When aren't you a Catholic?

suicide_circus

We are legally obligated to complete our census forms in an accurate manner.

I might like to put down "Jedi" as my religion for the laugh but I don't believe in the force and i'm hopeless with a lightsabre so I won't be doing that.

Religion is a personal thing. So personal that it probably has no place on the census form at all. The census form is about collecting facts and religion is the opposite of fact, its faith.

If a person dosnt believe in transubstantiation, papal infallibility, that after 100,000 years of human civilisation God sent his only son to Palestine be murdered in order to absolve the sins of humanity...and still wants to put down that they're catholic despite not actually believing the doctrines that make up Catholicism...well, they can't be stopped. But they should know that they are hurting the accuracy of the census and I'd ask them why.

Its probably because "irishness" is historically very intertwined with catholicism. It will take a few generations to get an accurate picture.

Weekly mass attendance in Dublin is about 22% of the population which is probably a more realistic figure for actual Catholics.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

hinault

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which as I said is not an assistance when what you inform me of is simply wrong.

You don't possess the capacity to know as evidenced in my initial reply to you on this thread.

hinault

suicide_circus wrote: »

We are legally obligated to complete our census forms in an accurate manner.

I might like to put down "Jedi" as my religion for the laugh but I don't believe in the force and i'm hopeless with a lightsabre so I won't be doing that.

Religion is a personal thing. So personal that it probably has no place on the census form at all. The census form is about collecting facts and religion is the opposite of fact, its faith.

If a person dosnt believe in transubstantiation, papal infallibility, that after 100,000 years of human civilisation God sent his only son to Palestine be murdered in order to absolve the sins of humanity...and still wants to put down that they're catholic despite not actually believing the doctrines that make up Catholicism...well, they can't be stopped. But they should know that they are hurting the accuracy of the census and I'd ask them why.

Its probably because "irishness" is historically very intertwined with catholicism. It will take a few generations to get an accurate picture.

Your "concern" as to the accuracy of the census is noted:rolleyes:

Folk at the CSO take a different view that religious affiliation is a private matter. The CSO has decided to ask the question about religious affiliation and respondees - for whatever reason - volunteer to identify themselves as being Roman Catholic.

It would seem that several posters have issues with their fellow citizens freely identifying themselves as Roman Catholic

Speedwell

hinault wrote: »

Folk at the CSO take a different view that religious affiliation is a private matter. The CSO has decided to ask the question about religious affiliation

Because it's not a private matter, or it would not be asked by the Census. Religious affiliation, in the aggregate, is a metric used to influence public policy. Individual people benefit from or suffer from the effects of public policy according to whether the policy favors or disfavors their expressed worldview. As the daughter of a man whose family to this day suppress their Jewish heritage for fear of what public policy in their country could, and members of the public well might, do to them, I am very aware of the ramifications.

suicide_circus

hinault wrote: »

Your "concern" as to the accuracy of the census is noted:rolleyes:

Folk at the CSO take a different view that religious affiliation is a private matter. The CSO has decided to ask the question about religious affiliation and respondees - for whatever reason - volunteer to identify themselves as being Roman Catholic.

It would seem that several posters have issues with their fellow citizens freely identifying themselves as Roman Catholic

We need to ask what a Catholic is.

Is it a person who

a) with a considered belief in the God of Abahamic tradition, the holy trinity, the sacraments, transubstantiation and the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church

or

b) who had water splashed on their head before they had the ability to speak let alone consent or reason.

If we are content for it to be the latter, so be it. It's quantity over quality.

And the accuracy of the cenus is in fsct m primary concern here as it will influence policy and shape the country my children and i call home, a bear no ill will to the cstholic church.

How do we account for the statistical anomaly where by 80% of the population tick the catholic box yet 20% of them practice it? It would be extremely disingenuous to deny that the numbers don't quite stack up.

The Randy Riverbeast

suicide_circus wrote: »

We need to ask what a Catholic is.

Is it a person who

a) with a considered belief in the God of Abahamic tradition, the holy trinity, the sacraments, transubstantiation and the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church

or

b) who had water splashed on their head before they had the ability to speak let alone consent or reason.

If we are content for it to be the latter, so be it. It's quantity over quality.

And the accuracy of the cenus is in fsct m primary concern here as it will influence policy and shape the country my children and i call home, a bear no ill will to the cstholic church.

How do we account for the statistical anomaly where by 80% of the population tick the catholic box yet 20% of them practice it? It would be extremely disingenuous to deny that the numbers don't quite stack up.

This is pretty much how I feel on the matter. It is similar to the do you speak Irish question. Around 1.7 million (I think) speak Irish but when you look at how many are actually using the language it drops off considerably. You are counting the number of people who think they speak Irish because they can ask to go to the toilet and those who use it as their main language as the same.

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

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

How do we account for the statistical anomaly where by 80% of the population tick the catholic box yet 20% of them practice it? It would be extremely disingenuous to deny that the numbers don't quite stack up.

At the risk of endlessly repeating myself (sorry), question design has a large part to play.

The population who are 'up for grabs' are exactly that 60% of people who were baptised catholics but don't really practice and, I suspect, don't really believe or at least don't believe in a specifically catholic god.

The FIRST BOX in the question enables them to tick Catholic and move on. And why wouldn't they, they are sort-of catholics and ticking the box is natural. By the time some of them see the 'no religion' option are they really going to correct their first answer?

It is revealing that the 'no religion' box is rather hidden and that the clarification on the question (which specifically says this is NOT asking you how you were baptised) comes AFTER the question. Again, people have ticked the box and moved on at that point.

Whether by accident or design I would say that question design greatly exaggerates the % of the population who will tick Catholic over No Religion - the two main options for this large group of people.

That explains a lot of the discrepancy.

beach_walker

Malik Some Molasses wrote: »

Its hilarious how all the atheists suddenly have become the authority on who is and isn't a catholic and coming out with silly analogies to push their incorrect assertions.

Indeed. It's funny too to note how the people so aggressively pushing the idea of whom can and can't call themselves Catholic, would be the first to call for the head of anyone who applied their own reasoning to say whether (for example) a man can identify as a woman. Sure while we're doing analogies!

If someone is baptised that satisfies the Church's position and if that person further identifies as Catholic when presented with a question on the matter, that should be that. But nah, not good enough for the high standards of the likes of Atheist Ireland. I guess the realisation that the "scared of their Mammy" excuse was wearing thin, we now have "internalised coercion".

Ush1

The question either has an answer which actually means something to everybody(beyond the act of actually announcing you are a catholic), or it is not a relevant question.

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

Indeed. It's funny too to note how the people so aggressively pushing the idea of whom can and can't call themselves Catholic

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

beach_walker

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

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

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

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

beach_walker

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

catbear

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

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

Speedwell

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Ush1

catbear wrote: »

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

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

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

henryporter

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker

henryporter wrote: »

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

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

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

realdanbreen

catbear wrote: »

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

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

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

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker

catbear wrote: »

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

realdanbreen wrote: »

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

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

Speedwell

realdanbreen wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedwell

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker

Speedwell wrote: »

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

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

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

Ush1

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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



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

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

Crucial.

catbear

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

Speedwell

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker

Ush1 wrote: »

Crucial.

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

beach_walker

Speedwell wrote: »

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

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

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

Ush1

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

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

Speedwell

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

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

catbear

realdanbreen wrote: »

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

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

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

beach_walker

Ush1 wrote: »

I would say it most certainly isn't.

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

catbear

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

Ush1

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

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

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

suicide_circus

beach_walker wrote: »

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

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

Speedwell

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

No, when you were 12 you voluntarily and, I hope, knowingly made that Scout's Promise, having had it explained to you beforehand in Scout meeting what it meant. Unless you were a late convert to Catholicism, you were baptized as an infant. You, as in the conscious and decision-capable you, were arguably not even there. You might as well be inducted into a club without your knowledge, only for the club to claim you could never end your membership.

galljga1

Ush1 wrote: »

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

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

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

Yeah, Right Said Fred pushes you over the boundary.
I was baptised and am not a catholic, simple. I couldn't give a rats hole what the vatican says.
The Census of Population establishes the size of the population in the State. Up-to-date population statistics are essential to help to plan for services to meet demand for healthcare and education, for example. Education in this country definitely includes religion.

ginger_hammer

The church tries to include as many people as possible (to remain relevant), so it wants to use the mark when nobody had a choice - when you are newly born. Census is the only way to actively fight back against this.
Once there is enough momentum then we may even get equal education for all children, religion out of politics, and rid of the incredible blasphemy law (that Pakistan and others hold up as the poster child for religious intolerance).

Ann22

I do conider myself Catholic. I rarely go to mass although I try to pray every day. An Our Father, three Hail Marys, a Glory be and then a few prayers to St Therese of Liseaux.
I dont like to pray just when I'm looking for something and sometimes a prayer in need brings me comfort. It does help me help when ive suffered a loss.
I tend not to think too much about the magical sides like Transubstantiation (the Protestant belief in that it's memorial rather than literal makes more sense to me. I also like their version of the our Father with the extra bit at the end).
I don't let the abuse affect my own personal faith as I'm sure there are many good priests left. I do think they should be allowed to marry tho. Sensitive 11 and 12 yr olds being sent off to strict seminaries at a susceptical age has left its mark.
If I was in an accident and was on my last breath I'd like to be able to say an act of contrition but don't feel I'd need a priest to say it to.

Speedwell

Ann22 wrote: »

I do conider myself Catholic. I rarely go to mass although I try to pray every day. An Our Father, three Hail Marys, a Glory be and then a few prayers to St Therese of Liseaux.
I dont like to pray just when I'm looking for something and sometimes a prayer in need brings me comfort. It does help me help when ive suffered a loss.
I tend not to think too much about the magical sides like Transubstantiation (the Protestant belief in that it's memorial rather than literal makes more sense to me. I also like their version of the our Father with the extra bit at the end).
I don't let the abuse affect my own personal faith as I'm sure there are many good priests left. I do think they should be allowed to marry tho. Sensitive 11 and 12 yr olds being sent off to strict seminaries at a susceptical age has left its mark.
If I was in an accident and was on my last breath I'd like to be able to say an act of contrition but don't feel I'd need a priest to say it to.

Then, in all good faith (no pun intended), you definitely should click "Catholic". I'm happy that you find comfort in your religion and also that you are striving to make it real and sensible to you. Please keep on "keeping it real". Nobody's trying to deconvert people against their will, here