Catholic Church, Mass Attendance

Indian82

mikhail wrote: »

Plenty of people attend those ceremonies for the benefit of their relatives and friends. Certainly, I have plenty of friends who find the religious ceremonies tedious but don't want to cause offence, and they've all been far more delicate about it than some religious folks I've known to spend a civil wedding bitching about it not being a real wedding.

So in other words, they're hypocrites.

El_Duderino 09

Indian82 wrote: »

So in other words, they're hypocrites.

Yeah I suppose they are. They do it to keep their older relatives happy. Loads of people have gotten married in a church and baptised children because their older relatives expect it. And they'll probably stop doing that once the current group of older people die off.

The Catholic Church is probably very grateful for hypocrits. If it weren't for them the number of people baptising children would be way lower. Same with the coming of age rituals like communion and confirmation. If none of the atheists took part the numbers would be considerably lower.

smacl

Indian82 wrote: »

So in other words, they're hypocrites.

That's rather uncharitable. Many people find religious ceremonies tedious but they attend for the sake of those that they care for who might have a different religious outlook to their own. That's not hypocrisy, it is putting the needs of other people you care about before your own.

applehunter

smacl wrote: »

Grew up atheist, both parents atheist, grandparents on one side Catholic on the other side Jewish.

I'm of the opinion that the church do a certain amount of good but the balance lies very much in the other direction. The combination of atrocious scandals and a regressive morality that is totally out of kilter with that commonly held by the majority of the population has left the Catholic church here very much in decline. Again just my opinion, but Catholicism in this country has more to do with tradition than firmly held religious beliefs.

An Atheistic Jew.

How interesting.

El_Duderino 09

applehunter wrote: »

An Atheistic Jew.

How interesting.

Yeah really. The Jews have nailed being culturally Jewish without believing in the god part. Obviously there are religious Jews too, but it's not expected to believe in a god to be Jewish.

I'd like to see the cultural Catholics draw a line between the traditions and the god belief. My mother has no time for the god stuff but still puts herself down as a Catholic on the census. I think the Catholics count that as a full Catholic but she just means She was raised Catholic.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

An Atheistic Jew.

How interesting.

A non sequitur.

How uninteresting.

crossman47

applehunter wrote: »

An Atheistic Jew.

How interesting.

Maybe like the Jew in Belfast during the troubles who avoided taking sides but was then asked "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant Jew?"

Indian82

splinter65 wrote: »

The current acting minister for children had a master plan which basically centered around all children being in full time daycare from the end of maternity leave through to school and part time day care after that. Apparently all the parents of all the children would be at work all of the time despite numerous reports that that’s not what parents want at all. It does appear that that’s what Ms Zappone thought was best for all of us though. Unfortunately for her irish parents didn’t think much of this and she was rejected at the last election. It was a good attempt though.

And that's my issue. She may have good intentions, but it should be parents' choice. I don't trust the government to make those decisions.

Indian82

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Does it though. They have a business model which seems to me to be desribable as a "Charity Broker". Which is that they provide a face for people to donate money to, which they then redistribute. Not before, if you look at the sheer wealth in places like the Vatican, skimming a nice healthy % for themselves off the top.

I would prefer to donate directly towards a charity, than a charity broker myself.

Further a lot of the "charity" that missionaries and churches tend to do.... seems actually to be more a front for evangelising the vulnerable. They might do some work while they are there, but I remain entirely unconvinced that their primary goal is charity in many locations.

Finally charity is not always a good thing. Overall it has a good rep, but it is not always the best thing you can do for people. I am not sure I trust the church to make that distinction well.


Well one "concept of Christianity" seems to be scapegoating, with human sacrifice replacing the goat. And yes, I very much do have a moral and ethical issue with Scapegoating as a concept.



And of mine. But people need to SEEK forgiveness with an open heart. Not try to cover up the crime, silence the victims, and use the hierarchy of their organisation to have them transferred to other jurisdictions to keep them safe.

I find myself morally and ethically unable to afford forgiveness to those who not only did not seek it, but sought the exact opposite.... to compound and cover up their crimes. And I hold equal ire for those who facilitated such cover ups, as I do for the people who actually perpetuated the crimes in question.

Lots of stuff in here but I will just say, that I DO think they are charitable. The organizations, Catholic Charities, here in the US do many very good things by themselves - not as a broker. And you STILL have the right to donate to any charity you want.

And I respect your opinion but I don't trust the government to decide which charities are best supported by my tax dollar.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

The current acting minister for children had a master plan which basically centered around all children being in full time daycare from the end of maternity leave through to school and part time day care after that. Apparently all the parents of all the children would be at work all of the time despite numerous reports that that’s not what parents want at all. It does appear that that’s what Ms Zappone thought was best for all of us though. Unfortunately for her irish parents didn’t think much of this and she was rejected at the last election. It was a good attempt though.

Care to link to some of these reports

splinter65

Indian82 wrote: »

And that's my issue. She may have good intentions, but it should be parents' choice. I don't trust the government to make those decisions.

I don’t think she had good intentions. At all.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

Care to link to some of these reports

Not a report but a Time magazine article on a Gallup poll.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4068559/gallup-poll-stay-at-home-mothers/?amp=true

El_Duderino 09

Indian82 wrote: »

Lots of stuff in here but I will just say, that I DO think they are charitable. The organizations, Catholic Charities, here in the US do many very good things by themselves - not as a broker. And you STILL have the right to donate to any charity you want.

And I respect your opinion but I don't trust the government to decide which charities are best supported by my tax dollar.

Why do you keep bringing up the government? The poster said they would prefer to donate directly to the charity. They didn't say they want to use the government as a charity broker, they said they don't want a broker.

I get that you're a bit obsessed with making it a choice of either church or state. But it's a false dichotomy.

Why do you keep bringing up government when nobody is suggesting that as a solution?

Mark Hamill

Indian82 wrote: »

Do you live by any rules?

Always follow the speed limit, never drove after having a few too many? The perfect citizen?
I bet you still pay your taxes and give it to your infallible government that strives to be bigger and tell us what to do and make decisions for us because they know best.

People break rules like speed limits because they assume they wont get hurt breaking them and wont get caught breaking them.
Are you under the assumption that you can break any of your gods rules and god won't catch you or punish you for breaking them?

nozzferrahhtoo

Indian82 wrote: »

I DO think they are charitable.

Thinking it does not make it true though. You would have to fill in a lot more detail for me to work with here.

Indian82 wrote: »

And I respect your opinion but I don't trust the government to decide which charities are best supported by my tax dollar.

Ummmm did I say anything about government? I think you think you're talking to someone else from the thread?

Generally I am not into charity brokers of any sort, especially ones that profit as heavily as the Catholic Church do from the business model. The government acting as a broker would not interest me that much either.

Most of the charity I engage with is actually microloans, so not charity really, and not affiliated with any high profit broker. In fact although I invest a nice 4 figure sum in it monthly, I get all of it back in the end.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Not a report but a Time magazine article on a Gallup poll.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/4068559/gallup-poll-stay-at-home-mothers/%3famp=true

So nothing related to Ireland then?
Do you believe that Irish Minister's should be doing things based on American attitudes?

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

So nothing related to Ireland then?
Do you believe that Irish Minister's should be doing things based on American attitudes?

Ah so Irish mothers would be different to American mothers then.
Of course Irish mothers would be amongst the most “progressive“ in the world.
It couldn’t possibly be that mothers in general worldwide find juggling motherhood and employment stressful and a good few of us would like to mind our own children at home ourselves for a few years if we could without being made to feel like failures for wanting that, a natural female urge that’s hard wired into our brains.
I suppose you want evidence of that too, the hardwiring?

Here’s another link for you. You can dismiss it tomorrow.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/fiona-ness-are-we-seeing-the-return-of-the-stay-at-home-mum-36179374.html

lazygal

Like most women I know, I have no interest in staying at home and jeopardising my financial security.

splinter65

lazygal wrote: »

Like most women I know, I have no interest in staying at home and jeopardising my financial security.

More then half of women would like to stay home if they could.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/fiona-ness-are-we-seeing-the-return-of-the-stay-at-home-mum-36179374.html

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Here’s another link for you. You can dismiss it tomorrow.

In fairness it is a news paper article, so not actual research. So there is nothing there TO dismiss really. But we can seek out the actual research and comment on that. I think I know the study the link refers to.

To be honest I do not think we need to "dismiss" the study in question, but just take it with a huge pinch of salt and caution. Why? Well:

It was a study into Women and Grandmothers only. And only mothers. And it was only 400 mothers. So first point of caution, it was a tiny sample set.

Further it was an "online" survey which meant there was no real randomisation of participants.

And while it MENTIONS marital status it makes no meaningful breakdown based on that either which is rather useless as single parents are going to give different answers to happily married couples.

There is also no meaningful breakdown on who they are mothers to. It just vaguely says "Have children under 10". My own prediction would be that the older the children get, the less the woman will want to parent at home, over career.

The research does not ask HOW LONG the women would prefer to stay at home and not work either. Do they mean forever? Or do they just mean for the time being? Do they actually want to be stay at home mothers without a career, or are they saying they specifically want to be stay at home mothers now, with a return to their career later?

The Research simply does not get into the nuance there. And if it was commissioned by Sudocreme.... a product often used on children in nappies.... then my initial suspicion is the age of the child is going to skew towards one end of the 0-10 group and thus towards the group who CURRENTLY would most want to be at home with their child.

One big problem is if you ask everyone, not just women, if they would prefer not to work if they could afford not to work, you are going to get a certain baseline of people who would say yes. Because many people only work because they have to, to afford their lifestyle. So without a useful baseline for comparison the line "more than have of women would like to stay home if they could" is actually quite meaningless. How many men would say yes to this? How many women who are NOT mothers would say yes to this? Only with those baselines could we begin to make meaningful conclusions about what women actually WANT.

Worse, the study in the link does not ask WHY women took that choice. Is it because they actually want/prefer that option? Or are there other factors involved? For example many of the women in the study said their partners were not carrying their weight in the home. So OF COURSE women who are working equal hours outside the home, but are expected then to put in disproportionate hours IN the home, are going to express a preference not to work any more. So that skews the figures. Another example if the quality of childcare. If a parent feels child care is poor, then OF COURSE they will prefer to stay at home at parent.

The survey is too vague in other words. It normalises for one single factor, Money, and asks what they would prefer if money was no object. What if house work was no object? What if the quality of child care was no object? The list goes on.

Interestingly in the same study when the same women were asked if they would want THEIR daughters in the future to have careers or stay in the home.... the figures begin to skew back the other way.

Also interestingly when studies are not commissioned by people with market interest (The Amarach study into this in 2013 was commissioned by the Iona Institute, and the 2017 one by Sudocreme I believe, and the Amarach group is specifically a "Market Research" firm.) but by bodies like Gallup and Pew, the figures go a different way. A 2015 Gallup for example noticed that the trend for wanting career was going up over time, not down, and a pew study noted that while the numbers of stay at home women has been increasing, it is not because they want to but "The causes are debated, but survey data do not indicate the dip will become a plunge, as most mothers say they would like to work, part time or full time."

So to be honest I do not pretend to know what women want in this regard. But the research I have seen so far needs a lot more work and nuance to get to the reality of why people are making the choices they are, and what they actually want when you normalise for more than one contrived factor like cash flow.

lazygal

splinter65 wrote: »

More then half of women would like to stay home if they could.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/fiona-ness-are-we-seeing-the-return-of-the-stay-at-home-mum-36179374.html

That's a study the Iona Institute was involved in and given that it's a charity for the purposes of marriage and religion it's hardly a serious set of data on women's choices.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Ah so Irish mothers would be different to American mothers then.
Of course Irish mothers would be amongst the most “progressive“ in the world.
It couldn’t possibly be that mothers in general worldwide find juggling motherhood and employment stressful and a good few of us would like to mind our own children at home ourselves for a few years if we could without being made to feel like failures for wanting that, a natural female urge that’s hard wired into our brains.
I suppose you want evidence of that too, the hardwiring?

Here’s another link for you. You can dismiss it tomorrow.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/fiona-ness-are-we-seeing-the-return-of-the-stay-at-home-mum-36179374.html

You make a claim on here you are going to be asked for evidence. Especially with you showing during recent referendum an ability to "not see" issues with dodgy stats/reports.
and yes, Irish people/society are is different to American/Italian/Chinese.
So I'll ask you the question again that you dodged. Do you believe that Irish Minister's should be making decisions based on American attitudes?

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

More then half of women would like to stay home if they could.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/fiona-ness-are-we-seeing-the-return-of-the-stay-at-home-mum-36179374.html

Not exactly.
Seeing as you only seem to link to newspapers that mention these reports and not to actual reports themselves, i have to assume that you just google for some evidence and don,t actually read the reports themselves.
So from your link this seems to be the research from.
https://www.slideshare.net/amarach/mothers-and-grandmothers

So the first problem is on slide no. 39.
At first glance it shows that 63% said yes when asked:
"If you had the option and money was no problem, would you prefer to be a stay at home mom?"
Except if you look at the top left of the slide, they only asked this question of working mothers. It wasn't asked to the 36% (slide 3) of mothers who aren't working if they would prefer to work or stay at home.
So we have gone from 63% of mothers, to 63% of working mothers, to 63% of working mother with a child under 10 (slide 2), or in other words 40ish%? of the mothers with a child under 10 who took the survey.

Now looking underneath the pie chart on on slide 39, we see the following.
"older mother's and those from a C2DE background are more likely to prefer to be a stay at home mother"
They don't specify what they consider to be an "older" mother, but on slide 3 we see the following age breakdown of respondents :
under 34 - 41%
35-44 - 49%
45+ 11%
So if you consider that a geriatric pregnancy is when the mother is over 35, you have a survey that is weighted towards older mothers.

Now you have to ask yourself why would older mothers and those from lower income backgrounds have a higher propensity to staying at home even if money was not going to be a problem? over younger and more affluent mothers?

And finally slide 34/35.
When asked " what would improve your quality of life as a mother, only 21% wanted a shorter working week (which for some reason includes 7% of those not working). while 41% wanted increased state aid, including childcare/healthcare/education.

So you still haven't provided any evidence that actually supports your claim.
edit: just to add, in your defence, the person who wrote the independent article. didn't read/understand the survey, they misused figures from the survey twice.

robindch

splinter65 wrote: »

More then half of women would like to stay home if they could.

Are there reliable stats showing the proportion of men who'd like to stay at home if their wives were the principal breadwinner?

Hotblack Desiato

Indian82 wrote: »

For your distrust in the church, I have an equal distrust of the state determining what is best for people. That has an ugly history as well. Many would say even uglier.

But we have democratic control over the state, while members of the catholic church have no input whatsoever into the running of that church. No wonder so many of those who still believe are staying away and keeping their money in their pocket instead of having it spent on high powered lawyers to protect property and paedophiles.