When aren't you a Catholic?

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The problem isnt really people ticking the box, its the other people who would use these numbers as a way of deciding something.

When Ruairí Quinn was Minister of Education and announced that half of the schools currently under religious institutions would be handed over to the State, did he consult the census figures? People have been banding around this in the thread but I still haven't seen any evidence of it tbh. How could he "go against" the 80% figure which didn't actually answer anything about school patronage... Mystery.

(And yes I know the progress has been slow but there's no reason to think it won't continue, and would probably be speeded up in the near future unless we get our FF/FG grand coalition!)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing anyone actually pushing that idea however least of all "the likes of Atheist Ireland".

Have you not been reading the thread...? There is not a page without the sort. And I thought it was AI behind the recent campaign for the census question? Could be wrong but don't know who else would launch one.

I certainly won't be putting myself down as RCC even though I could be considered a cultural catholic. I mean i'll attend births, deaths and marriages and not assert any exceptions in such instances.

Actually I don't think I put down RCC since I left home back in the late 80s.

beach_walker wrote: »

I guess the realisation that the "scared of their Mammy" excuse was wearing thin, we now have "internalised coercion".

Honestly, it's like people have never heard of sociology.

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

Have you not been reading the thread...? There is not a page without the sort. And I thought it was AI behind the recent campaign for the census question? Could be wrong but don't know who else would launch one.

Except I have been reading the thread, quite closely, have you not? Because nothing from Atheist Ireland and, unless I missed it, nothing on this thread has people saying who can or cannot call themselves catholic.

Some people are suggesting they are WRONG to do so. Not a single person is saying that CAN NOT do so. You can call yourself a spoon if you want. I have nothing against that. But I would likely point out you are applying the term incorrectly. And there is nothing wrong with that either.

And the campaign from "the likes of Atheist Ireland" is not telling people they can not or should not "tick catholic". It is merely requesting they think about WHY they are doing so.... and asking themselves if it is the right thing to do and if another box might not be more accurate.

But phrases like "aggressively pushing the idea of whom can and can't call themselves Catholic" is just hyperbole designed to be emotive, and does not actually describe what is going on in reality at all.

catbear wrote: »

I certainly won't be putting myself down as RCC even though I could be considered a cultural catholic. I mean i'll attend births, deaths and marriages and not assert any exceptions in such instances.

Actually I don't think I put down RCC since I left home back in the late 80s.

Those things aren't owned by the RCC. My son was born and I was married with no interference from any religion. I shall also die without any being involved.

henryporter

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But phrases like "aggressively pushing the idea of whom can and can't call themselves Catholic" is just hyperbole designed to be emotive, and does not actually describe what is going on in reality at all.

Particularly when the person using that phrase is aggressively pushing the idea we should all toe the Catholic line regardless of having arrived at our own beliefs though the process of free thought

henryporter wrote: »

Particularly when the person using that phrase is aggressively pushing the idea we should all toe the Catholic line regardless of having arrived at our own beliefs though the process of free thought

No I'm not. Point out anywhere that I said anything of the sort.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Some people are suggesting they are WRONG to do so. Not a single person is saying that CAN NOT do so.

Hmm, I wasn't inferring that guns were being held to heads. Read my statement as saying "should or shouldn't call themselves" if that reads better then.

realdanbreen

catbear wrote: »

I certainly won't be putting myself down as RCC even though I could be considered a cultural catholic. I mean i'll attend births, deaths and marriages and not assert any exceptions in such instances.

Actually I don't think I put down RCC since I left home back in the late 80s.

That's great news. BTW why did you feel you had to put it RCC down when you lived at home?

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing anyone actually pushing that idea however least of all "the likes of Atheist Ireland".

I heard all 27 members of atheist Ireland were pushing for it!

catbear wrote: »

I certainly won't be putting myself down as RCC even though I could be considered a cultural catholic. I mean i'll attend births, deaths and marriages and not assert any exceptions in such instances.

I'm assuming you mean attending such events in a church? If so, you wouldn't even necessarily call yourself such. People of other faiths or none are welcomed to those.

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

Hmm, I wasn't inferring that guns were being held to heads.

Nor was I. That would be extreme even compared to the hyperbole you have already presented.

The census is a publicly funded endeavor upon which real world choices and ideas can be based. It benefits us all to have it filled out as accurately as possible.

All Atheist Ireland and people on this thread appear to be doing is promoting a discourse that will best cause people to think about their choices and do them correctly therefore.

And, your hyperbole aside, I am genuinely not seeing any issue with that. Is there something wrong with doing so that I am simply missing here?

realdanbreen wrote: »

I heard all 27 members of atheist Ireland were pushing for it!

Which does little more than show the low quality of your information sources. But I suspect that was something most of us on boards knew already.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I heard all 27 members of atheist Ireland were pushing for it!

LOL, troll. I'm not particularly enchanted with them either, and they don't speak for me, let alone all of the atheists in Ireland.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The census is a publicly funded endeavor upon which real world choices and ideas can be based. It benefits us all to have it filled out as accurately as possible.

I know there's a general statement on this, but I still haven't seen anything from anyone on whether the religion question is used for what people are claiming. Or is it a hangover from just having one since the beginning and wanting to be able to compare the numbers.

How do you reconcile the moves started by Ruairi Quinn on the schools with the numbers? It wasn't the census results of 2011 that started this. It was political positions of parties in power.

And, your hyperbole aside, I am genuinely not seeing any issue with that. Is there something wrong with doing so that I am simply missing here?

My hyperbole... Again I'm wondering if you've been reading the thread at all.

In this thread, all I have done is try to address the numerous incorrect statements made as I see them about what a Catholic actually is. I have no issue with people thinking about the question (I do have an issue with the question itself however).

beach_walker wrote: »

I know there's a general statement on this, but I still haven't seen anything from anyone on whether the religion question is used for what people are claiming. Or is it a hangover from just having one since the beginning and wanting to be able to compare the numbers.

You know, I might be just an ignorant immigrant, but I was under the impression that religion was a great huge big deal in matters of public policy in Ireland. This is Ireland, isn't it? Just checking.

Speedwell wrote: »

You know, I might be just an ignorant immigrant, but I was under the impression that religion was a great huge big deal in matters of public policy in Ireland. This is Ireland, isn't it? Just checking.

So I take it you don't have anything showing the census religion question being used for decisions taken by politicians then?

Maybe you want to answer why the moves on school patronage started, do you think it was because of the census results?

beach_walker wrote: »

I know there's a general statement on this, but I still haven't seen anything from anyone on whether the religion question is used for what people are claiming. Or is it a hangover from just having one since the beginning and wanting to be able to compare the numbers.

How do you reconcile the moves started by Ruairi Quinn on the schools with the numbers? It wasn't the census results of 2011 that started this. It was political positions of parties in power.

My hyperbole... Again I'm wondering if you've been reading the thread at all.

In this thread, all I have done is try to address the numerous incorrect statements made as I see them about what a Catholic actually is. I have no issue with people thinking about the question (I do have an issue with the question itself however).

Crucial.

beach_walker wrote: »

I'm assuming you mean attending such events in a church? If so, you wouldn't even necessarily call yourself such. People of other faiths or none are welcomed to those.

I'll put it this way, if auld auntie alice thinks I got married in a RCC church abroad I'm not going to say anything that neither confirms or denies it. I'll just ask her to pass the marietta biscuits. For some of that generation they don't understand how or why it could be any other way and talking about is a waste of time. Some even believe the whole church abuse scandal was made up by the media!
You can't argue with blind faith.

beach_walker wrote: »

So I take it you don't have anything showing the census religion question being used for decisions taken by politicians then?

Oh, nothing, only the word of the census enumerator and the census website, and the evidence of public policy itself, nothing at all, never mind.

Ush1 wrote: »

Crucial.

Well from a Catholic perspective, it's pretty clear cut who is and isn't one. There's really no debate on the matter.

But despite accusations, I haven't used this as the "official" barometer (still waiting for people to reply on where I said any of that). I realise there's an additional layer on top of this when talking about answering a question for a secular State. This part is why I added that phrasing to the earlier post.

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

I know there's a general statement on this, but I still haven't seen anything from anyone on whether the religion question is used for what people are claiming.

The point I am making is just the same even if it is not being used AT ALL right now though. Because even if we imagine it is not...... it COULD BE.... and the ideal remains the same.... that we should strive towards the most accurate figure we can get.

beach_walker wrote: »

My hyperbole... Again I'm wondering if you've been reading the thread at all.

And I the same about you given few people, if any, appear to be doing what you describe and I note you have not quoted or cited a single example. If you think there is something I have missed in the thread then by all means direct me to it rather than this vague "have you been reading it" mantra with which I can do nothing.

Speedwell wrote: »

Oh, nothing, only the word of the census enumerator and the census website, and the evidence of public policy itself, nothing at all, never mind.

Where do they specify that about the religion question? I'd be fascinated to read it.

What was the magic number needed for Catholicism to dip to before they started the schools patronage moves, do you know offhand?

beach_walker wrote: »

Well from a Catholic perspective, it's pretty clear cut who is and isn't one. There's really no debate on the matter.

I would say it most certainly isn't. You think all Catholics have the exact same idea of what a Catholic is?

Do you think most peoples ideas of a Catholic matches up with the Popes?

beach_walker wrote: »

Where do they specify that about the religion question? I'd be fascinated to read it.

What was the magic number needed for Catholicism to dip to before they started the schools patronage moves, do you know offhand?

What on earth are you talking about? They specify that as the whole reason for asking all of the questions on the form. As far as the schools, I simply have no idea what you're on about.

realdanbreen wrote: »

That's great news. BTW why did you feel you had to put it RCC down when you lived at home?

My parents filled out the census. Back then my they were parish regulars, I remember early 80s they being alarmed that their eldest and his finance had moved into their new house before the wedding!!!!
Ah, innocent times.

The thing that rocked my mothers faith the most though was matters financial rather then spiritual after the Eamon Casey affair broke. She went through the whole cycle on that one, first disbelief, then denial, then anger and finally acceptance and despondency. She was bitter that she'd stuffed the parish envelop for years with a full house of mouths to feed herself and Eamon Casey was sending money to his hussy abroad and their illegitimate child; her words, not mine.

Ush1 wrote: »

I would say it most certainly isn't.

The Church's position is that once you receive the sacrament of baptisim, that's pretty much it. Despite all the guff here, that's what it boils down to from a theological point of view. There's really no debate on that part of it tbh.

beach_walker wrote: »

What was the magic number needed for Catholicism to dip to before they started the schools patronage moves, do you know offhand?

I reckon it's a generational thing, ten years from now we may be looking at a whole different education landscape. There's not that many RCC clerics to even sit on and guide these boards. RCC enthusiasts will only hasten that decline.

beach_walker wrote: »

The Church's position is that once you receive the sacrament of baptisim, that's pretty much it. Despite all the guff here, that's what it boils down to from a theological point of view. There's really no debate on that part of it tbh.

Right well lets just say there's a citation needed for that.

Then lets pretend it's true anyway, I can be a gay man who doesn't believe in anything in the bible or God, Jesus, sacrements etc...having gay sex morning, noon and night listening to right said Fred and still be considered a Catholic but because I was once baptized?

Which leads to the further point, what is the point of the question if these things are true?

suicide_circus

beach_walker wrote: »

The Church's position is that once you receive the sacrament of baptisim, that's pretty muchttp://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351h it. Despite all the guff here, that's what it boils down to from a theological point of view. There's really no debate on that part of it tbh.

By that locig I'm still a boy scout having made the Scout's Promise when I was 12. The sacrament of baptism is utterly meaningless unless you actively believe in the sacraments and all the other trappings of Catholicism.