Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

[klr]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... ing34.html

Dawkins calls for 'Catholic' honesty

People who describe themselves as Catholic but do not accept the church’s key teachings should be “honest” and admit they no longer belong to the faith, atheist author and scientist Prof Richard Dawkins has told a Dublin audience.

He said he was intrigued by this week’s Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll showing almost two thirds (62 per cent) of Catholics believed the bread and wine which was blessed during Mass “only represents the body and blood” of Christ.

Just 26 per cent said they believed the bread and wine transformed into Christ’s body and blood in accordance with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

“If they don’t believe in transubstantiation then they are not Roman Catholics,” Prof Dawkins said. “If they are honest they should say they are no longer Roman Catholics.”

The survey finding “should come in for a fair degree of ridicule,” he added. “I wouldn’t hold back on the ridicule”.

Prof Dawkins was speaking at a public interview in the National Concert Hall last night as part of the Dublin Writers Festival.

He said he was encouraged by the growth of the atheist movement in Ireland, and a gradual shift towards “science and reason” at the expense of the Catholic Church.

“The number of priests is going down beautifully,” he said.

In addition, the child abuse controversy has eroded the church’s authority and the “extraordinarily ham-fisted way” the church responded “has helped”.

Emphasis mine.

[Pappa]

I think that's a bit silly. Regardless of the theology, for the person in the street Catholicism isn't defined by the doctrine of transubstantiation.

[klr]

But that's just the point. Catholicism in Ireland (and in many other countries) has come to be ... whatever you feel yourself it means. The Church won't take a hard line on it, since it doesn't want the "official" number of "Catholics" to implode. Very likely the Catholics of 50 years ago would be horrified at what passes for practising Catholicism these days.

When something becomes so vague, and definitions are a matter of convenience, then it ceases to have any real meaning IMHO.

[MrJonno]

Irish Catholic Church becoming the equivalent the Church of England sounds like a great way to kill religious influence and promote reason

[JimC]

My wife is a case in point. Disgusted with many of the tawdry behaviour of priests, hasn't gone to mass for ages, but still some sort of vague cultural catholic...

[MrJonno]

I assume Catholic in Ireland will become the same as Christiain in the UK a code for 'not a Muslim' on the census

[Svartalf]

My wife is a case in point. Disgusted with many of the tawdry behaviour of priests, hasn't gone to mass for ages, but still some sort of vague cultural catholic...

I don't remember when was last time I went to church... but I'll always be a cultural catholic. My life has always been steeped in that, and it's part of mmy culture, period.

[Animavore]

But that's just the point. Catholicism in Ireland (and in many other countries) has come to be ... whatever you feel yourself it means. The Church won't take a hard line on it, since it doesn't want the "official" number of "Catholics" to implode. Very likely the Catholics of 50 years ago would be horrified at what passes for practising Catholicism these days.

When something becomes so vague, and definitions are a matter of convenience, then it ceases to have any real meaning IMHO.

It's not that they won't take a hard line. They can't take a hard line. Imagine they tried to tighten control and getting strict and excommunicating again like the old days anyone living outside of tradition? People would just say, "You've no right to be telling us what we can and can't do after what you did." And that would be the last they're seen.

I think more Catholic, sorry 'Catholic', Irish people should be made aware of an alternative. Many of them seem oblivious to the fact they can have secular weddings and funerals, for instance, and stick to the traditions because it's easier.

As more people start breaking the mould and doing things their own way I think the Church will fade into oblivion.

[FBM]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

[Pappa]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

[Drewish]

You mean people who reject the craziest aspect of a religion, but then fiercely defend the religion from ridicule based on some moronic tribalistic group identity leads to dishonest discourse about religion where people can shift their beliefs from more literal to interpretive as needed? No big surprise there. I am continuously convinced that one of the major differences between somebody who can have an honest discussion and one who can not, is that the honest person will actually tie themselves to a specific position by being clear regarding what it is they are arguing for. That Catholics are hypocrites and liars is not new news.



But the scene from 36:00 to 40:00 in this film is the real eye opener.

[FBM]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

[Pappa]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

I doubt most priests believe in transubstantiation, let alone believe that their congregation do.

[Hermit]

I suppose if the Church defines a "Roman Catholic" as someone who, among other things, accepts and believes the doctrine of transubstantiation, then they're defining themselves out of about 2/3 of their membership. Bad for business.

Does anyone other than Dawkins use that definition though?

Not sure, really. If the Church will excommunicate you for using contraceptives (not sure if they do), surely they would do so for not believing something as fundamental as transubstantiation?

I doubt most priests believe in transubstantiation, let alone believe that their congregation do.

In terms of the Vatican's definition the majority of Catholics turns out to be not catholic Reminds me of a Yes Minister episode concerning the appointment of a new CoE Bishop (I think), where the clergy is described as being either disestablishmentarian or atheistic.

[Pappa]

I read an article in the Scientific American last week that stated a majority of Danish priests don't believe in god.