Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Zillah wrote: »

Basically that entire article is page after page of how the Pope has ultimate authority in everything and everyone has to submit to him in all issues.

Well, yes, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Suppose Enda Kenny appointed a bunch of ginger people to the Cabinet and passed a law saying that only red-haired people are Irish.

A black haired person objects, and you say "Why would you want to be Irish when the definition of Irish is anti-black-haired people, and the people who define Irishness don't want you? Just declare yourself British or something!"

Well, no. All Irish people are Irish, and Catholics are Catholics whether they agree with the Pope or not.

Here's a quote from the catechism. Read this and tell me how the hierarchy's views on gays can possibly be correct:

I. Respect For the Human Person

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. the person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother.

1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. "As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."38

1933 This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. the teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies.39 Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one's enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

The pope gets to decide and is apparently only responsible to someone most people here don't think exist.

The pope can decide away, and so he does. For some reason, folks here seem to think he has a magic mind-control power to change what the Church believes. He doesn't.

He has an excellent position from which to try and teach. He can change official doctrine, and what's in the Catechism, and the official wordings of prayers and so on.

But if all of that is not what the actual church believes, he may not, in fact, be able to persuade people. So, actual catholics who make up the church do not believe that artificial contraception is always wrong, in spite of Pope Paul VI. In fact 70% of them think it is important.

I do not believe a majority of actual catholics believe that the Pope can speak infallibly. Notice that although that is officially church doctrine, actual Popes are very slow to speak ex cathedra and claim infallibility. I think this is because they do not believe it, either.

And increasingly, I think that ordinary Catholics no longer believe that homosexuals are somehow disordered, or that their natures are unnatural, or their relationships sinful by definition.

And the current Pope certainly seems to be in tune with that mood, wanting to focus on actual things Jesus is supposed to have taught like loving your neighbour, looking after the poor and sick and so on, and worrying less about people's sex lives.

Zillah wrote: »

The Pope's authority and that of the Church was always set up as being derived from God, with the lay adherents subordinate to them.

You're doing it again, writing "the Church" when you mean "the hierarchy". The "lay adherents" can't be subordinate to the Church - the lay adherents are the Church, and the hierarchy are servants of the Church.

Zillah wrote: »

Not an accurate comparison as Kenny's authority is derived from the people via a constitution. The Pope's authority and that of the Church was always set up as being derived from God, with the lay adherents subordinate to them.



I think the hierarchy's views on pretty much everything are idiotic.

If someone believes in Jesus but rejects the authority of the Vatican they are most accurately described as Protestant, or just non-denominational Christian. To say otherwise is to render the word "Catholic" meaningless.

Like, I don't believe in God or Jesus or Heaven and I think the Bible is fictitious, can I credibly call myself a Catholic? Why not? You think you are allowed to make that determination but the Pope is not? Define Catholic for me.



If you'd been following the thread you'd see we were debating whether lay Catholics should support Panti and advocate gay rights in defiance of the Pope, or if they ought to toe the line for conservative Catholic homophobia.

I would like you to feck off out of your modding backseat plz :mad:

I have been following the thread and it has become a bicker about the minutiae of the internal workings of the Roman Catholic Church. A bicker that has occurred in many a thread over and over and over again.

The fact is - and even Archbishop Martin has said this - that the teachings and doctrine of the RCC can be seen as homophobic. It has also been demonstrated time and time again that the vast majority of those who identify as Roman Catholic take no notice whatsoever of what the Pope or the Vatican has to say.



Quite frankly I don't give a flying monkey if the RCC thinks it is the one true church or not. I already know their opinion on homosexuality and how that informs Iona's homophobia.

I asked if we could return to the topic at hand as I really don't see why a discussion on the blasted RCC should be allowed to hijack a thread on an issue that directly affects my, not a blasted Catholic, life.

If you think I am backseat modding report me. Perhaps I should do likewise for your soapboxing.

Not anymore, silly. We've been magically teleported into the pedant-safe-zone.

You're now declaring that unless the majority of people in the Church believe something then it doesn't count as Catholicism - in which case you're just repeating your initial point: it's a tautology; meaningless.

The initial founding of the Church; two thousand years of history; other nations; other religions and every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world defines the Catholic Church as an organisation where the Pope and the Vatican have authority in matters of faith. Your assertion of the existence of some strange, nebulous democratic process is not supported by any real world manifestation - in essence you are engaging in wishful thinking.

Bannasidhe would like to make it clear she has zero issue with people discussing the minutiae of the inner workings of any religion or religiously inspired organisation or with people being pedants.

Bannasidhe simply wishes that when these discussions become involved and lengthy that they are in a thread dedicated to such musings/bickering/whateveryou'rehavingyourselfings.

Bannaside happy now. Do carry on. I am finding this quite interesting in a it has nothing to do with homophobia kinda way.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bannaside happy now. Do carry on. I am finding this quite interesting in a it has nothing to do with homophobia kinda way.

Sorry for the meandering pain-in-the-tuchus RCC chatter. I think it's relevant though in a thread about the percentage of the population that calls themselves Christian (and for the implied 'uses' of that information) - and for myself as a supporter of LBGT people who consider themselves Catholic, think it's important that the 'conservative/anti-gay' Catholics don't get left to define Catholicism and its workings, since it does affect some LGBT people's lives (albeit a very small percentage - and yes, they are suckers for punishment, but why should they give up God and their understanding of what the 'one true universal church' is supposed to be about, because homophobes tell them they should?).

It would be convenient to say that ALL Catholics are numpties and let's never talk about them or their silly Church ever again... but the truth is there are some decent folk amongst them, who are trying to change that monolith into something more humane than it currently is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh I have no problem with it in this thread. I was just getting miffed as I was having a time poor and stressful day and every time I went into the Iona V Panti thread for a little ' what have they done now har har' cheer me up it was wall to wall RCC.

Well for my part now, I'm sorry for my general rambling inability to stick to topics generally. Hope your day improved, eventually. I had a rough day myself, and on my way home I stopped into Marks & Sparks to buy some carrots and green beans... and took a trundle around the wine department. I hardly ever buy wine, but today I needed some. And do you know what I found? Made me laugh really hard, so hard I nearly bought it, but then I thought I would never be able to actually drink it without snorting it out of my nose in a guffaw:



Think I may need to write home to the vintner and explain a few things about exporting lovely wine to Ireland, and the hazards of choosing a good name. A good name is worth a lot in these parts!

p.s. I got the Graham Beck Brut Rosé instead. Sitting here enjoying it. What percentage of this bottle is Christian, you wonder? I'm not sure. I'll make a pronouncement on that matter after the next glass.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hang on a minute, weren't you the one arguing strenuously that the Church is not a democracy and doesn't have to bend to lay people's beliefs a short while ago?

But now you say it'll adapt to social trends? How is that different from changing in response to what lay people believe?

Oh God not this again. I was saying that whatever the Vatican says is what officially counts as Catholicism. Where there is disagreement between them and a lay person the lay person is considered to be divergent from Catholicism. Sometimes the Vatican makes changes or revisions. Maybe they do so because the tide of public opinion has gone that direction, maybe they do so because of a vision or because they think there is a buck to be made - the point remains that they are the arbiters of that change.

I didn't say they didn't matter, I said they weren't the main criteria for what counts as Catholicism. This would be much easier if you responded to what I'm actually saying instead of responding as though I kept saying things that were slightly different to what I said.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

"Counts as Catholicism" according to who?

Does routine use of artificial contraception "count as Catholic"? No, says Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. Yes, say ordinary Irish Catholics in practice.

How can this be?

Since the Church allows that doctrines can change, it allows that they can be wrong, and most Irish Catholics believe this is one of those cases. Pope Paul VI was wrong.

Are you also of the opinion that a Catholic is simply someone who identifies as a Catholic and has no other meaning?

CramCycle wrote: »

Those are their rules, if you want to be Catholic, then follow them, if you want to follow the teachings of Christ according to what you think is the correct path to do this including where it differs wildly from the church, call yourself Christian.

Me, I'm an atheist.

But there's nothing in the Creed which Catholics say at Mass to say they believe contraception is wrong, Gays shouldn't have civil marriage, abortion should be illegal, divorce should be illegal, gay teachers should be fired or most of the other nonsense the Hierarchy is pushing.

The Church allows that doctrine can change. Therefore it allows that doctrine can be wrong. Logically, Catholics who believe a doctrine is wrong may turn out to be correct if that doctrine later changes.

So, for all of this non-core non-Creed doctrine, Catholics are logically perfectly justified in saying they are Catholics and the Hierarchy simply have their rules wrong.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Me, I'm an atheist.

But there's nothing in the Creed which Catholics say at Mass to say they believe contraception is wrong, Gays shouldn't have civil marriage, abortion should be illegal, divorce should be illegal, gay teachers should be fired or most of the other nonsense the Hierarchy is pushing.

The Church allows that doctrine can change. Therefore it allows that doctrine can be wrong. Logically, Catholics who believe a doctrine is wrong may turn out to be correct if that doctrine later changes.

So, for all of this non-core non-Creed doctrine, Catholics are logically perfectly justified in saying they are Catholics and the Hierarchy simply have their rules wrong.

How would you define a Catholic so?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'd leave that up to the Catholics.

Who are? How do you know who you're leaving it up to if you don't know who they are?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not my problem, let them argue with their new Pope.

But they influence how our society functions. As the impression is that ~80% of the country is Catholic, so the country should be able to cater for them, and they all want whatever the powers that be's perception of what a Catholic wants.