Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 02:40PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I may have missed it but has anyone explained how there can be a 'Catholic Ethos' which is very important to 'Catholic' parents who have a right to have their children educated in this ethos when there is, apparently, no actual unifying Catholic doctrine or criteria to be adhered to in order to be a Catholic as it is, seemingly, more of a 'what ever you are believing yourself like' religion.

In short (as I could have sworn I said, but there's a lot on this thread...), the catholic ethos of a school is typically based upon the gospel teachings of Christ and the teachings of the RCC in it's current Cathecism and Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching.

As explained, these contain important truths that the RCC teaches and many christians and catholics aspire to live their lives by (with most acknowledging that we will fail time and time again). That every member of the RCC or those who attend RCC schools do not agree fully with this ethos or fail to live up to it is a simple fact of life. There is still value (for some, not all clearly) in aspiring to live our lives according to that RCC ethos and for school communities to do likewise.

Hopefully this goes somewhere to answering your query as to what is a Catholic ethos.

I note there is another thread on here about people's experience of ET schools. In it the word ethos is mentioned. No one seems to doubt that ET schools have an ethos, why is it so unbelievable that a RCC ethos would exist?

Bannasidhe · 17-01-2014 03:28PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In short (as I could have sworn I said, but there's a lot on this thread...), the catholic ethos of a school is typically based upon the gospel teachings of Christ and the teachings of the RCC in it's current Cathecism and Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching.

As explained, these contain important truths that the RCC teaches and many christians and catholics aspire to live their lives by (with most acknowledging that we will fail time and time again). That every member of the RCC or those who attend RCC schools do not agree fully with this ethos or fail to live up to it is a simple fact of life. There is still value (for some, not all clearly) in aspiring to live our lives according to that RCC ethos and for school communities to do likewise.

Hopefully this goes somewhere to answering your query as to what is a Catholic ethos.

I note there is another thread on here about people's experience of ET schools. In it the word ethos is mentioned. No one seems to doubt that ET schools have an ethos, why is it so unbelievable that a RCC ethos would exist?

Oh, I am fully aware of the existence of a thing called a Catholic ethos and what that ethos entails which is why I did not ask for an explanation of that topic.

I asked why people seemed to be so invested in State Funded schools promoting this ethos when according to some people - you in particular - all one needs to do to be a Catholic is self-identify as one.

You didn't answer the question I asked.

swampgas · 17-01-2014 03:53PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's only their problem if they care about what you think of them, correct or incorrect.

Most people, thankfully, do not open conversations with..."my stance on gay marriage is as follows..." I prefer to think the best of everyone and see where that gets me.

Sure, I appreciate that, and I recognise that most people who call themselves Catholic don't necessarily follow the official RCC position.

The catch is that is you identify yourself as a Catholic, you have to accept the baggage that goes with that. If the identifier "Catholic" has connotations for other people that you don't like, it's up to you to put them right about it. Of course if you really don't care what other people think about you, that's fine too.

Zubeneschamali · 17-01-2014 04:00PM

swampgas wrote: »

If the identifier "Catholic" has connotations for other people that you don't like, it's up to you to put them right about it.

But in this thread, it's the other way around. A bunch of non-catholics are trying to say that the 85% of people who declare as RC in the census are not "really" RC, in the hopes of bolstering an argument that our schools shouldn't be RC.

This is a wrong-headed approach because people are allowed to declare themselves RC if they choose, and non-RC folks have no standing to claim they aren't.

More importantly - non-RC kids have a constitutional right to schooling, and the bigger the RC majority is, the worse the picture for non-RC kids, unless we mandate non-religious schools. So the higher that census figure is, the better the argument for non-religious schools.

swampgas · 17-01-2014 04:12PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in this thread, it's the other way around. A bunch of non-catholics are trying to say that the 85% of people who declare as RC in the census are not "really" RC, in the hopes of bolstering an argument that our schools shouldn't be RC.

This is a wrong-headed approach because people are allowed to declare themselves RC if they choose, and non-RC folks have no standing to claim they aren't.

More importantly - non-RC kids have a constitutional right to schooling, and the bigger the RC majority is, the worse the picture for non-RC kids, unless we mandate non-religious schools. So the higher that census figure is, the better the argument for non-religious schools.

That's a fair point, that the percentage of Catholics should have no bearing in a secular state. I accept that. I'm more interested in why so many people are so wedded to the "Catholic" identifier.

There is this other disconnect also, that Bannasidhe has pointed out: according to I_Heart_Internet, Catholic Ethos as understood by almost all of Irish Primary Schools involves a very specific (and apparently officially church-endorsed) set of beliefs.

Yet I_Heart_Internet is also arguing that being "Catholic" is not what the Vatican says, not even close, it's pretty much anything you want it to be. And judging by the number of Irish Catholics who seem to be anything but in practice, the problem is that the Catholic Ethos adopted by RCC primary schools is a million miles away from the a la carte Catholic Ethos of most of the parents sending their children to these schools.

So, why is the state paying to fund schools to indocatrinate kids with a Catholic Ethos pretty much defined by the Vatican, when most of the parents of the school kids actually live by a very different ethos?

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 04:52PM

swampgas wrote: »

Yet I_Heart_Internet is also arguing that being "Catholic" is not what the Vatican says, not even close, it's pretty much anything you want it to be.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that anyone has the right to describe themselves as a "Catholic" if they wish to. That's all I'm saying. It's not for me or you to tell people what they beleive or what label thwy win for holding those views.

swampgas wrote: »

And judging by the number of Irish Catholics who seem to be anything but in practice, the problem is that the Catholic Ethos adopted by RCC primary schools is a million miles away from the a la carte Catholic Ethos of most of the parents sending their children to these schools.

"a million miles" is hyperbole. You'll find that a majority or parents who send kids to RCC schools broadly agree with the majority of the RCC teachings (the majority of which are very straightforward and benign).
That parents don't live up to the standards you'd like them to is not so much the issue. The issue is one of preference. Most catholic parents prefer that their children educated in their community's schools rather than, for example a secular school or a muslim school.

swampgas wrote: »

So, why is the state paying to fund schools to indocatrinate kids with a Catholic Ethos pretty much defined by the Vatican, when most of the parents of the school kids actually live by a very different ethos?

Because that's what those parents want.

I Heart Internet · 17-01-2014 05:03PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I asked why people seemed to be so invested in State Funded schools promoting this ethos when according to some people - you in particular - all one needs to do to be a Catholic is self-identify as one.

You didn't answer the question I asked.

That's not the question you asked. You asked:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

........has anyone explained how there can be a 'Catholic Ethos' which is very important to 'Catholic' parents who have a right to have their children educated in this ethos when there is, apparently, no actual unifying Catholic doctrine or criteria to be adhered to in order to be a Catholic as it is, seemingly, more of a 'what ever you are believing yourself like' religion.

I addressed this point in my second paragraph....

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That every member of the RCC or those who attend RCC schools do not agree fully with this ethos or fail to live up to it is a simple fact of life. There is still value (for some, not all clearly) in aspiring to live our lives according to that RCC ethos and for school communities to do likewise.

To answer you question above -

...why people seemed to be so invested in State Funded schools promoting this ethos when according to some people - you in particular - all one needs to do to be a Catholic is self-identify as one.

All schools are state-funded. Even fee paying schools have their teacher paid by the state. That is because the constitution guarantees a free education for all.

The constitution also guarantees the right of parents to educate their children, broadly, as they see fit.

Many, many parents in Ireland want their children to be educated in schools with a RCC ethos.

I explained what (I understand) a catholic ethos typically is. Like any ethos, it is to be aspired to and implemented as best as possible. That many fall short of the teachings of the RCC in their private lives does not mean that the ethos of their community's school is any less valid.

In summary, we catholics are sorry we don't live up to our own (and your) high standards. But that's not going to stop us putting our best foot forward and aspiring to be better.

Bannasidhe · 17-01-2014 05:33PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not the question you asked. You asked:

Yes. It was.

I asked you to account for disconnect between the existence and importance of a Catholic ethos which Catholic parents have a right to expect in State funded schools and your contention that there are no set rules, regulations or expectations - in short no 'ethos' - when it comes to being a Catholic...

If there are no criteria - what is there to teach apart from' If you say you are a Catholic, you are a Catholic and don't mind what others say...'

I addressed this point in my second paragraph....

No. If you had I would not have repeated the question.

To answer you question above -

All schools are state-funded. Even fee paying schools have their teacher paid by the state. That is because the constitution guarantees a free education for all.

No. They are not.

You may have missed where I mentioned I went to a secular school. It received zero State Funding.

The constitution also guarantees the right of parents to educate their children, broadly, as they see fit.

Many, many parents in Ireland want their children to be educated in schools with a RCC ethos.

And many many parents don't - or do you think Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans not to mention Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, JWs etc etc etc are happy to have their children raised with a Catholic ethos?

The State guarantees 'Catholic' parents the right to to educate their children, broadly, as they see fit. Everybody else - not so much.
Why exactly should the 'rights' of Catholics trump the 'rights' of non-Catholics in a country without a State religion which also guarantees freedom of conscience?

I explained what (I understand) a catholic ethos typically is. Like any ethos, it is to be aspired to and implemented as best as possible. That many fall short of the teachings of the RCC in their private lives does not mean that the ethos of their community's school is any less valid.

In summary, we catholics are sorry we don't live up to our own (and your) high standards. But that's not going to stop us putting our best foot forward and aspiring to be better.

Where did I say you don't live up to my standards?

I didn't, so no need for the passive aggressive tone there. Let's try and keep it civil.

Look - there is either a bloody ethos which Catholics are expected to at least try to adhere to or there is not.

You are arguing there is but it doesn't matter in the slightest if one tries to abide by it or not - sure you're still a Catholic - so what is the bloody point in having it in our schools????

17-01-2014 05:50PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Many, many parents in Ireland want their children to be educated in schools with a RCC ethos.

What precisely gives you this idea? What percentage of parents would prefer such an ethos?

We can't use the census as you argue that the people who put down catholic may not actually want that not to mention oppose the ethos being taught. Which negates the only real practical point of asking that question in the census in the first place.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 07:35PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You'll find that a majority or parents who send kids to RCC schools broadly agree with the majority of the RCC teachings (the majority of which are very straightforward and benign).

"Majority" and "broadly agree" sound to me like carefully chosen words to describe a situation where many of said parents don't agree at all, and many, many more "broadly agree with" in the sense that they think that the Sermon on the Mount is grand and/or that the Protestants are terrible people, without any significant buy-in to the metaphysical stuff whatsoever.

Because that's what those parents want.

Or because they got no choice whatsoever.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 07:47PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But in this thread, it's the other way around. A bunch of non-catholics are trying to say that the 85% of people who declare as RC in the census are not "really" RC, in the hopes of bolstering an argument that our schools shouldn't be RC.

No, not at all. That many fewer schools should be RC and more of them should be (more) secular is an argument that doesn't need bolstered: it follows from parental choice, and the "cherish every child equally" clause of the constitution. If 30% of parents want an ET school, 55% want fire-and-brimstone Catholic, and 15% want something wishy-washy in the middle, then let the government get cracking implementing it, and let other people stop being part of the problem of fixing it.

The problem is when people use the census results as some sort of explicit or more often subliminal argument against this. "We're a 84% Catholic country, so we're more-or-less grand as we are with the RCC running almost all the schools." "What type of ethos of school do you want your kids sent to" is not the question that was asked on the census, so please don't read the results as if it were.

This is a wrong-headed approach because people are allowed to declare themselves RC if they choose, and non-RC folks have no standing to claim they aren't.

This isn't a legal case. It's what's known as "free speech" and "public discourse". "Standing" is having a keyboard and an unbanned boards account.

More importantly - non-RC kids have a constitutional right to schooling, and the bigger the RC majority is, the worse the picture for non-RC kids, unless we mandate non-religious schools. So the higher that census figure is, the better the argument for non-religious schools.

No. That's a prime example of what the census results shouldn't be used for, for all the reasons that have been expounded here repeatedly and at length.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 07:55PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In short (as I could have sworn I said, but there's a lot on this thread...), the catholic ethos of a school is typically based upon the gospel teachings of Christ and the teachings of the RCC in it's current Cathecism and Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching.

In much the same sense that an avante garde freejazz performance might be "based on" some tune someone might otherwise have been able to actually recognise, sure.

The key word is the indefinite article. "Our school has a Catholic ethos." Not, "our school has the Catholic ethos." Our school has what we're referring to as an ethos (because it's satisfyingly pompous and conveniently vague), and we're characterising it as "Catholic", which covers almost anything on the spectrum of denominational conformance. That and finding out what they teach, how they teach it, and what degree of theocratic meddling in the lives of their students actually occurs, might actually tell you something.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 08:04PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You talk to some of these more "sophisticated" catholics, and it isn't clear that they believe in anything supernatural at all; they regard the whole business as metophorical with deep connections to meaning and inner experience.

To fall back on the Credo test (which only gets us to "Christian", as noted), an interesting measure is how much of a "... but in a sense..." coda they'd have to add to what they just said in order to reconcile it as being in any sense a true statement of what they believed.

I'm thinking much more of the "don't believe in any of that, but I do want to get married, my kids sprinkled, and to get buried in the local church" tranche.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 08:12PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can still make paper boats but I had to google the Credo.

Me too! I only vaguely knew as much as I did because I own an old copy of this boardgame.

If someone tries to make you say the Orthodox version, contact a local priest. If they encourage your saying the Arianist version, contact the Gardai. If they incite use of the Manichean Creed, break the emergency glass and get straight on to the Holy Roman Emperor.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 08:31PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You could be right. But I thought it was a case of a baptised christian baptising another.

CCC 1256 wrote:

In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.

Even "necessity" is likely to be read as a condition for "licitness", not validity, as the RCC recognises Prod baptisms as a Magically Real Thing, even though it regards their priests/ministers as lay people in fancy dress with ideas above their station.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 08:36PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

People who identify themselves as Catholics believe a wide range of things. This is an undeniable fact.

Your opinion that they are not "really" Catholics, or are "faking it" is not a fact.

Someone's opinion about some topic and themself is generally more important than any other one person's opinion about them and that matter. But that doesn't make the third-party opinion of no importance whatsoever. And in particular, if everyone else has an opinion diametrically opposed to that of the subject...

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 08:56PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Criticising people's declaration of who they are is busy-bodyism at its absolute worst.

This is mere abuse, not argument. (Mild abuse by the standards of this thread, but no more argument for that.) If one were conduct the debate in those terms, one might next begin to speculate as to the agenda of those insisting that the census box-ticks be taken at a "face value" that isn't even what they mean on their face, and how such selectivity might serve their ends.

The census is public information. People making subjective "declarations" on it of a waffly, baseless, and factually unsound basis are an entirely legitimate matter for discussion. Especially if other people are going to use those "declarations" as a basis for fanciful notions of what public policy ought to be, as is very evidently the case.

shruikan2553 · 17-01-2014 10:04PM

What is the difference between a catholic ethos school that all these parents want and a school without any religious ethos?

Which catholic ethos are we using? You are a catholic if you want to be one no matter what you think so how can a catholic ethos match every ones belief as there is supposedly nothing it common other than they see themselves as catholic? Does the school have an announcement saying "we are all catholic"? That seems to be the only thing they would have in common, many people only have a catholic school nearby so that wouldnt even be true!

Bannasidhe · 17-01-2014 10:08PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What is the difference between a catholic ethos school that all these parents want and a school without any religious ethos?

Which catholic ethos are we using? You are a catholic if you want to be one no matter what you think so how can a catholic ethos match every ones belief as there is supposedly nothing it common other than they see themselves as catholic? Does the school have an announcement saying "we are all catholic"? That seems to be the only thing they would have in common, many people only have a catholic school nearby so that wouldnt even be true!

Exactly what I have been wondering - and asking about.

Hope you have more luck getting an answer (to this question as opposed to some tangent question you didn't ask) then I did.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 10:26PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Now, who do you think would be in the best position to judge what a person believes? You or them?

You've advanced little in the way of argument that people believe they believe what you believe they believe. In fact, when challenged on questions of "belief", you slide quietly along to the next topic.

The census does not frame its question in terms of "belief". Other evidence has been produced to strongly suggest that "belief" isn't how it's been interpreted by respondents. And yet you persist in maintaining that the box-ticking exercise is a moving personal religious testament in the face of villainous persecution such as might stand alongside Luther's "Here I Stand" speech. Very clearly, many respondents are answering a basis other than "religious belief".

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 10:51PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Absolutely. "State-funded" is a perfectly fine description for all schools in Ireland, as the state pays the wages of all fee-paying schools as well.

Oh, give it a rest.

Citizen's Information wrote:

Fee-paying schools are not eligible for Government funding to assist with running costs. Non-fee-paying schools that participate in the free education scheme get a range of grants and subsidies from the State.

Ireland being Ireland, much like with the healthcare sector, the private sector has a hand in the pocket of the public sector, and the public is in a codependent relationship with the private. And yet we still manage, for the most part, to have a discourse in which we manage to terminologically distinguish between the two without someone engaging in an exercise of information failing to even rise to the level of self-respecting pedantry such as someone saying "people incorrectly refer to the 'Maher Public' and the 'Maher Private', but of course they're both simply state-funded privately owned bodies". Would that we could but manage the same here.

In any case, the fee-payers are pretty much besides the point of the thrust of this discussion, so this might be seen as having a distinct whiff of deflection about it.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 10:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is a leg-pull. Christians believe Christ rose from the dead about 2000 years ago, anyone who thinks his Resurrection is still coming is not a Christian.

That was about the point I started to think "... parodist?" too, I have to say. Sounds like someone calling to mind the phrase "Second Coming", and deciding it would be a suitably Westboro-/Landoverish thing to bang on about, but not actually quite knowing what it meant.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 11:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Baptism is a sacrament that is common to all christians, I think....by shich I mean, if you were e.g. a catholic and decided to become CoI, there's no suggestion that your original baptism wasn't entirely valid - and vice versa.

I covered this earlier, but to recap...

To all Trinitarian Christians, to be precise. If you're a Unitarian, a JW, LDS, or a Modalist Pentacostalist, you need a complete do-over, deemed to be due to lack of either correct formula, or correct intent. In the normal course of events, you'll simply be "received" into the RCC, then tracked onto the rites you've not had yet.

"No suggestion" is perhaps an overstatement, though. At one point, it was the norm for "conditional baptism" to occur of converts. To wit, they weren't definitively stating the person hadn't been validly baptised, but equally, maybe those shoddy prods hadn't done it quite right. Things are at least slightly more That Would Be An Ecumenical Matter! these days.

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 11:13PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I was confused about this baptism cert malarky for school, my understanding is that unlike the other RCC sacraments, anyone can baptise anyone else.

The Last Rites can be performed as "emergency lay communion" if needed, and for marriage, the ministers of the sacraments are always the lay people involved. (Of course, technically that's not anyone, as one needs to have opposite polarity Bits from the other person involved...)

I remember getting drunk and baptising my (ex) athiest gf because she was annoying me.

Probably (or at least, she could get a crackerjack Canon Lawyer to argue) fails the "intent" test. And if you were that drunk, who knows about the formula, either.

Imagine the exciting courtroom drama scene!

alaimacerc · 17-01-2014 11:29PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I should point out it is flat out rejection, not ignorance nor doubt.

There's hardly much excuse for "ignorance" given the vast sea of "Cultural Christianity" we swim in... much less all the actual indoctrination most of these peeps ticking the "Catholic" box will have been subjected to. If you've had the "benefit" of all that, have the mental capacity, and still remain "ignorant" that's de facto rejection by any sensible test.

As for "doubt"... no, that's fair enough. If you're asked a "yes/no" or a "which best describes" question on a survey (or census!) surely the criteria are to-the-best-of-your-knowledge and on-the-balance-of-probability.

If someone think there's a 51% chance of the Nicene Creed and the top-level points of Marianology are true, that's plenty "Catholic" enough for me. And a darn sight Catholic-er than most...

Brown Bomber · 18-01-2014 10:31AM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

But of course the thread title is:

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

A Christian being someone who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazarath.

In my opinion very few people in Ireland, in spite of how they label themselves, live their lives based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

So an answer to the question might be - the exact percentage is very difficult to determine, but would be a small minority of the total population.

The thread title ISN'T:

Exactly what percentage of the population is Christian based on eyescreamcone pulling a number out of his hat and insisting that it is more accurate than every citizen in Ireland (the population), in theory, actually giving a response and therefore a comprehensive answer.

Brown Bomber · 18-01-2014 10:34AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's hardly much excuse for "ignorance" given the vast sea of "Cultural Christianity" we swim in... much less all the actual indoctrination most of these peeps ticking the "Catholic" box will have been subjected to. If you've had the "benefit" of all that, have the mental capacity, and still remain "ignorant" that's de facto rejection by any sensible test.

As for "doubt"... no, that's fair enough. If you're asked a "yes/no" or a "which best describes" question on a survey (or census!) surely the criteria are to-the-best-of-your-knowledge and on-the-balance-of-probability.

If someone think there's a 51% chance of the Nicene Creed and the top-level points of Marianology are true, that's plenty "Catholic" enough for me. And a darn sight Catholic-er than most...

Alternatively, this widespread ignorance of Catholic doctrine, which has already been admitted in this thread flies in the face of any supposed intense levels of indoctrination.

robindch · 18-01-2014 10:48AM

swampgas wrote: »

Surely a label is supposed to describe something?

At this point in the debate, I'm wondering whether the rule about words having to mean something just doesn't apply when the word describes a self-interested meme, and it's being used by somebody hooked by it.

swampgas wrote: »

Again, the question is one of motivation: why would someone want to call themselves a Catholic, when they clearly don't believe what the RCC says they should believe?

Because they think it signals to other people that they're a member of a big gang, a trustworthy person, somebody who's in with the power brokers and who appreciates deeper things and deeper questions in life. That and the fact that putting yourself down as non-religious still indicates teenage rebellion, angst, and, if the religious are to be believed, a sense of sneering superiority.

Referring to yourself as a catholic has nothing to do with meaning what the RCC says it means. Instead, like the religion itself, it's just signals self-interest.

Corkfeen · 18-01-2014 10:50AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Alternatively, this widespread ignorance of Catholic doctrine, which has already been admitted in this thread flies in the face of any supposed intense levels of indoctrination.

The abuse scandals probably hit the RCC negatively in terms of blind faith . The fact that divorce only passed by a narrow margin and homosexuality was illegal up until the early 90s is a sign of how they had considerable influence in terms of how the Irish public viewed subjects in recent history .

AerynSun · 18-01-2014 11:39AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

... and the top-level points of Marianology ...

The marianology is hardly a higher level test of good catholicity than an accurate grasp of eucharistic theology?? Eucharistic theology, or bust! (IMO)

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments