCC is not looking over your shoulder when you complete the census form.

Your final paragraph still seems to indicate to me that you are baffled that people can choose to identify as a particular religion but have very (vastly) different points of view. I would suggest that you would prefer if people were more rational/black-and-white when doing this.

I don't care what people self identify as, regardless of how illogical.
What I and most people you are accusing care about is people misusing what the census says.
We care about people using Catholicism to discriminate in state-funded education, especially when most people don't actually care about the ethos in schools.

Your position highlights this problem. You say that discrimination is ok for the benefit of a community that the vast majority of people who claim to be part of it don't actually take part in it.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But, heh, welcome to the RCC..........we take all comers.

Unless they're gay, then they can't be as catholic as others.

Delirium · 16-01-2014 12:54PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. If they want to.

I, you or the RCC might have things to say about it, but it's entirely their call.

People identify themselves as all kinds of things all the time for all kinds of different reasons.

That's just humouring them, in the same way if they claimed to be a helicopter.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:54PM

King Mob wrote: »

Unless they're gay, then they can't be as catholic as others.

That's not true. But don't let it stop you saying it as if it is.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 12:59PM

SW wrote: »

That's just humouring them, in the same way if they claimed to be a helicopter.

At the extreme end you describe (absolute zero match between person's beliefs and RCC's views). But, let's be honest, most people who identify as catholic do have some match between their own and the RCC's views.

There is a wealth of ideas/concepts in the Cathecism of the RCC and in the Church's social teaching (See Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching) that most people can get on board with, people of all religions and none.

So it's never quite 0%. What's it to be? Are you catholic if you agree with 10%, 33%, 49%, 75%, 98%..............or do you have to hit the 100% mark?

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 12:59PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not true. But don't let it stop you saying it as if it is.

Oh right. One can be a Gay Catholic as long as you don't have sex.

How very tolerant of them.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 01:01PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh right. One can be a Gay Catholic as long as you don't have sex.

How very tolerant of them.

That's not true either.

Catholics who happen to be gay are every bit entitled to be every bit as "real" a catholic as anyone else.

16-01-2014 01:07PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not true either.

Catholics who happen to be gay are every bit entitled to be every bit as "real" a catholic as anyone else.

Except that they are denied the rituals that other Catholics are allowed to take part in.
Kind of hard to be part of a community when you can't do more that just tick a box every few years.

I assume that you're just going to ignore the rest of my point in that post?

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 01:11PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If that is the case, then your sister is free, in your eyes, to call herself a catholic if she wishes? Given that the criteria/Q&A list you completed with her would have no right or wrong answers which would indicate: Catholic/Not Catholic.

I asked a series of questions. Questions inspired by this:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a full description of the tenets of Catholicism — the essential and basic beliefs in Catholicism. It defines the points of unity for Catholics.

It would appear that there are indeed 'right' and 'wrong' answers - at least as far as the Roman Catholic Catechism is concerned.

The questions I asked covered these areas:

The scope of these Tenets of Catholicism

The full content of the Catholic faith can be organized into four categories:

Basic beliefs (the faith itself)
How to live (morality)
How Catholics worship (liturgy)
Prayer

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/tenets-of-catholicism.html

Does my sister, the Self-Identified Catholic, meet these criteria?
1. Basic Beliefs. No.
2. How to Live. No.
3. How to Worship. No.
4. Prayer. No.

I didn't write these criteria. They are the criteria as set down by the Roman Catholic Church. But according to you - they don't matter.

You maintain that as long as one considers oneself a Catholic - that is all that matters and one can believe anything one wants.

Which bring us neatly back to this question:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If there is no set of criteria which must be met to be considered a Catholic bar self-identifying as one - can there be such as thing as a specifically Catholic ethos?

Care to respond?

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 01:11PM

Great,

So we've established that somebody can call themselves a catholic and a member of the roman catholic church even if they:
- Don't believe in the virgin birth
- Don't believe in eating jesus (holy communion)
- Don't believe in no sex before marriage
- Don't believe divorce should be a no no
- Don't believe in churchs stance on same sex marriage
- Don't believe in confessions to priests (I know a few of these people)
- Don't believe in church's stance on women priests
- Don't believe in church's stance on gay priests
- Don't believe in church's stance on not allowing priests to marry
- Don't believe in church's stance on how it creates saints
- Don't believe the bible is the word of god
- Don't believe gay sex is wrong/sin etc
- Don't believe in most of the bible is real, adam and eve, noah etc etc
- Don't believe in the holy trinity

Most people don't believe this stuff,

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 01:12PM

King Mob wrote: »

Except that they are denied the rituals that other Catholics are allowed to take part in.
Kind of hard to be part of a community when you can't do more that just tick a box every few years.

I think you'll find that the reality of the situation, for gay people who are committed to their faith is quite different to what you describe. But the RCC has a way to go yet to be more compassionate at, shall we say, a corporate level.

King Mob wrote: »

I assume that you're just going to ignore the rest of my point in that post?

Well there wasn't a question or anything, so I didn't feel compelled to craft a response to you, no.

I was tempted to ask who, in particular, was "misusing census results"? In particular, like.

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 01:16PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not true either.

Catholics who happen to be gay are every bit entitled to be every bit as "real" a catholic as anyone else.

Nope. They aren't.

Only 'allowed' to take Communion if they confess their 'sin' of having sex with someone of the same gender and strive to not repeat the 'sin'.

Stark choices.

1. Participate in a 'Sacrament' while knowingly 'sinning'.
2. 'Promise' to strive but repeatedly 'fail' - or don't even bother trying.
3. Lie.
4. Live a life of celibacy.
5. Stop being homosexual.

How do I know?

I know many many Gay men and Lesbians who consider themselves Catholics and I see the conflict they experience.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 01:18PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ididn't write these criteria. They are the criteria as set down by the Roman Catholic Church. But according to you - they don't matter.

I never said that they don't matter. They are very important.
But what I did say is that you, I, any bishop, archbishop or pope cannot assume the right to tell any other person what they should identify their religious beliefs as.

I would have thought that the Atheism & Agnosticism Forum, of all places, could get on board with that message?!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to respond?

There is such a thing as a catholic ethos. It is generally informed by the gospel teachings of christ and the cathecism of the RCC. Does everyone in the community have to conform to all aspects of this - NO.

CramCycle · 16-01-2014 01:21PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You should quote the full Article 44. And also note that nothing you've quoted there, is in any way contrary to what goes on, on a day-to-day basis in schools around the country

I think you missed the 2.2 part, it in fact is exactly contrary to what goes on year in, year out in alot of Irish schools.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You're assuming a lot about why "most families" have they're child christened. I think you might find the reasons are far more nuanced - tied up with belief, tradition, community, family, fun, rites of passage, hope, schools place, etc.

Tradition in that alot of people do it applies to families I know who are 40+ age bracket, but the only reason that anyone I know has gotten a child christened who is below 30 is a way into school. Now there are people I know who will christen their child because they are Catholic and would never have thought about the school element but they would be in a minority (in the small group of people I know in real life).

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well Ok, if you insist.

Some of the posts I had in mind when I said: "Most catholics don't crave the sense of order and box-ticking that some people on here do." are:

As eluded to multiple times, most don't care, it is the fact that policy maybe guided or affected by this self identification, if it wasn't, I imagine this thread would have lasted 2 pages with some remarks on how it was odd and it would have finished ages ago.

It's just my opinion. Obviously people (the people above in particular may dissagree). I don't think it was a snide remark. It wasn't meant to be. There is nothing wrong with craving order in one's life. I just don't believe it is at all possible to really pin-down people on their religious beliefs given the huge number of variables involved. The best you can do, as I've said from the start of this debate, is to ask them the question and take their word for it - not to second guess.

But there are definitions that encompass most beliefs, calling yourself Catholic when you do not believe in God is not accurate, calling yourself Catholic when you believe/follow in Jesus but not in the majority of the churches teachings is not accurate either (your a Christian BTW)

SW wrote: »

If someone ticks no to all of the rules for the RCC church, can they identify as Roman Catholic?

They can, it is unfair to the rest of the population though as it would seem to sway funding etc. for the general population in a manner that does not fit in with a secular government.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 01:21PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Great,

So we've established that somebody can call themselves a catholic and a member of the roman catholic church even if they..........

Again, people are free to call themselves what they wish. That you, I or the man in the moon disagrees with what they call themselves is immaterial.

Cabaal wrote: »

Most people don't believe this stuff.

More assumptions wbout what people believe...

16-01-2014 01:22PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I think you'll find that the reality of the situation, for gay people who are committed to their faith is quite different to what you describe. But the RCC has a way to go yet to be more compassionate at, shall we say, a corporate level.

But they are denied participation in rituals that they might feel is necessary for them to be catholic.

And what about the ordinary catholics who believe in line with the church? Are their beliefs not valid? Not part of real Catholicism? Are they not real Catholics?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well there wasn't a question or anything, so I didn't feel compelled to craft a response to you, no.

So you see the contradictions in your position then?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I was tempted to ask who, in particular, was "misusing census results"? In particular, like.

Catholic lobby groups like the Iona Institute. The church.
Anyone who conflates 90% Catholics with 90% support with church positions.
People who claim it's a "Catholic" or "Christian" country when applying that to defend certain positions.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 01:27PM

CramCycle wrote: »

........(your a Christian BTW)......

Thank you. I'm intrigued though - how have you come to such a flattering decision about my religious belief?

robindch · 16-01-2014 01:28PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

All of the above, in my humble opinion, seem to indicate that the writers would be far more comfortable (crave) a more ordered, clear-cut, black and white view of religious belief from everyone. It would sit better with them and allow better organisation of society.

I'm not really sure that you understood anything that was written in any of those posts. Did you read them? Did you feel you understood what you read? Even when it was explained patiently that you clearly didn't understand them?

Do you genuinely believe that people are "box-ticking" when they point out, as Bannsidhe and most other people have pointed out (again repeatedly), that there are a list of things that the Roman Catholic Church wants people to believe? And that almost nobody believes a word of them? Have you noticed this? Do you care about this? The RCC says it's important, but do you think so?

I'm asking these questions, less in the hope that you might answer them, and perhaps more in the hope that you might notice that you're not actually taking part in a conversation.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 01:30PM

King Mob wrote: »

But they are denied participation in rituals that they might feel is necessary for them to be catholic.

And what about the ordinary catholics who believe in line with the church? Are their beliefs not valid? Not part of real Catholicism? Are they not real Catholics?

There is no such thing as real/unreal catholics, no such thing as 2nd class catholics.

King Mob wrote: »

So you see the contradictions in your position then? .

I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're talking about here.

King Mob wrote: »

Catholic lobby groups like the Iona Institute. The church.
Anyone who conflates 90% Catholics with 90% support with church positions.
People who claim it's a "Catholic" or "Christian" country when applying that to defend certain positions.

Give us a few specific examples of there this has happend so King? Give us a few links or something. Is it widespread?

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 01:30PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

More assumptions wbout what people believe...

Yeah, I mean its not like the following changed in Ireland despite the massive opposition from the RCC:

- Divorce was made legal
- Contraception made legal
- Being gay was made legal
- Abortion legislation passed
- Same sex Civil unions made legal, marriage to follow
- Mass numbers have dropped massively and continue to do so, this is confirmed by the RCC
- More and more people opt to have none church weddings

Yep, just me making it up apparently...silly me.

Or I'll go with option 2, that you think people are more faithful then they actually are and people simply don't agree with the RCC stance on such important issues.

Face it man, society has changed. A majority no longer agree with the church on the big important issues that they continue to be against.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments