Church membership discussion

realdanbreen

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?

Most of those who have lapsed have done so out of 'carelessness' or laziness anyway.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

And the projections are used to continue the building and funding of such schools, despite the disconnect between the reality of commitment to a particular denomination or not.

I'm not sure what my opinion of religious indoctrination in schools says about me. The fact is that it is the job of the parents and religious leaders to provide religious indoctrination in faith matters to young people; the state should not be facilitating this private matter. Parents want many things for their children, it's not up to the state to provide them. Or do you suggest the state pay for ballet lessons and the like, and provide teachers for them in school time?

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

And the projections are used to continue the building and funding of such schools, despite the disconnect between the reality of commitment to a particular denomination or not.

No. The practice nowadays is that the decision to build a new school is driven by raw demographics; how many children do we project to need school places? Religion or the lack of it doesn't enter into that. Once the decision to build has been made, tenders to act as patron are invited. The census results are not used to filter tenders; anyone can tender. And prospective patrons demonstrate demand for the type of school they intend to provide, not by pointing to the census figures, but by seeking expressions of interest from parents of children who will be of school age when the school is due to open.

So where do the census results come in to this process? I think in two possible ways. Indirectly, the census results might be used by a prospective tenderer to decide whether they want to tender for this school. Or, for a tenderer representing a minority faith, the census results might be used to make the point that, although they don't have the greatest number of interested parents in the immediate district, they represent a minority community which has no schools in that district or any adjacent district, and across all the districts that such a minority school might appeal to there is likely to be more interest.

The other areas where the census results come in is in evaluating the bigger picture. If we look at the disposition of schools in Ireland as a whole, the census results suggest that patronage is massively skewed towards the Catholic church. If we didn't have the census results, it would be harder to make that argument.

katydid wrote: »

I'm not sure what my opinion of religious indoctrination in schools says about me. The fact is that it is the job of the parents and religious leaders to provide religious indoctrination in faith matters to young people; the state should not be facilitating this private matter. Parents want many things for their children, it's not up to the state to provide them. Or do you suggest the state pay for ballet lessons and the like, and provide teachers for them in school time?

The fact that you reduce choose to reduce patronage to "religious indoctrination" is fairly telling, though, isn't it? You describe the parents as seeking "religious indoctrination" but, just as you are projecting your own assumptions about why people tick the box on the census form, you are now projecting your own assumptions about why they choose the schools they do. Their account of why they choose a Catholic school, or a Church of Ireland school, or whatever might be quite different to your account of why they choose it. But you don't know that, because you haven't asked them. And yet their account of their reasons for their choice is obvisuoly a much more relevant datum for decision-makers than your account of their reason for their choice, isn't it?

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The practice nowadays is that the decision to build a new school is driven by raw demographics; how many children do we project to need school places? Religion or the lack of it doesn't enter into that. Once the decision to build has been made, tenders to act as patron are invited. The census results are not used to filter tenders; anyone can tender. And prospective patrons demonstrate demand for the type of school they intend to provide, not by pointing to the census figures, but by seeking expressions of interest from parents of children who will be of school age when the school is due to open.

So where do the census results come in to this process? I think in two possible ways. Indirectly, the census results might be used by a prospective tenderer to decide whether they want to tender for this school. Or, for a tenderer representing a minority faith, the census results might be used to make the point that, although they don't have the greatest number of interested parents in the immediate district, they represent a minority community which has no schools in that district or any adjacent district, and across all the districts that such a minority school might appeal to there is likely to be more interest.

The other areas where the census results come in is in evaluating the bigger picture. If we look at the disposition of schools in Ireland as a whole, the census results suggest that patronage is massively skewed towards the Catholic church. If we didn't have the census results, it would be harder to make that argument.


The fact that you reduce choose to reduce patronage to "religious indoctrination" is fairly telling, though, isn't it? You describe the parents as seeking "religious indoctrination" but, just as you are projecting your own assumptions about why people tick the box on the census form, you are now projecting your own assumptions about why they choose the schools they do. Their account of why they choose a Catholic school, or a Church of Ireland school, or whatever might be quite different to your account of why they choose it. But you don't know that, because you haven't asked them. And yet their account of their reasons for their choice is obvisuoly a much more relevant datum for decision-makers than your account of their reason for their choice, isn't it?

YOU said that the information on religion is used in the census to determine things such as the provision of denominational schools. Now you say it has no relevance.. People's interest in allowing the state to do the job the church is supposed to do should have no part in a secular republic anyway.

I didn't reduce patronage to religious indoctrination. I am describing the form this religious element takes, especially in RC schools. Religion is not taught in a way that encompasses all religions - specific denominational doctrine is taught, and specific denominational practices are prepared for in school time, excluding those children who are not part of that denominational group. Teaching doctrine IS indoctrination.

People choose non-Roman Catholic schools because they don't wish their children to be subjected to this indoctrination, or because non RC schools tend to be more inclusive and tolerant of difference. If all schools were secular, there would be no need for children to travel out of their communities to avoid this.

What other reason could there be?

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I think in many cases it is unthinking and in others it is wrong thinking. My OH has not been in a church in decades and doesn't actually believe in god, when it came to choosing schools for our kids she did not want them attending faith schools, but in the last census in the UK she put herself as catholic "because that's what she was baptised." She is French, by the way.

I think the most accurate way to get the number will be to introduce a taxation system like they have in Germany, and then count the number of people registered under the various religions. If there is going to be an impact to the bank balance it might concentrate the minds a little.

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

I think in many cases it is unthinking and in others it is wrong thinking. My OH has not been in a church in decades and doesn't actually believe in god, when it came to choosing schools for our kids she did not want them attending faith schools, but in the last census in the UK she put herself as catholic "because that's what she was baptised." She is French, by the way.

I think the most accurate way to get the number will be to introduce a taxation system like they have in Germany, and then count the number of people registered under the various religions. If there is going to be an impact to the bank balance it might concentrate the minds a little.

MrP

Oh yes, I've often wondered what percentage that 95% would go down to if they were asked to pay 7% tax...

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

I think in many cases it is unthinking and in others it is wrong thinking. My OH has not been in a church in decades and doesn't actually believe in god, when it came to choosing schools for our kids she did not want them attending faith schools, but in the last census in the UK she put herself as catholic "because that's what she was baptised." She is French, by the way.

And what gives your definition of "Catholic" greater validity than hers?

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the most accurate way to get the number will be to introduce a taxation system like they have in Germany, and then count the number of people registered under the various religions. If there is going to be an impact to the bank balance it might concentrate the minds a little.

Actually, we might be surprised. More than 90% of Icelanders pay the church tax, despite the fact that less than 10% of them are churchgoers. And there are similar (if not perhaps quite so great) disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to get out of bed on Sunday mornings in other countries with a church tax.

Which suggests that an awful lot of people who don't go to church still have a significant investment in their religious identity. Which makes the point that you can't invalidate the census religious identification by pointing to church attendance figures.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, we might be surprised. More than 90% of Icelanders pay the church tax, despite the fact that less than 10% of them are churchgoers. And there are similar (if not perhaps quite so great) disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to get out of bed on Sunday mornings in other countries with a church tax.

Which suggests that an awful lot of people who don't go to church still have a significant investment in their religious identity. Which makes the point that you can't invalidate the census religious identification by pointing to church attendance figures.

I don't know about Iceland, but many Germans are happy to maintain a vague link with the church by paying tax because the church, from the money they get, cover a lot of the social services the state should do. They finance old folks homes, institutes for the disabled etc. So the Germans see the church as a kind of social service, in a way. A friend of mine, who is half Swedish, calls Swedish society a "post-Christian" society in their attitude to the church - many people belong because it's the place to be wed and buried, nothing more.

Peregrinus

Yes. But a desire to provide for the sick, the poor, the needy, etc is of course a central preoccupation of Christianity. And here are a large cohort of people who choose to do so through identifying as members of (and contributing financially to) a christian church which does this out of an explicit religious motivation, when they are not legally required to do either. You think that's less of an indicator of "membership" than going to religious services?

(I think I feel an analogy with the parable of the good Samaritan, who helped, and the priest, who passed by on the other side of the road, coming on. You get the point.)

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But a desire to provide for the sick, the poor, the needy, etc is of course a central preoccupation of Christianity. And here are a large cohort of people who choose to do so through identifying as members of (and contributing financially to) a christian church which does this out of an explicit religious motivation, when they are not legally required to do either. You think that's less of an indicator of "membership" than going to religious services?

(I think I feel an analogy with the parable of the good Samaritan, who helped, and the priest, who passed by on the other side of the road, coming on. You get the point.)

I get the point. But you don't get mine. They are not necessarily doing it from the point of view of helping the poor and needy from a Christian perspective - Christians don't have a monopoly on this. It's because the way they see it, the tax is part of the normal taxes they pay to maintain this element of society.

My mother in law in Germany pays her church tax, but has no connection with the church at all other than the occasional visit at Easter because it's part of the Easter ritual. She grew up in East Germany, where religion wasn't encouraged and her religious affiliation is nominal.
But if and when she needs to go into a home, she knows that her tax has contributed towards this facility.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

And what gives your definition of "Catholic" greater validity than hers?

Being baptised is something that happens, for the most part, and in my GF's case, before the person being baptised has made any conscious decision about their religion. Being baptised applies, if you will, a label to the person. Further sacraments, taken later in life confirm those commitments that were agreed upon on your behalf when you were baptised.

Those commitments, and the adherence to them, must have some relevance to one's entitlement to continue to use that label. Where a person has had, and continues to have, sex before marriage, uses contraception, has children outside of marriage, does not believe in transubstantiation, thinks the pope is a prick that is no infallible, support abortion, supports gay marriage and, seriously, does not believe in god you think they have a valid claim to the title catholic? Come on.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, we might be surprised. More than 90% of Icelanders pay the church tax, despite the fact that less than 10% of them are churchgoers. And there are similar (if not perhaps quite so great) disparities between willingness to pay and willingness to get out of bed on Sunday mornings in other countries with a church tax.

What is the composition of the church tax there? I would be willing to pay a tax, broadly described as a church tax, so long as it went to humanist organisations, though I freely admit this would limit the utility of a church tax in sorting the catholic from the non.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which suggests that an awful lot of people who don't go to church still have a significant investment in their religious identity. Which makes the point that you can't invalidate the census religious identification by pointing to church attendance figures.

Or it could still be unthinking or simple laziness. What is the alternative to paying the church tax?

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

Or it could still be unthinking or simple laziness. What is the alternative to paying the church tax?

MrP

Not paying it...

In Germany, at least, when you reach the age of eighteen you are asked if you wish to pay the tax or not. If you don't, you are not a registered member of your parish. You can of course attend church services but you have no voting rights or suchlike.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

Not paying it...

In Germany, at least, when you reach the age of eighteen you are asked if you wish to pay the tax or not. If you don't, you are not a registered member of your parish. You can of course attend church services but you have no voting rights or suchlike.

OK, I was talking more about Iceland, sorry I don't have time to research. My point would have been, if the tax was coming out and it was simply a matter of where it went, people may treat the decision as to where it goes similarly to how they fill in the census.

In your mother and law's circumstances I can see the upside to paying it, she will apparently see some benefit from it. Personally I would prefer the money to go elsewhere, if possible, but appreciate the choices might be limited.

So I suppose that unless it was a pay it or don't pay it option and if you did pay it the money was simply used by the church as they saw fit and there were no non-religious (or useful services) one would have access to as a result, it might cause a drop in registered "adherents" but otherwise it probably wouldn't be that much more useful than the census figures.

MrP

Peregrinus

Details vary among countries that have a church tax, but in most countries (a) you can avoid it by formally leaving your church, (b) if you pay it isn't pooled and spread across churches generally; it goes to the church of which you are a member, and (c) you can choose to direct it to a non-religious ethical or humanist organisation.

It's not earmarked for social services; the churches spend it however they think best, including paying clergy salaries, financing churches and cathedrals, etc. But there is a practice and an expectation that churches will provide schools, daycare, facilities for the elderly or disabled, etc, etc, and to the extent that they do, this reduces the cost to the state of doing so directly. So it could be said that those who pay the church tax are enabling others to pay lower taxes than would otherwise be required.

The suggestion that non-churchgoers only pay the church tax to secure access for themselves to church-run instititions seem offensive to non-churchgoers; it implies that they cannot be motivated by altruism. Particularly from those who seek to equate non-churchgoing with non-beleiving, that seems a surprising stance to take.

It's generally the case in all countries that have a church tax that the proportion of the population who pay the church tax is much higher than the proportion of the population who attend services. Those countries generally don't also collect religious identification data in the census; they treat church tax registration data as a proxy for religious affiliation. Thus we can't say that the proportion who pay the tax is higher or lower than the proportion who would identify as religious if all they had to do was tick a box, and it didn't cost them any money. We might hazard a guess that it's lower but, in Iceland at any rate, it can't be much lower.

homer911

Had to laugh when I saw this about the Pope today...


http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/pope-if-i-have-to-recite-the-creed-im-ready-in-reply-to-us-conservatives-697340.html

'As for conservatives who question whether he is truly Catholic, he added: “If I have to recite the Creed, I’m ready.” '

"Catholic" (not Roman Catholic) and the association of Nicene Creed with being Catholic..

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

The suggestion that non-churchgoers only pay the church tax to secure access for themselves to church-run instititions seem offensive to non-churchgoers; it implies that they cannot be motivated by altruism. Particularly from those who seek to equate non-churchgoing with non-beleiving, that seems a surprising stance to take.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that. When I say that if my mother in law has to go into a home, I don't mean that she pays her church tax for this reason. I mean she knows that the local old folks home, which happens to be run by the Lutheran church, is paid for by her taxes.

They just see it, in many cases, as an extension and integral part of the social welfare system.

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, I was talking more about Iceland, sorry I don't have time to research. My point would have been, if the tax was coming out and it was simply a matter of where it went, people may treat the decision as to where it goes similarly to how they fill in the census.

In your mother and law's circumstances I can see the upside to paying it, she will apparently see some benefit from it. Personally I would prefer the money to go elsewhere, if possible, but appreciate the choices might be limited.

So I suppose that unless it was a pay it or don't pay it option and if you did pay it the money was simply used by the church as they saw fit and there were no non-religious (or useful services) one would have access to as a result, it might cause a drop in registered "adherents" but otherwise it probably wouldn't be that much more useful than the census figures.

MrP

She's not paying it so she can get into a home run by a specific denomination. It just so happens that the home in the small town where she lives is run by the Lutherans; the old people of the town, no matter what their religion, or even if they have none, will be equally entitled to a place in it. What I mean is that it is seen as part of the greater social welfare system.

So basically, you pay the tax, many social services are outsourced to the churches, on the basis that they have all this money, and the state washes its hands of it.

Really, the state should be collecting the tax themselves and supplying the services, not outsourcing them to church organisations. I was surprised to learn that it was this way even in DDR days.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Really, the state should be collecting the tax themselves and supplying the services, not outsourcing them to church organisations. I was surprised to learn that it was this way even in DDR days.

Well, of course, the state doing it is what we're used to, to a large extent, and what we're used to must be the right thing for all time and in all places.

But, if you think about it, it ain't necessarily so. A civilised society will ensure that the basic needs of all are met, but the state is only one mechanism by which that can be done. Everyone should have decent housing, but it's not necessary that the state should build every house. Everyone should have education, but we don't have to ban non-state schools to bring this about. It's the state's business to see that everyone gets these thing, but the state actually providing these things is just one way of doing that, and whether it's the best way seems to me a matter for pragmatic judgment rather than fundamental principle.

In Germany in particular they have - for reasons we all know - a concern about the state becoming the sole or dominant source of moral leadership in the community, and they take the view that it's not merely possible but positively desirable that the performance of essential social functions should be distributed, not centralised. Hence, federalism. Hence, also, subsidiarity. And hence the view that things like health and social services can be provided by non-state agencies and that's fine. The state's job is to ensure that this is done in a way which ensures that the needs of all are met.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, of course, the state doing it is what we're used to, to a large extent, and what we're used to must be the right thing for all time and in all places.

But, if you think about it, it ain't necessarily so. A civilised society will ensure that the basic needs of all are met, but the state is only one mechanism by which that can be done. Everyone should have decent housing, but it's not necessary that the state should build every house. Everyone should have education, but we don't have to ban non-state schools to bring this about. It's the state's business to see that everyone gets these thing, but the state actually providing these things is just one way of doing that, and whether it's the best way seems to me a matter for pragmatic judgment rather than fundamental principle.

In Germany in particular they have - for reasons we all know - a concern about the state becoming the sole or dominant source of moral leadership in the community, and they take the view that it's not merely possible but positively desirable that the performance of essential social functions should be distributed, not centralised. Hence, federalism. Hence, also, subsidiarity. And hence the view that things like health and social services can be provided by non-state agencies and that's fine. The state's job is to ensure that this is done in a way which ensures that the needs of all are met.

That's all very well, but it means that those who pay the church tax are in fact paying extra taxes, seven percent more of their income, for services the church provides. They may or may not get first dibs at these services, but surely the basics should be accessible to all and paid for by all on an equal basis?

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

That's all very well, but it means that those who pay the church tax are in fact paying extra taxes, seven percent more of their income, for services the church provides. They may or may not get first dibs at these services, but surely the basics should be accessible to all and paid for by all on an equal basis?

You're arguing against the principle of a church tax? Fine, you'll get no resistance from me. I'm not the one who advocated it; that was Mr P.

But, remember, he proposed it as a better indicator of genuine church membership that the census figure. What we have with the church tax is a bunch of people who pay money they don't have to pay in order to identify as adherents of a particular religion and (we assume, though we don't actually know) at least in part to support the charitable works organised by that religion. And it's worth noting that if their motivation was just to support charitable works they could do so without identifying as members of any church, or directing their money towards religious as opposed to secular bodies; the system allows for this.

All in all, I'd say that's not irrelevant in a discussion of membership, participation, commitment or what you will in a church.

Mr. P certainly thought it was a valid indicator when he suggested it in post #56 ("I think the most accurate way to get the number will be to introduce a taxation system like they have in Germany") and you seemed at the time to agree with him in post #57 ("Oh yes"). You only seemed inclined to quibble with the validity of the measure when it was pointed out that, in countries where they have it, it tends to produce results which don't conform to your preconceptions.

Of course, if you define "church membership" as "regular attendance at service", then the church tax is not a meaningful measure (and nor is the census). But you'd have to justify such a definition, given that it's not the definition employed by any of the major churches themselves (SFAIK) and there is no scriptural support for it. Among the attitudes and behaviours enjoined by the gospels, regular participation in communal worship does not feature very much.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mr. P certainly thought it was a valid indicator when he suggested it in post #56 ("I think the most accurate way to get the number will be to introduce a taxation system like they have in Germany") and you seemed at the time to agree with him in post #57 ("Oh yes"). You only seemed inclined to quibble with the validity of the measure when it was pointed out that, in countries where they have it, it tends to produce results which don't conform to your preconceptions.

Indeed I did think it was a valid indicator, but I am sure you have noticed, having been presented with additional information I later questioned its validity and utility...

Also, if you have any information on how the scheme works in Iceland it would be appreciated. Don't quite have enough time to research it.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Indeed I did think it was a valid indicator, but I am sure you have noticed, having been presented with additional information I later questioned its validity and utility...

Also, if you have any information on how the scheme works in Iceland it would be appreciated. Don't quite have enough time to research it.

Well, you "questioned its validity and utility" by saying this:

MrPudding wrote: »

So I suppose that unless it was a pay it or don't pay it option and if you did pay it the money was simply used by the church as they saw fit and there were no non-religious (or useful services) one would have access to as a result, it might cause a drop in registered "adherents" but otherwise it probably wouldn't be that much more useful than the census figures.

In most countries that have it, you pay it if you identify as a member of a church (or secular analogue) which participates in the system; you don't pay it if you you don't. Therefore you can avoid it simply by ticking a box on a tax return that says "I'm not a member of any participating church" or words to that effect. In Italy, you must pay it either to a church or a secular analogue; you can't avoid it.

In all cases, the money is simply used by the church as it sees fit. There is no bargain whereby, e.g., the Lutheran church runs a set number of schools, hospitals, retirement homes, etc in return for the church tax. But they choose to run schools, etc, and they can make that choice in large part because they have the income to do so. So people paying the money know that some of it will be spend on educational and welfare services.

Being a registered member smooths the way if you want your children to get into the schools, but I don't think it makes any difference when it comes to other medical or social services or welfare agencies. Like secular welfare agencies, they are looking for people in need of their services, not people who go to the same church as them.

Not all of the church tax goes to education/welfare services by any means. It also pays for clergy salary, clergy housing, the construction and upkeep of churches and similar buildings, the running costs of dioceses. A substantial chunk is sent to the churches in poorer countries. And, in Germany, the Catholic church is a significant funder of the Vatican. If your motive was just to support social and welfare services, you might do better to direct your contribution to a secular agency, which doesn't have this "superstructure" of clergy and worship.

So, in summary:

- It's generally pay or don't pay.

- Paying the tax doesn't buy much in the way of priority access to medical or welfare services, but it may get priority access to church schools, if that's an issue for you. Not all churches run schools, of course.

- Churches aren't accountable for how they spend the money they get.

- If your motivation is purely to support welfare, etc, services for others, it's not a particularly efficent way of doing it. You would do better to switch to one of the non-religious agencies participating in the system, or to opt out of the tax entirely and make private contributions to the charities you favour.

All in all, I'd say your first instinct was sound enough. A willingness to identify as a member of a church when the cost is paying a fair chunk of your income to them for not much in return, either in the way of services for yourself or the high-minded gratification of having paid for services for others, is probably a meaningful indicator of a material level of commitment.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're arguing against the principle of a church tax? Fine, you'll get no resistance from me. I'm not the one who advocated it; that was Mr P.

But, remember, he proposed it as a better indicator of genuine church membership that the census figure. What we have with the church tax is a bunch of people who pay money they don't have to pay in order to identify as adherents of a particular religion and (we assume, though we don't actually know) at least in part to support the charitable works organised by that religion. And it's worth noting that if their motivation was just to support charitable works they could do so without identifying as members of any church, or directing their money towards religious as opposed to secular bodies; the system allows for this.

All in all, I'd say that's not irrelevant in a discussion of membership, participation, commitment or what you will in a church.

Mr. P certainly thought it was a valid indicator when he suggested it in post #56 ("I think the most accurate way to get the number will be to introduce a taxation system like they have in Germany") and you seemed at the time to agree with him in post #57 ("Oh yes"). You only seemed inclined to quibble with the validity of the measure when it was pointed out that, in countries where they have it, it tends to produce results which don't conform to your preconceptions.

Of course, if you define "church membership" as "regular attendance at service", then the church tax is not a meaningful measure (and nor is the census). But you'd have to justify such a definition, given that it's not the definition employed by any of the major churches themselves (SFAIK) and there is no scriptural support for it. Among the attitudes and behaviours enjoined by the gospels, regular participation in communal worship does not feature very much.

A lot would depend on why they were paying the church tax. I know that in my mother in law's case, she has no interest in religion, she just pays it because it's what you do, and because it's basically seen by her as a tax for social welfare purposes. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that she and her circle of friends, in their seventies and eighties, only go to church nowadays to attend the funerals of their ever-decreasing circle of friends.

Going back to the original point of measuring membership of religions or dominations, I think it's become pretty clear it's well nigh impossible to do this.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

Going back to the original point of measuring membership of religions or dominations, I think it's become pretty clear it's well nigh impossible to do this.

It depends on the denomination I guess, some have a more rigid, set-down definition of what a member is. I imagine that some churches have a formal process where someone applies for membership and in that case statistics are pretty accurate. Even in such churches there may be large numbers of people who show up and take part in services etc, while not members they would still be associated with their church in some way.

Quakers are incredibly meticulous regarding statistics in that you apply for membership by writing a letter and having a meeting, which makes it easier to record statistics. They also keep very accurate figures on regular attenders, or non-members who regularly attend meetings for Worship. It helps that Quakers are a relatively small group though, it's infinitely more difficult in large denominations.

hinault

So people in the privacy of their own homes ticking Catholic on their anonymous census forms in Ireland, and taxpayers in Germany ticking their tax return authorising their compliance with Church tithe payment, neither are indicative of church membership.

The sense of disappointment turning to anger and resorting to conspiracy theory is evident about all of this.
Especially as their own denominations continue to decline.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

So people in the privacy of their own homes ticking Catholic on their anonymous census forms in Ireland, and taxpayers in Germany ticking their tax return authorising their compliance with Church tithe payment, neither are indicative of church membership.

The sense of disappointment turning to anger and resorting to conspiracy theory is evident about all of this.
Especially as their own denominations continue to decline.

You seem mad about conspiracy theories. No conspiracy theories, just reality. People tick boxes and pay taxes for many reasons, often simple inertia. If you don't know that, you don't know human nature.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

So people in the privacy of their own homes ticking Catholic on their anonymous census forms in Ireland, and taxpayers in Germany ticking their tax return authorising their compliance with Church tithe payment, neither are indicative of church membership.

The sense of disappointment turning to anger and resorting to conspiracy theory is evident about all of this.
Especially as their own denominations continue to decline.

Perhaps you might answer the question I posed to Peregrinus?

MrP wrote:

Where a person has had, and continues to have, sex before marriage, uses contraception, has children outside of marriage, does not believe in transubstantiation, thinks the pope is a prick that is no infallible, support abortion, supports gay marriage and, seriously, does not believe in god you think they have a valid claim to the title catholic?

Would someone in the ever decreasing circle of people that our friend hinault does not have on ignore re-quote this for him please?

MrP

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

If you don't know that, you don't know human nature.

Has the pope released a statement on it? No? Then he won't know and/or believe it.

MrP

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Going back to the original point of measuring membership of religions or dominations, I think it's become pretty clear it's well nigh impossible to do this.

I think there's a prior problem even to measuring it; defining it.

Some religious movements do see themselves as membership-based organisations and document themselves accordingly; Benny points to the Quakers. In these cases, their own documentation will give a better figure than the census figure. Others - probably most - don't do this. Or, they do it but don't attach importance to it. In Judaism, for example, you can become a formal member of a congregation (registering, paying a subscription, etc) but whether you do this or not has absolutely no bearing on whether you are Jewish, or are regarded as Jewish by other Jews. And still others don't have any kind of documented membership at all. And there are Christian traditions where your identity as a Christian depends wholly on your faith, which may be inward and private, and doesn't require any works, such as active participation in a worshipping congregation. (In these traditions congregational participation might be expected to be a normal or common outcome or consequence of your Christianity, just like voting is a common concommitant of citizenship, but it's not necessary and it doesn't define it.) So, what exactly is "membership" of any religion?

While there's much talk on this forum about who is, or who is not, a member of the Catholic church, the Catholic church itself doesn't use that terminology very much; it talks more about who is a Catholic. Where the "membership" language is used, it's usually used in the Pauline sense ("members of the body of Christ"), where membership is used in the organic sense ("limbs"), not in the sense of enrollment or registration.

What the census counts is not "membership of the Catholic church"; it counts "people who identify as Catholic" (and likewise for other religions). Does this make them "members of the church"? We know that many of them don't go regularly to mass. On the other hand, we know that many of those who don't go weekly to mass do go from time to time, they do mark major life events in the church, they do want to send their children to Catholic schools, they are often willing (church tax evidence suggests) to support the church financially when they don't have to, and these things are important to them. Does this amount to "membership"? Well, that depends on how you define "membership". And semantic arguments are usually not very interesting or meaningful. If we accept that membership is not a simple binary, then I think the reasonable answer is "yes, they're members, though they could be better members". Which is pretty much the view the Catholic church takes. (And the Anglican church, which is the point katydid originally made way back in post #9).

But the census doesn't say that; that's just us, taking data from the census and from other sources and interpreting it in the light of our own sometimes divergent concepts of "membership".