Posted on 07/25/2010 10:44:46 AM PDT by Gamecock
A new survey shows 34 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, say they have no religion.
Even more significant is that one-third of those, about 11 million people, are Irish Americans.
The survey by professors at Trinity College in Hartford, CT, does not explain why Irish Catholics are by far the highest number of people who are losing their religion every year in America.
We can only surmise the reasons for this, but I have some definite ideas. Think church sex scandals. Let's look at the timeline first. The number of non-religious or "Nones" has nearly doubled between 1990 and now.
* In 1990, Nones accounted for 8.2 percent of the population
* In 2001 they accounted for 14.2 percent
* As of 2009, they account for 15 percent
The report estimates that the figure will grow to 25 percent in 10 years time — making non-religion the largest "religion" in America.
Why are so many Irish Catholics leaving the faith? The obvious reason to me is the church sex scandals. They disproportionately affected Irish Catholics and most of the abusers we read about were Irish Catholic priests.
Certainly, based on evidence from Ireland where hundreds of thousands have fled the church and vocations have plummeted after the church scandals there, America with a similar experience is unlikely to be any different.
There has been such incredible scrutiny of the church from every angle and the church has responded so poorly since the scandals began that it is hardly surprising that people are leaving.
For instance, the Boston archdiocese, a hub of Irish Catholicism in America, has been riven by deep scandals that surely have turned many parishioners off
It is only my opinion but Irish Catholics had a deep and almost mystical attachment to the church and followed her rules more devoutly than other groups.
"Rome dictates and Ireland takes" was the old saw about how devoutly the Irish followed the signals from the Vatican.
Once that trust was broken — indeed shattered — it was always likely that many would turn away.
We are told that the leavers are "young, male and independent" and that almost all of them were identified as Catholic at age 12.
The loss of faith by Irish Americans has been profound and will require an incredible effort to win the faithful departed back. The church has a massive struggle on its hands.
“We are born spiritually blind, and cannot be restored without a miracle of grace. This is your case, whoever you are, that are not born again.” A.W. Pink
A very valid question. The answer is probably whoever self-identifies as “Irish” and checks the box on the census is listed as being that ethnic group. There probably is no need for the claim to be valid. The stats also might not account for the fact that the Census allows you to claim more than one ethnic identification. (I think the more recent US censuses allow you to claim more than one ethnic identity now, but some of the earlier census sheets probably only let you choose one.) Of course, I am presuming that this article is getting their statistics solely drawn from the Bureau of the Census.
HORRIFIC.
I expect, however, in a flash, a whole gaggle of weaselly RC’s will be on here to explain how
1 + 1 does NOT equal 2 etc. in compiling such statistics.
I keep forgetting that the Vatican math and statistics texts are also rubbery.
The first step toward recovery is halting the disease.
Thank God for an exodus from dead tradition.
INDEED.
THX BRO.
In the mid- 19th century there were lots of Irish and German Catholic immigrants, then later Italians, Poles, Lithuanians, Lebanese, French Canadians, and many other nationalities. In the 20th century there were Hispanic and Filipino Catholic immigrants.
So whether the Irish are a majority of American Catholics is hard to say--I would guess they might be #1 in numbers (unless German-Americans are) but probably not a majority.
I had one great-great-grandmother who was an Irish immigrant (O'Brien) but I don't think of myself as Irish-American.
“Did it ever occur to them that the Catholic church itself is giving people plenty of justification for leaving? If it won’t take its own stated beliefs seriously, why should anyone else?”
Precisely!!
If corrupt clergy is sufficient to make them "want to leave," it's a cinch they didn't really believe and know what they believed in the first place.
Seriously: either it's true or it's not. If it's not, it's time to get out. If it is, someone else's failure to live up to it doesn't make it anything less than true. Or, put another way: if one Judas didn't make Jesus a fraud, a thousand Judases don't make him a fraud, either.
The truth of the matter is that Catholics haven't been properly catechized for close to 50 years. Add that to the "vicarious Christianity" outlook that many Christians -- not only Catholics -- have ["holiness is for priests or nuns or ministers; I go to church one hour a week and that's enough"], and it's a miracle of God's grace that any stayed.
There’s a big difference between the laity being hypocrites and the clergy.
If the clergy and leaders of the Church don’t even live what they teach and claim to believe, it does seriously cut into their credibility. Why should anyone think that what they say is true if they don’t live like they believe it themselves?
It boggles the mind that Catholics expect and demand that one stay in a corrupt, hypocritical organization when there are other churches out there. But then again, being told that the church you belong to is what matters in your salvation, it shouldn’t really come as a surprise.
People are waking up to the fact that church membership is not a requirement for salvation, that faith in Christ is.
Amazing how a seemingly little mistake like that can damn you.
Church - pretty important!
I hear the words but I sure don't see the proof behind them.
My conversion from Roman Catholicism came from a direct response to hearing the Gospel from the word of God after a simple prayer asking him for the truth. I was not angry nor disillusioned. I was seeking the truth that, in my heart, I knew I had not heard yet. Once I did, I knew there was no going back.
Amen! I watched a Fr. Corapi sermon on EWTN last night (Mom asked me to) and I heard him say the following, "Without humility there is no holiness. Without holiness there is no heaven."
Now I think we can all agree that this is a true statement. The problem is, how do we get holiness? The Catholic Curch teaches only the sacraments of the Church give the grace that makes us holy. So if one does not receive the sacraments, they cannot become holy and will not go to heaven. Yet, scripture is so clear that the holiness God requires for entrance into heaven is HIS righteousness. We must be as righteous as God - as holy as he is - and there is no way we can ever attain this perfection no matter how many rosaries we say, how many masses we attend, how many good deeds we perform.
Without Christ dying in our place to pay the price of our sins, there could be no holiness possible for us. That is why we are found "in him" not having our own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God THROUGH faith IN CHRIST.
I watched a Fr. Corapi sermon on EWTN last night (Mom asked me to)...You have a very smart mother ... tell her I'll say a decade for her tomorrow ...
Below is pasted just a portion of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about how “we get holiness,” and I post it without further comment (and before jumping off the thread for the night) merely in an attempt to respond to the question you raised:
2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life.
2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.
2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.
2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.
2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.
2024 Sanctifying grace makes us “pleasing to God.”
I sure hope you aren’t really expecting any answers from the Catholics on board.
When I accepted Christ and decided to start regularly attending church again, I went to the Catholic church since that was where I was raised.
As I read more and more Scripture and saw bigger and bigger discrepancies between what Scripture said and the RCC taught, it became obvious that that was not the place for me.
After vacillating between that and an evangelical church where I saw people actually live out their faith with a great deal of integrity, something I had not seen much in the Catholic church, I decided to go where people took their faith and God’s Word seriously.
As I read more and more Scripture and saw bigger and bigger discrepancies between what Scripture said and the RCC taught..."
Since the mass is a service of worship and not a preaching session I wonder what you did to educate yourself to what the Church actually taught? Did you attend RCIA or have any dialog with clergy? You are a failed Catholic but perhaps it is because the Church failed you.
he needs to talk to James Webb, or at least read his editorial last week.
Half of those in the US who claim Irish ethnicity are southern Protestants. One wonders how many of them are now “without a religion” and messed up the statistics.
Andrew Greeley, the priest sociologist, often ridicules those who make the mistake of not knowing that there are two Irish groups in the US.
That being said, your point about who actually counts as being "Irish" is spot on. These statistics are totally worthless, because they don't define what being "Irish" means. Anyone can claim they are Irish but everyone's definition of "Irish" may not be the same. The chances are that many people who self-identified with Irish ethnicity may also have multiple other ethnic identities that they relate too as well. It is also possible that what Society considered to be "Irish" 50 years ago is not the same as what society will consider Irish now.
Before, you used to be labeled whatever your father was regardless of the mix, but society's standards of defining identity have abandoned that concept over the past 50 years and people can now choose how to define themselves on subjective criteria. Identities in the the 21st century tend to be much more blurred. Is "Irish" a race or a legal nationality? How do you define a race? Does your race identity come from your mother or your father? What race do mixed children belong too? Does the individual choose their race identity or does society choose who to recognize as belonging to their identity group? Do Irish in Ireland define what what is Irish or do Americans get to define who is Irish? The list goes on. Identity politics are definitely a mine field of confusion.
Good questions. Decisions and teachings are not infallible just because they are taught by an Ecumenical Council or Pope. According to the First Vatican Council's declaration on Papal Infallibility (See the document Pastor Aeternus), a teaching can only be recognized as infallible if the following conditions are met:
1)A teaching must not contradict Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or an infallible teaching of an earlier pope or Ecumenical Council. (Ecumenical Councils must have the popes approval to be infallible.)
2)The Pope must assent to a statement
3)The Pope must intend to speak with his full authority (ex cathedra)
4)He must "define"
5)The statement must concern faith and morals.
6)The declaration must be stated to apply to the whole Church and it must be clear that acceptance of the teaching is binding on all.
You can usually tell that a statement is intended to be infallible and binding on the whole Church because it will say something like this "We decree, declare, and define that and that this teaching is to be held inviolate by the whole Church." In an Ecumenical Council an infallible statement is almost always followed by the phrase that if anyone rejects this teaching or teaches this doctrine is false doctrine then "let him be anathema." It is very, very rare that infallibility is ever used. When formally proclaimed in this manner by a pope or an ecumenical council, the magisterium is called the Solemn Magisterium
Also if a teaching on Faith and morals is EVER at any point in history held by ALL of the bishops of the world including the Pope as needing to be accepted by the faithful, then it becomes infallible under what is called the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. According to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith this is why the teaching of John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that women may never be ordained to the Priesthood is infallible. (This was authoritatively stated by the CDF after someone asked if Ordinatio Sacerdotaliswas infallible. The question had been prompted because it was speculated to be infallible in its own right under the solemn magisterium because its wording was very close to an infallible formula of the solemn magisterium. It stated: Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
In any case, back to Vatican II. Pope John XXIII explicitly stated that he didn't want to make the Council infallible or dogmatic. He wanted it to be a pastoral council to use the medicine of love. Consequently, the documents systematically avoid the use of threats of excommunication. Since these threats of anathema are required to make something infallible none of Vatican II's documents are infallible unless it teaches an already infallible dogma. Pope Paul VI at the close of the Council also stated that Vatican II had not attempted to define any new dogmas. Thus it is in theory possible for a later Council/pope to overturn or reject most of Vatican II.
By the way, on a side not, one of the major problems with the documents of Vatican II is that they are filled with doublespeak, that can be interpreted in two contradicting ways. So even if the bishops had agreed to the documents, because of the vagueness of the documents, they weren't necessarily agreeing to the same things. This is why earlier councils were always exact in their language and doctrinal definitions...it prevents confusion and everyone knows what the decision of the documents are. Because Vatican II is so vague the documents can be interpreted in opposite ways...this leads to the dissension in the hierarchy that you are talking about. One side wants to interpret Vatican II in continuity with the earlier councils, and the progressive factions wants to interpret the documents in ways that radically break from the past dogmas.
It's easy to give Vatican II a bad rap, but the most serious problems with Vatican II, is not Vatican II itself, but the reforms implemented in the name of Vatican II. Most Catholics think Vatican II did things that it never did. For instance, did you know that in the document Sacramentum Concilium that Vatican II decreed that the mass was to remain in Latin and Gregorian Chant was to be the norm in mass? Vatican II never approved entire masses being in the vernacular it only said that only certain prayers and the Gospel may be read in the vernacular.
Additionally, Vatican II never intended for the priest to face the people, nor the Tabernacles to be moved, nor altars to destroyed and turned into tables, nor communion to be given in the hand, nor did Vatican II do away with the prohibition of eating meat on Fridays. Yet every time the topics come up, people think that Vatican II did it because these things happened in the wake of the Council. So that is why there is so much dissension between the rank and file of the Church. There was a culture war in the Church. The progressives took advantage of the confusion to implement their own agendas in the Church, all the while claiming that "Spirit of Vatican II" gave them the authority. Most people have never read Vatican II's documents and think that what happened after the Council was commanded by the Council.
The Catholic Church does NOT teach that the sacraments are the only way to obtain divine grace. They are the normative way of obtaining grace. A person is under the obligation to receive the sacraments if it is at all possible
However, in certain exceptional cases you can receive saving grace without the reception of the sacraments. For instance, if a person is invincibly ignorant they can be saved without water baptism. If a person is not baptized, but has faith and love for God they can be saved by baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. If a person is a baptized Catholic that has committed a mortal sin and dies without going to confession, they can receive saving grace, but only if they had perfect contrition at the time of their death. (Perfect contrition is a sorrow for sin based solely on the love of God rather than fear of punishment). However, these are special exceptions for extenuating circumstances, and in all normal circumstances God intends that the reception of the sacraments in order for people to receive the grace associated with them.
The problem is, how do we get holiness?
I think as you correctly noted, it is impossible for us to become Holy on our own. We can never merit it ourselves. The only way for us to become Holy is by the Grace of God obtained through the blood of Jesus Christ. It is the Grace given through the blood of Jesus Christ that makes us Holy. So your question can be rephrased from "What make's us Holy" to "how do we obtain Grace?" I don't know how the Council of Trent defines the exact nature of the relationship of Works and Faith, but cannot doubt that God will save you if you believe in God and Jesus Christ and love Him. So there you have it, as it seems to me. At the core, it is a person's belief in and love of God that ultimately enables God to make us Holy and save us through His Son's Sacred Blood.
.....But church worship is good for followship, remember what Jesus said that when two or more are gathered in His name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.