New York Times Magazine says Irish turning their back on church

Since God exists and created mankind and mankind knew God from the beginning of its creation, shouldn’t one know that it is impossible to deny God exists?

Since God exists and created mankind and mankind knew God from the beginning of its creation, shouldn’t one know that it is impossible to deny God exists?

If god didn't exist, then surely mankind would invent him - thus starting a belief in something that doesn't exist.

BTW warrenpoint00 – there is no letter ‘V’ in the Irish alphabet, so posting 'Votail Sinn Fein' is as full of nonsense as your post is. There is no word in the Irish language for ‘vote’, no more than there is one for ‘motor car’. “Toghair le chéile i bhfabhar le...” is the correct Irish phrase for ‘vote for ...” which, ironically, means “Summons yourselves together to ... ” >>> “Votail” is an ‘English-ified’ version of the Irish word “Toghair”, just like Gerry Adams is a now-confirmed ‘English-ified’ baron, summonsed to serve the UK’s Regent until he dies (he’ll be paid handsomely for that too), just as English is a Saxon version of German. Vot ail shyou, warpaint00???? (Pardon my germ-english).

warrenpoint00 says - “you can still retain your catholic values without attending church” – I clash with him on that – it’s a nonsense statement. True Catholic values are based around the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ which is celebrated by communal attendance at Mass, which itself is based around sharing Confession, Epistles, Gospel, Declaration of Belief, Praise to God, The Eucharist, The Lord’s Prayer, Requesting Forgiveness and Holy Communion with Christ and His/Our Father. Singularly, they each have values but together, they constitute a unity. Not one of those elements of the Mass are facets of institutional government or about banks. Please don't confuse them or people with nonsense. >>> “Having catholic values without attending Church to celebrate the Eucharist is like....” - What? Would anyone care to finish the sentence? We could have a competition on an answer to finishing this statement. Prize undisclosed ;-)

You can still retain your catholic values without attending a church.The way it see it is that religion and religious leaders were the first form of government and exponents of law and order and so when that institute gets so corrupt and when the law abiding citizens realizes that corruption in that institute is uncontrollable then they become a little corrupt as well, like taking a loan from the E.U knowing well they cannot repay that loan and so the domino effect is in place.And so comes the end of the institute, like the government of the free state and the catholic church in Ireland.Prevent anarchy. Votail Sinn Fein

I read the update on the ‘Visitation’ by eiriamach which was published in Irish newspapers yesterday. You can google or bing >> independent(dot)ie << On the right of yr screen, scroll down to a box headed Most Popular and find a detailed report in the list below “Pope to be told church ‘on edge of collapse’”. It really skims over the subject... Clearly, there will be much more to come.

To some extent I agree with snakehips. You see, Catholicism is a bit like ice cream made available in many flavours. But ice cream is still ice cream and Catholicism will still always be Catholicism, however it is presented – its core teachings and practices cannot ever change away from Christ’s. >>> I’m all in favour of married priests. The rule is not written in stone by the Vatican and is one that can be changed, just as the one-time obligation for partial fasting and eating fish on Wednesdays & Fridays was changed. Who is to say that the first Pope, Peter, didn’t sleep with his wife or didn’t have more children with her after his appointment as the ‘Rock’ by Christ? ... Or that Jesus didn’t play with Peter’s or His other Apostles’ children? The famous Cathedral of St. Mark in Venice, Italy, is said to be named after Peter’s son (Mark’s tomb is in the crypts of the Cathedral). Mark is said to have acted as his father’s ‘secretary’ – hence one could posit that Mark’s Gospel is really Peter’s true Gospel. One of four flavours perhaps? – Four Gospels, all more or less saying the same things that cannot be denied.

The Church, in order to survive in Ireland or everywhere in the world, must give it's power to it's lay members as well, who can help the heirarchy get over it's control of ancient and crazy laws and traditions that just are too bizarre in this day and age, eg, priestly celibacy and men only priests. The church needs more flavors than the only one it is selling. I don't really know of too many Catholics under 60, who really take the Church seriously.

Update on the Visitation mentioned by Jacersagain and the prospects for RCC in Ireland: The Catholic News Service reported yesterday about one of the Apostolic Visitators' findings. "Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley reportedly will tell Pope Benedict XVI that the Catholic Church in Ireland is 'on the edge' of collapse due to the fallout from clerical abuse scandals." CNS also reports that Fr. Flannery, quoted in post (2/13 5:17PM) below, "said Cardinal O'Malley gave a commitment to the priests' association that he would deliver the frank assessment to the pope in a confidential report to be submitted later this year." "Admitting to being previously skeptical about the apostolic visitation, Father Flannery said that in light of Cardinal O'Malley's undertaking, 'there may be some gleam of hope.'" Cardinal O' Malley is the Visitator to Dublin. It will be interesting to see whether he will be candid with the pope and make recommendations that could help in the work of Fr. Flannery and the ACP.

More for eiriamach - On my 75% v your 40% attending Church: I got my 75% wrong and it looks like the NYT got its figures mixed up with America’s count. 44% of people in the USA attend Church while 84% of Irish do (though maybe not every Sunday), second in the whole world only to Nigeria which has 89%. >>> On involvement of the Laity in the Church: yes, the Church acknowledges that Laity should be more active in the Church and is actively encouraging it. Between representatives of the Irish Catholic Church, 'VOFI', 'People of the Church' and an independent Government-sponsored cross-sector group called 'Pobal' (Irish for ‘Public’) there is already dialogue taking place as to how Laity should help in bringing the Church into the future. Representatives of Pope Benedict’s ‘Visitation’ to Ireland are currently engaging with them and others. May the Wisdom of God’s Holy Spirit be with them and with us all. Again I say, Irish Central can still be fruitful seeds of the Sower and I would challenge them to be such, instead of crucifying Christ all over again, so many times.

Thanks to you too eiriamach, it has been quite interesting and like you I didn’t want this discussion to be dominated in recent posts between you and me; I often finish posts “suggesting” someone else could offer more comment and would still hope some others do. It is over on ICentral’s Finnegans Awake blogs column that I would expect religion to be seriously discussed; her column is so lightheartedly true. I think, for one so young in today’s (Irish-American) Catholic Church (and about to marry too!) Megan is so astute in her writings, observations and questionings that I say Bravo to her! And I apologise for being somewhat longwinded in my rants under ICentral’s Headline in James O’Brien’s article above – it is so untrue, I just had to get in there and point to facts on the ground in Ireland instead of letting Irish Central get away with its misleading Headliner above! I read the NYT article online and it is quite a fascinating reflection. I note its headline is actually ‘The Irish Affliction’ and not as James O’Brien falsely writes above. And yes, it does come across as sympathetic, not just to Irish Catholicism but to Catholic America’s and other countries’ plight as well. You could equally add in other Christian religions’ plight too.

Jacersagain, I want to thank you for the conversation. I hope we have not dominated this blog or pushed out others who had something to say. But it's been interesting because elsewhere on IC, when these topics come up, I find that I'm dealing with priests or theologians, who claim, ironically, that the hierarchy are the only "experts," so no one else's opinion matters. Now you're a layman who believes the same. (I don't.) If we all thought the same, there'd be no discussion.

The 60% figure is from the printed edition of the article, which also has photos of Irish churches nearly empty for Mass: "As impressive as the decline in Irish Church statistics has been, the 40% or so of Irish Catholics who go to Mass regularly outpaces some other traditionally once-Catholic countries. Clearly a lot of Irish want a faith community. But what kind, and under what conditions?"--p. 51, NYT Magazine. Photos are from inside St. Mary's Cathedral, Kilkenny, and St. Kevins, Dublin. The title is "The Irish Affliction," probably available on line. On the whole, it's a sympathetic article, but it paints a bleak picture. I understand your answer to my question, Jacersagain: the bishops will not permit the laity to participate in reform. When I read the relevant passages in scripture, I find that Christ gave the gift of the guidance of the Holy Spirit not only to priests and cephas, but to all the faithful. If He had not given the gift to all, then there would be nothing for the laity to do but blindly obey church "authorities," and Christ's entire life shows that was not His intention for anyone. I cannot understand, however, your meaning in "the hands of the papacy in developing ecumenism further to suit popular calls are tied by Christ’s pronouncements." Which pronouncements? Christ's prayer for the unity of his church is also clear, and all were to work to achieve it, including "we simple ones of the laity." For the Vatican unilaterally to cut off ecumenical discussions (as it did with Anglicans) violates Christ's wishes. But ecumenism is not what I had in mind; simply more involvement of laity was what I was asking about.

(...more) No amount of media-screaming or laity shouting is going to change the Church’s core teachings which always remain true to that of Christ and His choice of whom to be the leading reformers. Pope Paul IV acknowledged that the papacy was ‘undoubtedly the gravest obstacle in the path of ecumenism’ but the hands of the papacy in developing ecumenism further to suit popular calls are tied by Christ’s pronouncements. We of the laity are recognised by Christ as the Church but not its teachers or structural reformers. Unless there are specific structural reforms on eiriamach’s mind that do not change Christ’s decision, as a simple layman, I can offer no other answer. Maybe someone else can.