Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Church membership discussion

  • 17-09-2015 3:05am
    #1
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭


    MOD NOTE

    Discussion split from the Losing my faith thread.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    Unfortunately I was baptised so while I'm no longer religious I'm still considered a Catholic so I'm assuming in the eyes of the church I'm still subject to the same rules as practicing Catholics. I got married in a registry office and have been told, by a priest incidentally, it's not recognised as a marriage therefore I'm still living in sin.

    I'm just curious if that means I'm doomed to go to hell as I have no intention of confessing this or repenting. I can't accept that something forced on me in infancy that I had no choice over will result in my soul no being eligible for heaven just because I have sex.
    OK, couple of issues here. In no particular order:

    1. If a priest told you that your registry office marriage is unrecognised and therefore you are still living in sin, I think that priest was wrong. That is not a correct statement of the Catholic position.

    2. You say you are baptised and are “still considered a Catholic”, from which I take it that you were baptised in a Catholic ceremony.

    3. I don’t think it’s quite right, or at any rate it’s an oversimplification, to say that you are “still considered a Catholic”. The fact is that the church generally doesn’t take an explicit position on whether eviltwin, or Peregrinus, or hinault, or whoever is a Catholic unless circumstances arise in which they need to do that. Suppose - this is completely hypothetical - unhappy differences arise between you and your current Reason for Living, and you get divorced. Some time later you find a new Reason for Living and wish to marry him. He’s a Catholic and wants to marry in a Catholic ceremony and you are so besotted with him that you agree. Now the church has a canonical issue that they need to address. If you’re already married and your husband is still living, they won’t marry you in a Catholic ceremony. Therefore it matters whether your first marriage was valid or not. If you were a Catholic at the time of your first marriage, it’s invalid, and you are free to marry. If you weren’t a Catholic, your first marriage was valid, so there’s a problem. So they need to take a position on whether, at the time of your first marriage, you were a Catholic. But, the point is, they won’t take a position on that until this situation, or something similar, comes up. If you turn up, seeking particular treatment from the church on the basis that you are, or are not, a Catholic, then they need to make a decision about that. Otherwise, they don’t.

    4. Run with this fairly improbable scenario. Is it the case that, because you were baptised in infancy, would they conclude that you you were “still a Catholic” at the time of your first marriage? It’s not as simple as that. In canonical proceedings like this there’s a “presumption in favour of the faith” which is basically that, in the absence of other evidence, if you were baptised as a Catholic, that indicates that you were a Catholic and it’s presumed that you continue to be, unless there is evidence to show that you stopped being a Catholic at some point. Think of it as being a bit like the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial (except that it’s not quite so strong a presumption). The fact that we have a presumption of innocence doesn’t mean that you didn’t murder Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Candlestick; it just means that we’ll treat you as if you didn’t until you are tried, and the evidence proves that you did. Similarly, the fact that you were baptised means that - if the question ever comes up for decision - the church will treat you as having remained a Catholic until somebody (quite possibly you) shows that you stopped being a Catholic.

    5. OK. Let’s say you were still a Catholic when you married your husband in a registry office ceremony, which is considered invalid. Does this mean you’re “living in sin” with your husband? Not necessarily. We move here from the area of canon law (was the ceremony valid?) to the area of moral theology (is this act sinful?) . There are no presumptions operating here. Certainly, sex with someone you’re not married to is Not A Good Thing, in the Catholic view, but whether it’s a sin involves a other issues, such as your subjective state of knowledge and understanding, your degree of freedom in decision-making, the state of your own conscience, etc, etc. If you really want to explore the issue of your own sinfulness, there are plenty of Catholic priests and spiritual advisers who can go through these issues with you. But anyone who skips straight from “registry office ceremony” to “living in sin” has missed out a few essential steps (even if he is a priest).

    6. The one shred of comfort I take from your story is that the priest didn’t, by your account, tell you that you were “doomed to hell”; that’s a query that you have come up with yourself. He would have no business to tell you that. As we’ve seen, your marriage may in fact be perfectly valid, in the Catholic church’s view. Even if it isn’t, you may have entered into it in good conscience. (I kind of assume you did.) Even if you didn’t, the issue that’s troubling you about your marriage may not be such as to cut you off from all hope of salvation. Even if it’s a very grave issue, even if you’re convinced that your relationship is profoundly immoral, grievously wrong, dishonest, destructive, exploitative and brutal but you can’t repent of it because, hey, the sex is so hot, you’re still not “doomed to hell”, since you may yet repent of it. (In fact, if you’ve got to that point, you’re probably quite close to repenting of it.)


«1

Comments

  • #2
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    eviltwin is not Catholic Hinault. She is likely to say things that challenge your beliefs. I think you had best not respond to her either just to be on the safe side.

    Well that's what I'm not sure of. I was baptised but I don't have any faith now so while in my mind I'm not Catholic I wonder how the church sees me. Do they see me as a Catholic still?


  • #3
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Well that's what I'm not sure of. I was baptised but I don't have any faith now so while in my mind I'm not Catholic I wonder how the church sees me. Do they see me as a Catholic still?
    You're still on the books when they do their statistics...


  • #4
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Well that's what I'm not sure of. I was baptised but I don't have any faith now so while in my mind I'm not Catholic I wonder how the church sees me. Do they see me as a Catholic still?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnkJcjBCG88


    You can checkout any time you like, but you can never leave! ;)


  • #5
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Well that's what I'm not sure of. I was baptised but I don't have any faith now so while in my mind I'm not Catholic I wonder how the church sees me. Do they see me as a Catholic still?
    They won't take a view on this unless a situation arises where they need to.


  • #6
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    You're still on the books when they do their statistics...
    Nope. Church membership estimates in Ireland are based on the census figures. Assuming eviltwin does not identify as "Catholic" in the census, she's not turning up in the church statistics.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Nope. Church membership estimates in Ireland are based on the census figures. Assuming eviltwin does not identify as "Catholic" in the census, she's not turning up in the church statistics.

    And neither do I. That's something, at least.

    Having said that, the census is a very inaccurate method of calculating church membership, as many people fill out the religion part without even thinking, because they always have, even if they have given up on it long ago.


  • #8
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    And neither do I. That's something, at least.

    Having said that, the census is a very inaccurate method of calculating church membership, as many people fill out the religion part without even thinking, because they always have, even if they have given up on it long ago.
    I dunno. The fact that they identify as Catholic, or don't identify as Catholic, is surely a much more relevant and meaningful datum than your opinion as to whether they ought to identify as Catholic. Isn't it?


  • #9
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I dunno. The fact that they identify as Catholic, or don't identify as Catholic, is surely a much more relevant and meaningful datum than your opinion as to whether they ought to identify as Catholic. Isn't it?

    Not really. If someone identifies as something they aren't, out of carelessness or convenience, it skews the data. What is the real measure of membership of any religious organisation?

    It's not just the RCC, mind. The same problem in the CofI - with major implications for parishes. People identify as CofI, and are on the register of parishioners, yet have no connection to the church except, perhaps, to be buried out of it. Yet they are counted in terms of the financial contribution that is expected to come from the parish every year, which means that the regular parishioners are struggling to come up with the money.

    But that's another story.


  • #10
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    Not really. If someone identifies as something they aren't, out of carelessness or convenience, it skews the data. What is the real measure of membership of any religious organisation?
    Real measure? You're stepping into a theological minefield there! As might be expected, different Christians (and different Christian traditions) hold different views about what it is to be part of the church.

    We can't expect the Central Statistics Office to play pope, and proclaim infalliblity who is a "real" member of any religion or denomination and who is not. But if Katydid ticks "Church of Ireland" on the form then we know at least this much; Katydid considers herself an Anglican. And, real or not, that's a much more significant measure that the fact that, say, Peregrinus thinks she's not (were Pergrinus to be so presumptuous as to think anything of the kind, which he isn't).
    katydid wrote: »
    It's not just the RCC, mind. The same problem in the CofI - with major implications for parishes. People identify as CofI, and are on the register of parishioners, yet have no connection to the church except, perhaps, to be buried out of it. Yet they are counted in terms of the financial contribution that is expected to come from the parish every year, which means that the regular parishioners are struggling to come up with the money.

    But that's another story.
    I don't think you can say they're not Anglicans, though. They are Anglican who are not doing what Anglicans should, which is to participate in the church through a connection with their Anglican congregation.


  • #11
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    In the topic of the census, let's not forget that the people son filling out the census can be biased in their faith.

    For example, if I was in my wife's parents house on census night there's a very good chance both myself and my wife would be marked as Catholic by my wife's parents. Even though neither of us are,

    I suspect many parents or relatives etc ignore the belief or none belief of many and instead note people as Catholic purely based on fact they know the person was baptised.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Personal data completed on CSO forms in respect of the census is anonymous.

    It's amusing how lots of conspiracy theories are put forward by various common on garden so called secularists on the internet to explain why people in the freedom of their own homes and with the veil of anonymity still insist on identifying as Catholic in the Irish census.

    The dog ate my ekker.


  • #13
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    We can't expect the Central Statistics Office to play pope, and proclaim infalliblity who is a "real" member of any religion or denomination and who is not. But if Katydid ticks "Church of Ireland" on the form then we know at least this much; Katydid considers herself an Anglican.

    And, real or not, that's a much more significant measure that the fact that, say, Peregrinus thinks she's not (were Pergrinus to be so presumptuous as to think anything of the kind, which he isn't).

    +1.


  • #14
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    Personal data completed on CSO forms in respect of the census is anonymous.

    It's amusing how lots of conspiracy theories are put forward by various common on garden so called secularists on the internet to explain why people in the freedom of their own homes and with the veil of anonymity still insist on identifying as Catholic in the Irish census.

    The dog ate my ekker.

    It's hardly a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that people, out of carelessness or laziness, or a vague feeling of being of a particular religion or denomination without actually subscribing to it in any meaningful way, are happy to write down on a census form that they belong to that group.

    It's human nature, nothing sinister.


  • #15
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Real measure? You're stepping into a theological minefield there! As might be expected, different Christians (and different Christian traditions) hold different views about what it is to be part of the church.

    We can't expect the Central Statistics Office to play pope, and proclaim infalliblity who is a "real" member of any religion or denomination and who is not. But if Katydid ticks "Church of Ireland" on the form then we know at least this much; Katydid considers herself an Anglican. And, real or not, that's a much more significant measure that the fact that, say, Peregrinus thinks she's not (were Pergrinus to be so presumptuous as to think anything of the kind, which he isn't).


    I don't think you can say they're not Anglicans, though. They are Anglican who are not doing what Anglicans should, which is to participate in the church through a connection with their Anglican congregation.

    You're absolutely right, it's impossible to define what is the real measure of church adherence/membership.

    My point is that you can't use the CSO as a measure, which is what I thought you were implying.


  • #16
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No, no, you certainly can use the CSO as a measure. It may not be a perfect measure, but it's better than any other measure that we have. And we have to be clear-thinking about what it measures; it doesn't measure how many people hold this or that religious belief, or observe this or that religious practice. It measures how many people identify themselves as members of this or that religious community.

    And, Cabaal's point notwithstanding, I think it probably does that, if not perfectly, then with a useful degree of reliability. People's religious identity is recorded either by themselves, or by other people who mostly know them very well. That may not be a perfect way of capturing the information, but can you think of a better?


  • #17
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, no, you certainly can use the CSO as a measure. It may not be a perfect measure, but it's better than any other measure that we have. And we have to be clear-thinking about what it measures; it doesn't measure how many people hold this or that religious belief, or observe this or that religious practice. It measures how many people identify themselves as members of this or that religious community.

    And, Cabaal's point notwithstanding, I think it probably does that, if not perfectly, then with a useful degree of reliability. People's religious identity is recorded either by themselves, or by other people who mostly know them very well. That may not be a perfect way of capturing the information, but can you think of a better?
    You can use anything as a measure - it doesn't mean it's an accurate measure. Identifying as part of a cultural community of Irish Roman Catholicism is not the same as identifying as a committed Roman Catholic. If you want to count those who have de facto left the church, but are happy to call themselves Roman Catholics on an official form, that is not in any way an accurate measure of the true membership of the church.

    And yes, before you point out that you don't have to be a regular church goer to be a member - I do know that. I'm talking about the people for whom the church plays absolutely no part in their lives, other than perhaps a picturesque backdrop for wedding photos, not those on the fringes. There are a very large amount of such people out there.


  • #18
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    You can use anything as a measure - it doesn't mean it's an accurate measure. Identifying as part of a cultural community of Irish Roman Catholicism is not the same as identifying as a committed Roman Catholic. If you want to count those who have de facto left the church, but are happy to call themselves Roman Catholics on an official form, that is not in any way an accurate measure of the true membership of the church.
    Sure. But the census doesn't pretend to count "committed members" of any particular religion or denomination - just members.

    If you want to know why they consider themselves members, you'll have to ask them. The census isn't the place for that kind of qualitative research, but no doubt other research exists to explore the nature of religious identity in Ireland.

    And if, having done that, you then want to express an opinion as to the reality or validity of their connection with their denomination, go ahead. But, remember, what you are expressing is just your own opinion, and may not be of much interest to others. If, e.g., Sammy thinks he's a Jew, and other Jews think he's a Jew, does it matter very greatly if a pseudonymous poster on an internet discussion board thinks he's not a real Jew?

    I can see how the Catholic church, or the C of I, or any similar organisation might want those who identify with it to build a stronger connection than they already have. It doesn't follow, though, that those organisations consider them not to be members, still less that they must or should consider them not to be members.


  • #19
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Sure. But the census doesn't pretend to count "committed members" of any particular religion or denomination - just members.

    If you want to know why they consider themselves members, you'll have to ask them. The census isn't the place for that kind of qualitative research, but no doubt other research exists to explore the nature of religious identity in Ireland.

    And if, having done that, you then want to express an opinion as to the reality or validity of their connection with their denomination, go ahead. But, remember, what you are expressing is just your own opinion, and may not be of much interest to others. If, e.g., Sammy thinks he's a Jew, and other Jews think he's a Jew, does it matter very greatly if a pseudonymous poster on an internet discussion board thinks he's not a real Jew?

    I can see how the Catholic church, or the C of I, or any similar organisation might want those who identify with it to build a stronger connection than they already have. It doesn't follow, though, that those organisations consider them not to be members, still less that they must or should consider them not to be members.
    No, it certainly doesn't count committed members. So, as I keep saying, it is no true measure of the membership of any Christian denomination or any religious organisation. And that is what we are discussing here; not the numbers who call themselves Christian, but those who are committed.

    My opinion or your opinion or anyone else's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The FACTS are there and the FACTS are that many people who say that they belong to a denomination or religion are not committed, but say so out of laziness or convenience.


  • #20
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    No, it certainly doesn't count committed members. So, as I keep saying, it is no true measure of the membership of any Christian denomination or any religious organisation. And that is what we are discussing here; not the numbers who call themselves Christian, but those who are committed.
    No, that's not what we are discussing. The census doesn't measure the number of committed Catholics; just the number of Catholics. The church - the catholic church - is not made up of committed Christians; it's made up of Christians. The Anglican commuion, the Roman Catholic church, are not made up of committed Anglicans or committed Catholics; they're made up of Anglicans and Catholics. And so forth.

    The fact that Christians may lack commitment may be regrettable. It may be deplorable. It may be a challenge. It may be a disgrace. But it doesn't put them outside the church.
    katydid wrote: »
    My opinion or your opinion or anyone else's opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The FACTS are there and the FACTS are that many people who say that they belong to a denomination or religion are not committed, but say so out of laziness or convenience.
    Well, no. They may be uncommitted out of laziness or convenience, but it's not laziness or inconvenience that keeps them identifying as Christians. It doesn't take any extra work to tick the "no religion" box or leave the question unanswered, nor is it particularly inconvenient to do so.

    The fact that they still tick the religious box suggest that they do have, and do attach some value to, a connection with the church, and have some desire to retain that connection. The task for us is to call them to build up and strengthen that connection, rather than deny it and cast them into the outer darkness.


  • #21
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,782 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I would think that many people, faced with the question of what religion they are, think - well I was brought up Catholic therefore I am Catholic, and tick that box. They do not have enough interest or concern to bother wondering if they should tick 'no religion', and maybe they think that having been brought up in a particular religion they have no choice in the matter.

    There is also a sizeable cultural/superstitious hurdle to get over to go from a particular denomination to 'no religion'.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, that's not what we are discussing. The census doesn't measure the number of committed Catholics; just the number of Catholics. The church - the catholic church - is not made up of committed Christians; it's made up of Christians. The Anglican commuion, the Roman Catholic church, are not made up of committed Anglicans or committed Catholics; they're made up of Anglicans and Catholics. And so forth.

    The fact that Christians may lack commitment may be regrettable. It may be deplorable. It may be a challenge. It may be a disgrace. But it doesn't put them outside the church.


    Well, no. They may be uncommitted out of laziness or convenience, but it's not laziness or inconvenience that keeps them identifying as Christians. It doesn't take any extra work to tick the "no religion" box or leave the question unanswered, nor is it particularly inconvenient to do so.

    The fact that they still tick the religious box suggest that they do have, and do attach some value to, a connection with the church, and have some desire to retain that connection. The task for us is to call them to build up and strengthen that connection, rather than deny it and cast them into the outer darkness.
    Total disconnection puts them outside the church. As I said previously, I'm not referring to the hangers on, for whom connections are loose. But to those who have disengaged, have no connection whatsoever other than a cultural one, but who will describe themselves as belonging to whatever church it may be because they are too lazy to do otherwise, or wish to describe themselves in a certain way for cultural, or even political reasons. I wouldn't link ticking the box on the census form necessarily with a desire to retain a connection.

    I thoroughly agree with you that those who wish to retain that link, no matter how tenuous, should be encouraged and facilitated.


  • #23
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    Total disconnection puts them outside the church. As I said previously, I'm not referring to the hangers on, for whom connections are loose. But to those who have disengaged, have no connection whatsoever other than a cultural one, but who will describe themselves as belonging to whatever church it may be because they are too lazy to do otherwise, or wish to describe themselves in a certain way for cultural, or even political reasons. I wouldn't link ticking the box on the census form necessarily with a desire to retain a connection.

    I thoroughly agree with you that those who wish to retain that link, no matter how tenuous, should be encouraged and facilitated.
    If they have ticked the box, they're by definition not "totally disconnected"; they have a sufficient connection to want to tick the box. Even if its purely a cultural connection, that's still a connection.


  • #24
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    looksee wrote: »
    I would think that many people, faced with the question of what religion they are, think - well I was brought up Catholic therefore I am Catholic, and tick that box. They do not have enough interest or concern to bother wondering if they should tick 'no religion', and maybe they think that having been brought up in a particular religion they have no choice in the matter.

    There is also a sizeable cultural/superstitious hurdle to get over to go from a particular denomination to 'no religion'.
    I think there's some inertia factor there, right enough. It takes a positive decision to decide that you're, e.g., Anglican instead of Catholic, or that you have ceased to be religious at all, or ceased to be non-religious.

    But I don't think that's the same as their declaration of identity being wrong. If somebody, faced with a "no religion" box, feels reluctant to tick it, it's very hard to say that he is, in fact, of no religion, because clearly that's not what he feels and, let's face it, he knows more about his identity than you do. It doesn't matter, I think, whether you ascribe his reluctance to "superstition" (or even whether you correctly ascribe his reluctance to "superstition"); I know some atheists who would say that all religion is superstition. But the fact that his reasons for his holding the identity he does might not seem good to you doesn't change the objective truth that he does hold the identity that he does.

    I don't think the census is the place for passing judgments about people who hold identities that you think they shouldn't; it's just about finding out what identities they hold.


  • #25
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,782 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think there's some inertia factor there, right enough. It takes a positive decision to decide that you're, e.g., Anglican instead of Catholic, or that you have ceased to be religious at all, or ceased to be non-religious.

    But I don't think that's the same as their declaration of identity being wrong. If somebody, faced with a "no religion" box, feels reluctant to tick it, it's very hard to say that he is, in fact, of no religion, because clearly that's not what he feels and, let's face it, he knows more about his identity than you do. It doesn't matter, I think, whether you ascribe his reluctance to "superstition" (or even whether you correctly ascribe his reluctance to "superstition"); I know some atheists who would say that all religion is superstition. But the fact that his reasons for his holding the identity he does might not seem good to you doesn't change the objective truth that he does hold the identity that he does.

    I don't think the census is the place for passing judgments about people who hold identities that you think they shouldn't; it's just about finding out what identities they hold.

    In spite of my personal beliefs, I was not suggesting that all religion is superstition, but I think even a believer would acknowledge that some people's religion is essentially superstition, or as I sometimes call it, 'insurance policy' beliefs.


  • #26
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    looksee wrote: »
    In spite of my personal beliefs, I was not suggesting that all religion is superstition, but I think even a believer would acknowledge that some people's religion is essentially superstition, or as I sometimes call it, 'insurance policy' beliefs.
    Maybe it is, but that just tells you why they have the identity they do. It doesn't change the fact that they do have that identity.


  • #27
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,782 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Maybe it is, but that just tells you why they have the identity they do. It doesn't change the fact that they do have that identity.

    You do seem to be reaching here. You seem to be suggesting that absolutely any reason at all can be interpreted as 'one more for the church (or belief, or faith)' when in fact there is no reason beyond inertia. What does that level of 'identity' prove?


  • #28
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No, no, I'm not interested in ramping up the numbers here. If people aren't Catholic or Anglican or whatever, they shouldn't tick those boxes. They can tick the "no religion" box or, if they feel equally uncomfortable with that, they can just leave the question unanswered.

    Far from me "reaching" to get "one more for belief", I'm just taking at face value what people say. If anybody's doing any "reaching", it's those who try to dismiss what people say by conjectures about superstition, or habit, or the Mammy factor, in order to move the census results in a direction that they personally are more comfortable with. My view is that the best authority on your religious identity is you, and the conjectures of pseudonymous commentators on internet discussion boards are no substitute for what you have to say about the question.

    So, if the census shows that 3.86 million people identify as Catholics, what does that tell us? It tells us that 3.86 million people in the Republic have a connection with Catholicism which leads them to name it as their religion.

    What is the nature of that connection? The census doesn't tell us that. If we want to know, we'll have to ask them. We can't ask them all individually, of course, but we can certainly do more research, qualitative research, into the nature of religious identification in Ireland. That might help to give us some picture of the, no doubt diverse, range of connections with Catholicism that lead people to identify as Catholic. (And of course rinse and repeat for all the other identifications that people claim in the census. Including the "no religion" identification, come to think of it.)

    That would give you a better picture of the nature of religious identification. But it still wouldn't enable you to say who was a "real" Catholic (Anglican/Jew/Presbyterian/unbeliever). To do that you have to adopt some criterion for what is "real" Catholicism (Anglicanism/Judaism . . .) and what is not. And if you simply choose the standard that appeals to you, that doesn't have any obvious validity. Who is looksee to decree what is authentic Catholicism or what is not? Who is Peregrinus? Who is katydid?

    I think the only thing you can do here that's at all meaningful is to apply the standards applied by the various communities themselves - you're Jewish if Jews think you're Jewish, as it were. And, yes, that means different standards apply to determine participation in different communities, and sometimes the standards will be a bit fuzzy around the edges. That's messy, true, but it's an accurate reflection of reality.

    In short, I can reasonably reject your claim to be Jewish if other Jews, and the Jewish community at large, deny that you are Jewish. But if they accept you as a Jew, then the fact that you don't conform to my conception of what a Jew is or should be is irrelevant. And the same goes for other religious identifications.

    Of course, if I'm happy to apply my own personal standards to decide whether other people's religious identification is valid or real, the process becomes much simpler. No need for any of that tiresome (and expensive) qualitative research to find out why people are identifying as Catholic or Jewish or unbelievers. No need to investigate the self-understanding of diverse religious communities. I can just make the assumptions that produce the results I want. But in doing that I would probably cast more light on myself than on the people whose religious identification I am judging.

    I'm not reaching here. All I'm saying is that I take people's religious identification to mean something, not nothing. If you want to know what it means, you have to ask them. If you want to dismiss it as not meaning what it ought to mean, you have to (a) ask them what it means, and (b) make an objectively defensible case for what it should mean. If you haven't done these things, but are still inviting me to agree that they are not real Catholics, Anglicans, Jews, then it's not me that's reaching.


  • #29
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,139 ✭✭✭homer911


    Just to add fuel to the discussion, the Presbyterian Church would collate annual statistics from each church:
    • No. of Members
    • Ave. Church attendance
    • No. of children on the Sunday School roll
    • No. of families ministered to


  • #30
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    homer911 wrote: »
    Just to add fuel to the discussion, the Presbyterian Church would collate annual statistics from each church:
    • No. of Members
    • Ave. Church attendance
    • No. of children on the Sunday School roll
    • No. of families ministered to

    A lot of the Protestant churches would have a membership roll.
    I always remember a conversation with a Baptist on this when he couldn't understand why we didn't have one.
    His question was " how do we know who is part of the church?"
    20 years on there are people who have leftcus for various reasons who are still a part of us :)
    We all continue in the "Fellowship" :)


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    homer911 wrote: »
    Just to add fuel to the discussion, the Presbyterian Church would collate annual statistics from each church:
    • No. of Members
    • Ave. Church attendance
    • No. of children on the Sunday School roll
    • No. of families ministered to
    The Catholic church also collects mass attendance figures. (Otherwise, how could we know what percentage of Catholics attend mass? And yet we do know this.) Plus, there are figures for households paying parish dues, etc. So there are various measures of religious practice and religious engagement to set against the figures for religious identification.
    Ariya Icy Lemon wrote: »
    I always remember a conversation with a Baptist on this when he couldn't understand why we didn't have one.
    His question was " how do we know who is part of the church?"
    Why would we need to know that? Serious question.

    On an individual level, as has been discussed already, it may be necessary for the church to make a decision as to whether someone is in the Catholic church or not. That can be done case-by-case, as the need arises, but for most of us that need will never arise. There's never a point at which there is any practical need for a complete list of Catholics, so why keep one? In so far as there's a need for an estimate of the total numbers of Catholics, the census provides that (in Ireland, at any rate). Why reinvent the wheel?


  • #32
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The Catholic church also collects mass attendance figures. (Otherwise, how could we know what percentage of Catholics attend mass? And yet we do know this.) Plus, there are figures for households paying parish dues, etc. So there are various measures of religious practice and religious engagement to set against the figures for religious identification.

    Why would we need to know that? Serious question.

    On an individual level, as has been discussed already, it may be necessary for the church to make a decision as to whether someone is in the Catholic church or not. That can be done case-by-case, as the need arises, but for most of us that need will never arise. There's never a point at which there is any practical need for a complete list of Catholics, so why keep one? In so far as there's a need for an estimate of the total numbers of Catholics, the census provides that (in Ireland, at any rate). Why reinvent the wheel?
    For a lot of the Protestant churches membership also confers voting rights and the agreement of the member with the churches constitution.
    Non members havecno say in how the church runs.


  • #33
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Ariya Icy Lemon wrote: »
    For a lot of the Protestant churches membership also confers voting rights and the agreement of the member with the churches constitution.
    Non members havecno say in how the church runs.
    That's also true in the Catholic church, in places where they have elected parish councils (e.g. Germany, Austria).

    But I don't think there's any very heavy-handed policing of the electoral franchise. The assumption is that nobody is going to turn up to vote unless they actually want to be involved in the parish, in which case the very act of voting is itself a marker of a greater engagement than "I was baptised in infancy".


  • #34
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,084 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    katydid wrote: »
    You're still on the books when they do their statistics...


    No you won't - unless you got baptised just this year and are leaving already!

    Catholic statistical returns are based on the number of point-in-time events: numbers of baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc held during the year - and number of people attending Mass (based on headcounts taken during a nominated month).

    There is no attempt to correlate numbers and say things like

    membership at year 2 = membership at year 1 + baptisms - funerals.

    They know this would be impossible, because people move, some don't have catholic funerals, some join without need additional baptism, etc.

    Catholic churches in some places do keep lists of people who have chosen to register with the parish. But this is optional, and there are no official statistical returns based on this. (Possibly some bishops do ask for statistics about register sizes, but I think they could not enforce it because church-law doesn't require it.)

    So - to stop getting counted as Catholic, then just stop going to Mass and they'll stop counting you.


  • #35
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's also true in the Catholic church, in places where they have elected parish councils (e.g. Germany, Austria).

    But I don't think there's any very heavy-handed policing of the electoral franchise. The assumption is that nobody is going to turn up to vote unless they actually want to be involved in the parish, in which case the very act of voting is itself a marker of a greater engagement than "I was baptised in infancy".

    Its the opposite with the Protestant churches that I know. They guard their membership rights closely.


  • #36
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    If they have ticked the box, they're by definition not "totally disconnected"; they have a sufficient connection to want to tick the box. Even if its purely a cultural connection, that's still a connection.
    Hmm. Clutching at straws there.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think the census is the place for passing judgments about people who hold identities that you think they shouldn't; it's just about finding out what identities they hold.
    Given that there's a clear gap between people's perception of their identities in this matter and their actual adherence to the tenets or beliefs of the religion or denomination they claim to identify with, the point remains that the census can't measure the latter so is pointless in terms of any meaningful discussion of church membership/belief.


  • #38
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's also true in the Catholic church, in places where they have elected parish councils (e.g. Germany, Austria).

    But I don't think there's any very heavy-handed policing of the electoral franchise. The assumption is that nobody is going to turn up to vote unless they actually want to be involved in the parish, in which case the very act of voting is itself a marker of a greater engagement than "I was baptised in infancy".

    We'd be happy if they turned up to vote! It's usually the same people electing each other onto the Vestry and Synod.


  • #39
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,782 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    There's never a point at which there is any practical need for a complete list of Catholics, so why keep one? In so far as there's a need for an estimate of the total numbers of Catholics, the census provides that (in Ireland, at any rate). Why reinvent the wheel?

    I personally do not care what religion people declare themselves to be. I am not entirely sure why it is relevant to the census unless the state is using those figures for some reason.

    If the figures are not being used, then it doesn't matter what anyone claims to be and probably the question should be removed from the census.

    If the figures are being used, what for? If it is to show that there is a majority Catholic ethos in the country then it could matter a lot whether people claim to be Catholic when they never go to mass, or take any part in Church life, except possibly for weddings and funerals.

    Weddings for tradition and decorative effect, funerals, in the absence of any other church-going, for convenience (it is much easier than trying to organise a non-Catholic funeral and saves rows with the relatives) and baptisms are already distorted by the need to get children into schools.


  • #40
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    looksee wrote: »
    I personally do not care what religion people declare themselves to be. I am not entirely sure why it is relevant to the census unless the state is using those figures for some reason.

    If the figures are not being used, then it doesn't matter what anyone claims to be and probably the question should be removed from the census.

    If the figures are being used, what for? If it is to show that there is a majority Catholic ethos in the country then it could matter a lot whether people claim to be Catholic when they never go to mass, or take any part in Church life, except possibly for weddings and funerals.

    Weddings for tradition and decorative effect, funerals, in the absence of any other church-going, for convenience (it is much easier than trying to organise a non-Catholic funeral and saves rows with the relatives) and baptisms are already distorted by the need to get children into schools.
    I wouldn't agree with not having the question on the census, because it is some measure, even if not very accurate, of religions affiliation. It is worrying, though, that it can be used as a reason to, for arguing for continuing religious indoctrination in state schools, and other such things.

    But it's a sociological phenomenon, and as such needs to be measured.


  • #41
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    With the creation of East Germany, the authorities there called their country the German Democratic Republic.

    Apart from other communist adherents no one else was fooled in to accepting that East Germany was in fact democratic.

    Protestants using the designation catholic to describe themselves fools very few people too.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    With the creation of East Germany, the authorities there called their country the German Democratic Republic.

    Apart from other communist adherents no one else was fooled in to accepting that East Germany was in fact democratic.

    Protestants using the designation catholic to describe themselves fools very few people too.

    Well, since many Protestant denominations ARE Catholic, it's a case of simply being accurate.

    On the other hand, the ROMAN Catholic church claiming the term "Catholic" exclusively, when it's clear they aren't and can never be the only Catholics, is fooling nobody.


  • #43
    homer911
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,139 ✭✭✭homer911


    Ariya Icy Lemon wrote: »
    For a lot of the Protestant churches membership also confers voting rights and the agreement of the member with the churches constitution.
    Non members havecno say in how the church runs.

    Voting rights are also often linked to church financial support (no minimum, just to have made a contribution) and participation in Communion - I suppose it comes down to active membership, not notional membership


  • #44
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    katydid wrote: »
    Well, since many Protestant denominations ARE Catholic, it's a case of simply being accurate.

    On the other hand, the ROMAN Catholic church claiming the term "Catholic" exclusively, when it's clear they aren't and can never be the only Catholics, is fooling nobody.

    Agreed.
    I'm Catholic I.e part of the Universal Church which according to Scripture is both in Heaven and Earth.
    i 'm not however part of the Roman or Orthodox communions.
    Needless to say, I'm not part of any of the Protestant Communions either.:)


  • #45
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Ariya Icy Lemon wrote: »
    Agreed.
    I'm Catholic I.e part of the Universal Church which according to Scripture is both in Heaven and Earth.
    i 'm not however part of the Roman or Orthodox communions.
    Needless to say, I'm not part of any of the Protestant Communions either.:)

    Needless?? :-)


  • #46
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    Given that there's a clear gap between people's perception of their identities in this matter and their actual adherence to the tenets or beliefs of the religion or denomination they claim to identify with, the point remains that the census can't measure the latter so is pointless in terms of any meaningful discussion of church membership/belief.
    The census doesn't measure "actual adherence to the tenets or beliefs". It doesn't follow, though that it's useless as a measure of church membership unless you assume that church membership is defined by actual adherence to tenets or beliefs.

    But, obviously, membership of any particular church isn't defined by katydid; it's defined by the church itself. So what this boils down to is: the census doesn't measure some of the things which may, or may not, be relevant to determining church membership, depending on whether that church takes katydid's view as to what constitutes "membership".

    Which means that the census can't be conclusive as to church membership. It doesn't mean, though, that the census is pointless. The fact that people identify as members of a particular church is certainly a highly relevant datum in considering the membership of that church.

    Part of the problem is that church membership isn't a simple binary. Church membership - at least in Catholic church - is a relationship. Relationships can be more or less healthy. What the tick in the box tells us is that there is, at least presumptively, a relationship there. It doesn't tell us how healthy that relationship is.


  • #47
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree with not having the question on the census, because it is some measure, even if not very accurate, of religions affiliation. It is worrying, though, that it can be used as a reason to, for arguing for continuing religious indoctrination in state schools, and other such things.

    But it's a sociological phenomenon, and as such needs to be measured.
    They use the religion data for social planning purposes.

    The state, generally, isn't interested in your beliefs because (a) it's none of their business, and (b) even if it were, the census wouldn't be a particularly effective mechanism for collecting information about that. But they are interested in your religious identification because, in so far as religion is relevant to the kind of things the state does, religious identification is a much more useful correllant than measures of religious practice or religious belief. For example, in most (all?) western countries it's been found that demand for religious school places is much more closely correlated with religious identification, per the census, than with, e.g., measures of mass attendance.

    Note, I am not saying that everyone who identifies as Catholic in the census wants a Catholic school place. All I am saying is that changes in the rate of Catholic identification in successive censuses are linked with changes in demand for Catholic school places, whereas changes in the rate of mass attendance (known not from the census, obviously, but from other sources) are not. So if you're planning schools, and you need to project the demand for Catholic school places, you really have no use for mass attendance figures, but you do want religious identification figures.

    The UK government holds a consultation before each census about what information should be sought, and publishes the results. They survey:
    - Central and devolved governments
    - Experts, community and special interest groups
    - Local and regional governments
    - Local service providers

    In the consultation before the 2011 census, a clear majority of the submissions from all four groups wanted the census to collect information on religion. They offered a variety of reasons for wanting this, including:
    - to provide a clearer view of society and to gain a better understanding of
    certain ethnic groups
    - to improve understanding of local populations and markets
    - to promote legal obligations to prevent discrimination and promote equality


  • #48
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Note, I am not saying that everyone who identifies as Catholic in the census wants a Catholic school place. All I am saying is that changes in the rate of Catholic identification in successive censuses are linked with changes in demand for Catholic school places, whereas changes in the rate of mass attendance (known not from the census, obviously, but from other sources) are not. So if you're planning schools, and you need to project the demand for Catholic school places, you really have no use for mass attendance figures, but you do want religious identification figures.
    But that is exactly how this data is misused. One can't determine the real numbers of Roman Catholics from this data, yet it is used to justify the maintenance of a system where religious indoctrination is permitted in state schools. The ninety something percent who claim to be Roman Catholic is made up of some who have a genuine reason for wanting their children to be indoctrinated in school - maybe they don't feel capable of it themselves, or don't trust their clergy. But it is also made up of an awful lot of people who want the photograph on the mantelpiece of little Sinéad in her communion dress, but don't want to have to do anything themselves to make this happen, and are quite happy to send her to a school where a state employee will do the job the parents and clergy are supposed to do.

    As long as this high percentage of people tick the box, this disgraceful situation will continue, justified by the box ticking.

    I have no problem with the other reasons you outlined for the collection of such data, but it should not be used to justify the use of state funds for religious indoctrination.


  • #49
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The census doesn't measure "actual adherence to the tenets or beliefs". It doesn't follow, though that it's useless as a measure of church membership unless you assume that church membership is defined by actual adherence to tenets or beliefs.

    But, obviously, membership of any particular church isn't defined by katydid; it's defined by the church itself. So what this boils down to is: the census doesn't measure some of the things which may, or may not, be relevant to determining church membership, depending on whether that church takes katydid's view as to what constitutes "membership".

    Which means that the census can't be conclusive as to church membership. It doesn't mean, though, that the census is pointless. The fact that people identify as members of a particular church is certainly a highly relevant datum in considering the membership of that church.

    Part of the problem is that church membership isn't a simple binary. Church membership - at least in Catholic church - is a relationship. Relationships can be more or less healthy. What the tick in the box tells us is that there is, at least presumptively, a relationship there. It doesn't tell us how healthy that relationship is.
    I never suggested that church membership is a binary. But your claim that any kind of claim to be a member is a "relationship" with the church is stretching credulity - if a person is baptised as a baby into a Christian church, but, once free to think for themselves, has no connection with it all their adult life, unthinkingly ticking a box that identifies them as belonging to that church is nonsense.


  • #50
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    I never suggested that church membership is a binary. But your claim that any kind of claim to be a member is a "relationship" with the church is stretching credulity - if a person is baptised as a baby into a Christian church, but, once free to think for themselves, has no connection with it all their adult life, unthinkingly ticking a box that identifies them as belonging to that church is nonsense.
    I'm not prepared to make the assumption that you make that their identification is "unthinking". I see no reason to assume this, and it seems like a disrespectful assumption to make. My default is to take their identification to mean something. If you want me to believe that it means nothing, evidence, please.


  • #51
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    katydid wrote: »
    But that is exactly how this data is misused . . . I have no problem with the other reasons you outlined for the collection of such data, but it should not be used to justify the use of state funds for religious indoctrination.
    No, no, no. The justification for using state funds to provide religious schools is that there are citizens who want to send their children to religious schools. The census data is used to inform projections of how many parents might want to send their children to religious schools, but not to justify the provision of religious schools in the first place.

    As for your screed about why parents choose religious schools, it probably says more about you than about the parents. But, either way, it's of no interest to the state. It's not, primarily, the business of the state to tell parents what schools they ought to want for their children; that would be a rather totalitarian attitude for the State to take.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement