When aren't you a Catholic?

One eyed Jack · 31-03-2016 01:24AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I'm misrepresenting all those parish priests that were moved to other parishes after they raped children?

No, you're misrepresenting the view of most people within the RCC who are the Church.

VinLieger · 31-03-2016 08:45AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, you're misrepresenting the view of most people within the RCC who are the Church.

No "the church" is the hierarchy and establishment of the catholic church that were responsible for the mass coverup of assault and rape of hundreds if not thousands of children in this country not to mention the rest of the world.

Also the view of anyone i know who's still a believer and regular church goer regarding the scandals is usually along the lines of "ohh but thats all done cus they fixed it".......... basically see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, so a continuation of the traditional church policies

Hercule Poirot · 31-03-2016 09:05AM

VinLieger wrote: »

No "the church" is the hierarchy and establishment of the catholic church that were responsible for the mass coverup of assault and rape of hundreds if not thousands of children in this country not to mention the rest of the world.

Also the view of anyone i know who's still a believer and regular church goer regarding the scandals is usually along the lines of "ohh but thats all done cus they fixed it".......... basically see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, so a continuation of the traditional church policies

Yes, because all good Catholics are happy to tow the line and ignore the wide-scale abuse of children? Get a grip.

Many devout Catholics I know are absolutely horrified by the events that have unfolded, but, and this is the main point, they still have faith, not because they are sheep who tow the line and ignore atrocities but because they believe that there will be justice at the end of the line.

I don't believe it myself - but don't go labelling Catholics as a group of idiots who are happy to see the scandal pushed to one side and pretend it never happened.

VinLieger · 31-03-2016 09:07AM

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Yes, because all good Catholics are happy to tow the line and ignore the wide-scale abuse of children? Get a grip.

Many devout Catholics I know are absolutely horrified by the events that have unfolded, but, and this is the main point, they still have faith, not because they are sheep who tow the line and ignore atrocities but because they believe that there will be justice at the end of the line.

I don't believe it myself - but don't go labelling Catholics as a group of idiots who are happy to see the scandal pushed to one side and pretend it never happened.

Can you point out where i did any of that please? I was defining what the phrase "the church" meant to me and i think the majority of other people does it mean something else to you? Also i dont believe i said anything else that you claim, i just said "anyone i know"

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 31-03-2016 09:08AM

But if they repent for their sins, isn't all forgiven

realdanbreen · 31-03-2016 09:09AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Because I don't believe it, I don't accept Transubstantiation is a real thing and I don't accept Catholic Dogmas.

If you don't believe these things, then you are quite simply, not a Catholic.

But then why do the majority of 'non believers' put down Catholic on the census form? Surely there aren't all lily livered?

Hercule Poirot · 31-03-2016 09:25AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you point out where i did any of that please? I was defining what the phrase "the church" meant to me and i think the majority of other people does it mean something else to you? Also i dont believe i said anything else that you claim, i just said "anyone i know"

Fair enough - you may not have used the exact words I did but it is exactly what you meant, you probably spoke to yourself in a redneck accent as you typed the following:

VinLieger wrote: »

"ohh but thats all done cus they fixed it".......... basically see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, so a continuation of the traditional church policies

It's amazing how the believers you know are so different to the believers I know

Ush1 · 31-03-2016 09:27AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's nobody else can answer that question for you in fairness. If you identify yourself as Catholic, who is anyone else to say you are or you aren't?

The pope, he's infallible after all.

Ush1 · 31-03-2016 09:29AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Same as I'm a frog if I self-identify as one.

VinLieger · 31-03-2016 09:29AM

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Fair enough - you may not have used the exact words I did but it is exactly what you meant, you probably spoke to yourself in a redneck accent as you typed the following:

It's amazing how the believers you know are so different to the believers I know

Shock horror! some people you meet might be different to the people i meet, get over yourself ffs

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-03-2016 09:32AM

leakyboots wrote: »

You don't believe that is the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ up there on how ever many thousand altars across the country/world daily (if you think it's merely symbolic and representative, then you're a Protestant)

I did some scientific work with this "actual body" where I got a lot of them, and a lot of "normal" version and did some comparisons.

Before, during and after this I communicated with a lot of people who identify as Catholic and they appeared during my experience to fall into three camps as follows:

Those that literally believed a physical change occurred, those who believed a spiritual but undetectable change occurs, and those who believed it was all purely symbolic.

Yet all three groups thought themselves to be entirely catholic. So a thread on "Catholics" and the census and what box they "should" be ticking is a hard one to resolve. Because clearly even many catholic do not themselves know what it means to be catholic, or what actual catholic doctrine claims/states.

What has always bothered me here is that the church itself do not seem overly compelled to inform them of it either. I have yet to walk into a church where there are little information pamphlets in the Narthex or Vestibule on what Transubstantiation actually is. Neither I nor anyone I know were taught it at school, let alone in or around the time when we were first sent to eat the stuff. And I never read much on the subject in any copies of publications I got my hands on such as the free "messenger" magazine that gets shoved unsolicited into the mail box of the house I grew up in.

That is not to say it is a SECRET of course. Anyone can go and trawl through the near unreadable tomes of text that make up catholic doctrine. It is there to be learned for anyone who wishes to learn it. But being one of the central tenets of Catholic Faith, I merely find it interesting that they are not moved to offer much in the way of clarification on the issue.

Unless of course you stop viewing the church as a religion but as a business. A business wants as many subscribers or customers as possible. So clarification on potentially divisive issues is not conducive to the business model. My clarifying that one group is correct you risk alienating the others. So best let people believe whatever it is they want to, and go easy on offering too many specifics.

Under the business model, their behavior makes perfect sense.

So what the vast majority of people ticking the census form will do is either tick what they actually consider themselves to be, not what anyone else tells them they are or are not.............. or what they traditionally ticked in the past and see no reason to change now.

What campaigns like those by the Humanists and Atheists are aimed at is not so much telling people what to tick, but asking them to put some actual deep thought into what they tick and why. And I see little wrong with that.

leakyboots wrote: »

also with militant Atheists - they annoy just as much as the Godbotherers.

I think that one was done before actually

Hercule Poirot · 31-03-2016 09:36AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Shock horror! some people you meet might be different to the people i meet, get over yourself ffs

I don't think they are different at all, you're merely attaching labels where you want them to be - congrats

kneemos · 31-03-2016 09:40AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did some scientific work with this "actual body" where I got a lot of them, and a lot of "normal" version and did some comparisons.

Before, during and after this I communicated with a lot of people who identify as Catholic and they appeared during my experience to fall into three camps as follows:

Those that literally believed a physical change occurred, those who believed a spiritual but undetectable change occurs, and those who believed it was all purely symbolic.

Yet all three groups thought themselves to be entirely catholic. So a thread on "Catholics" and the census and what box they "should" be ticking is a hard one to resolve. Because clearly even many catholic do not themselves know what it means to be catholic, or what actual catholic doctrine claims/states.

What has always bothered me here is that the church itself do not seem overly compelled to inform them of it either. I have yet to walk into a church where there are little information pamphlets in the Narthex or Vestibule on what Transubstantiation actually is. Neither I nor anyone I know were taught it at school, let alone in or around the time when we were first sent to eat the stuff. And I never read much on the subject in any copies of publications I got my hands on such as the free "messenger" magazine that gets shoved unsolicited into the mail box of the house I grew up in.

That is not to say it is a SECRET of course. Anyone can go and trawl through the near unreadable tomes of text that make up catholic doctrine. It is there to be learned for anyone who wishes to learn it. But being one of the central tenets of Catholic Faith, I merely find it interesting that they are not moved to offer much in the way of clarification on the issue.

Unless of course you stop viewing the church as a religion but as a business. A business wants as many subscribers or customers as possible. So clarification on potentially divisive issues is not conducive to the business model. My clarifying that one group is correct you risk alienating the others. So best let people believe whatever it is they want to, and go easy on offering too many specifics.

Under the business model, their behavior makes perfect sense.

So what the vast majority of people ticking the census form will do is either tick what they actually consider themselves to be, not what anyone else tells them they are or are not.............. or what they traditionally ticked in the past and see no reason to change now.

What campaigns like those by the Humanists and Atheists are aimed at is not so much telling people what to tick, but asking them to put some actual deep thought into what they tick and why. And I see little wrong with that.

I think that one was done before actually

Zero teaching of the bible in school's,in my day anyway.
Protestants I believe are heavily engrossed in the good book.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-03-2016 09:56AM

kneemos wrote: »

Zero teaching of the bible in school's,in my day anyway. Protestants I believe are heavily engrossed in the good book.

I can not say I was "taught" it either when I was growing up. In primary school my teacher at the time, himself a man of faith (he also played for Clontarf and Dublin in the GAA so he probably needed some faith), used to read the Bible for 45 minutes or so every day.

But it was never "taught" to us as such. I always thought of it as "story time". That made sense to me as my parents read a lot to me and I read a lot to myself from a relatively very early age. So "stories" were a big part of my life. So I viewed the teacher reading these stories as no different. I never became an "atheist" (for want of a better term though I rarely self use it) so much as I never was anything else.

Always struck me though that he read the same stories over and over. The book he was reading from was MUCH bigger than that though. So I never understood why some stories had to be read 100 times and some not at all. I suppose looking back there must have been some stories "approved" for reading to us. Either by the curriclum or by him himself.

I have noticed the same thing in church. No matter how often I have been in one I have only really heard the same handful of passages read over and over again.

In fact when I have shown the book to some people of "faith" they have been shocked at how big it is. It seems despite their "faith" in the importance of this book they have never felt compelled to read one, own one, or even see or touch one themselves. So having heard the same handful of stories from it for years, they had pre-conceptions of how big the book might be.

So they are genuinely taken aback to see just how thick it is, and just how small the print is, and just how much more text is in it than they were ever aware of.

Call me a cynic, but if people REALLY believe there is a creator of the universe and they REALLY believe he communicated to us by writing or somehow inspiring one particular book above all others......... you'd sort of expect those people to be arsed to actually read it.... or at least to even OWN a copy or to have seen one.

Or maybe that is just me. But even WITHOUT any faith in religions or gods of even the smallest kind.... even I have found reasons.... cultural, linguistic and more.... to find time to read the Bible not just once but several times in several editions and forms.

I think one is justified in wondering how many believers actually ARE believers... and how many are reported to be (by themselves or others) who actually are not, for one reason or another.

Baggy Trousers · 31-03-2016 10:03AM

Catholic or not, I do not understand how people darken the doors of the Roman organisation's buildings and fund their activities after what they did to children in this country.

The deal Woods did in 2002 which capped Roman atholic church payments at €127m was an absolute disgrace.

Listening to the 1916 proclamation all last week and "cherishing all of the children of the nation equally", it reminded me of the evil the Roman church oversaw here whether it was Industrial schools, Reform schools, Magdalene laundries, forced adoption, drug trials, starvation diets, facilitating and covering up paedophilia, physical and mental abuse etc...

But it was a few bad eggs....blinkers on, selective amnesia...
.

Mr. CooL ICE · 31-03-2016 11:02AM

Mod:

Thread is not about the RCC abuse scandals and cover ups. Back on topic.

Liberosis · 31-03-2016 11:47AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not say I was "taught" it either when I was growing up. In primary school my teacher at the time, himself a man of faith (he also played for Clontarf and Dublin in the GAA so he probably needed some faith), used to read the Bible for 45 minutes or so every day.

But it was never "taught" to us as such. I always thought of it as "story time". That made sense to me as my parents read a lot to me and I read a lot to myself from a relatively very early age. So "stories" were a big part of my life. So I viewed the teacher reading these stories as no different. I never became an "atheist" (for want of a better term though I rarely self use it) so much as I never was anything else.

Always struck me though that he read the same stories over and over. The book he was reading from was MUCH bigger than that though. So I never understood why some stories had to be read 100 times and some not at all. I suppose looking back there must have been some stories "approved" for reading to us. Either by the curriclum or by him himself.

I have noticed the same thing in church. No matter how often I have been in one I have only really heard the same handful of passages read over and over again.

In fact when I have shown the book to some people of "faith" they have been shocked at how big it is. It seems despite their "faith" in the importance of this book they have never felt compelled to read one, own one, or even see or touch one themselves. So having heard the same handful of stories from it for years, they had pre-conceptions of how big the book might be.

So they are genuinely taken aback to see just how thick it is, and just how small the print is, and just how much more text is in it than they were ever aware of.

Call me a cynic, but if people REALLY believe there is a creator of the universe and they REALLY believe he communicated to us by writing or somehow inspiring one particular book above all others......... you'd sort of expect those people to be arsed to actually read it.... or at least to even OWN a copy or to have seen one.

Or maybe that is just me. But even WITHOUT any faith in religions or gods of even the smallest kind.... even I have found reasons.... cultural, linguistic and more.... to find time to read the Bible not just once but several times in several editions and forms.

I think one is justified in wondering how many believers actually ARE believers... and how many are reported to be (by themselves or others) who actually are not, for one reason or another.

I am an agnostic, although I have read quite a bit of the bible. I knew there was a lot of books that we're being overlooked at school or in mass so I read them out of sheer curiosity more than anything else.

The reason I feel they are ignored is because it's almost like they want you to fixate on the positive parts. That god is loving etc. But as a matter of fact in many parts, especially in the Old Testament god comes across as a bit of a monster and there is a lot of violence. The book of Leviticus gets my vote as being one of the most screwed up.

Even the more positive parts, like Jesus' parables we're read quite often but we we're never told the meaning behind the stories. I disliked the fact that they left you to figure it out on your own rather than explain it.

Maximus Alexander · 31-03-2016 12:25PM

You would imagine that the 1.2 million people who voted Yes last May 22nd would be ticking something other than Roman Catholic on the census form. But I bet most of them still will. :pac:

What an awful waste of a 10,000th post.

realdanbreen · 31-03-2016 12:37PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You would imagine that the 1.2 million people who voted Yes last May 22nd would be ticking something other than Roman Catholic on the census form. But I bet most of them still will. :pac:

You would also imagine that the 2/3rds of that 1.2million that were elegible to vote would have supported the Labour party who after all spearheaded that campaign. Eaten bread is soon forgotten and all that...

Knasher · 31-03-2016 12:39PM

I really wish there were a question on the census to ask if your preference is for a secular school system. As I understand it, the religion question is used as a basis for deciding how schools and such should be provided to meet the needs of the community. The presumption therefore is that people who choose some religion, prefer their schools to be religious. But I really wouldn't be surprised if the majority of religious people, would also be staunchly secular.

That is why it is such a contentious question, because it isn't simply asking your position on personal belief...

realdanbreen · 31-03-2016 12:47PM

Knasher wrote: »

I really wish there were a question on the census to ask if your preference is for a secular school system. As I understand it, the religion question is used as a basis for deciding how schools and such should be provided to meet the needs of the community. The presumption therefore is that people who choose some religion, prefer their schools to be religious. But I really wouldn't be surprised if the majority of religious people, would also be staunchly secular.

That is why it is such a contentious question, because it isn't simply asking your position on personal belief...

But If it is such a contentious question how come not one candidate in the general election made it a priority. I don't believe any of the TD's currently haggling about forming a government have it on their shopping list. Fact is that most people don't see having kids getting a bit of religious instruction as being a big deal.

wnolan1992 · 31-03-2016 01:07PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You would imagine that the 1.2 million people who voted Yes last May 22nd would be ticking something other than Roman Catholic on the census form. But I bet most of them still will. :pac:

I know a fair few practicing Catholics who voted Yes. From a personal point of view, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I draw a distinction between disagreeing with of the Church's teachings and not believing in its' core principles.

PlainP · 31-03-2016 01:29PM

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I know a fair few practicing Catholics who voted Yes. From a personal point of view, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I draw a distinction between disagreeing with of the Church's teachings and not believing in its' core principles.

Picking and choosing what to believe in doesn't really fit in with Christian/catholic teachings though.

All or nothing.

Ush1 · 31-03-2016 01:32PM

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I know a fair few practicing Catholics who voted Yes. From a personal point of view, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I draw a distinction between disagreeing with of the Church's teachings and not believing in its' core principles.

That's what your religion should be listed as so.

beach_walker · 31-03-2016 01:37PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You would imagine that the 1.2 million people who voted Yes last May 22nd would be ticking something other than Roman Catholic on the census form. But I bet most of them still will. :pac:

Why would they? Jeez the SSM crowd really need to move on from it. There's plenty of difference between a civil marriage and the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I voted Yes because it had absolutely no impact on the latter (which tbh is the main one in my eyes), as did plenty of Catholics.

NyOmnishambles · 31-03-2016 01:41PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You would imagine that the 1.2 million people who voted Yes last May 22nd would be ticking something other than Roman Catholic on the census form. But I bet most of them still will. :pac:

My elderly (though they wouldn't like to be called that) parents both voted yes in May, despite both being regular church goers and being told by the church that they could vote no they both said they could see no reason not to vote yes

They will be ticking Roman Catholic in the census and rightly so, they both have faith and attend regularly and I would imagine there are a large number just like them so I wouldn't be expecting the census to reflect the vote

I have been selecting No Religion for as long as I have been filling out the census independently and will continue to do so

Knasher · 31-03-2016 01:43PM

realdanbreen wrote: »

But If it is such a contentious question how come not one candidate in the general election made it a priority. I don't believe any of the TD's currently haggling about forming a government have it on their shopping list. Fact is that most people don't see having kids getting a bit of religious instruction as being a big deal.

Seems like a rather odd way of deciding if something is contentious or not.

boobar · 31-03-2016 01:52PM

I find that many drift away from the Catholic church, I've always found the sermons very difficult to relate to.

Then kids come along, you've limited choices in rural areas when it comes to schooling, so you're drawn back in by sending your kid to a Catholic primary school. Then you're into the Communion and Confirmation gigs.

Then you drift away again, until they catch you on your deathbed and you take the last rites in desperation and then they put you in the ground and the priest mutters something in the sermon.

But then you go to heaven, where you have xboxes, flashy cars, great drink and no hangover and no one thinks you're a prick.

Maximus Alexander · 31-03-2016 02:06PM

beach_walker wrote: »

Why would they? Jeez the SSM crowd really need to move on from it. There's plenty of difference between a civil marriage and the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I voted Yes because it had absolutely no impact on the latter (which tbh is the main one in my eyes), as did plenty of Catholics.

Ah would you stop, there's scarcely a Catholic in the country between all the divorce, contraception, abortion, marriage equality, IVF, pre-marital sex, babies out of wedlock, low mass attendances and lack of actual belief in things like transubstantiation. Yet >80% of the population will still tick it on the form. I'm not having a go, I think it's gas and very idiosyncratically Oirish.

beach_walker · 31-03-2016 02:14PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Ah would you stop, there's scarcely a Catholic in the country between all the...

And again, atheists telling who is and isn't Catholic.

Of course they know better than the people themselves, it isn't from the wind that the stereotype came

When aren't you a Catholic?

Comments