If You Don’t Think the Wafer Turns Into Jesus, You’re Not Really a Catholic

Hilarious wriggling, justification and special pleading to diminish the significance of this result, but I wonder if this might be a mixed blessing for atheism.

Just like any number of previous surveys, this appears to indicate that people continue to identify with the church even when they disagree with it or it’s just plain wrong or evil. The church says stupid things about contraception, there are these funny ideas about Jesus being in the wafer, and Father has a strange interest in choirboys, but it’s still their church in some way.

Maybe the battle ahead for atheism isn’t to point out wrong or inconsistent religious beliefs, but to break that attachment and offer alternative forms of identity and community.

Beliefs like this were the catalyst for me leaving the Catholic Church, which was my first step toward my eventual atheism.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who’s got religion’ll
Tell you if your sin’s original.
If it is, try playin’ it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

People have been spit-roasted for denying transubstantiation.   Of course it’s an fundamental doctrine of the RCC.

With a birth rate under 2 in Italy you would have to include at least one of the following if true:
1. Italians are very infertile
2. Italians don’t know how to do it.
3. Italians don’t like doing it.,
4. Italians don’t listen to the Pope and use contraceptives.
Now I wonder which one is most likely?

If you don’t believe Jesus came back to life three days after
Crucifixion, you have no business calling yourself a Christian, either.

If they follow Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, I would still consider them a Christian.

I’m over 50. I have never met a Christian who actually was. I’m not sure any of them ever read the bible. The most Christian-like people I know are atheists.

Christianity is no more, no less than a way to separate people from their money through fear.

Factually, most Christians, encouraged by their own churches, regularly ignore the most basic teaching of Jesus Christ, which is the repudiation of the old testament. That he, supposedly, brought forth a “new covenant”, yet whenever it is a matter of convenience, faux-Christians will turn to the old testament for a quote or passage that justifies their behaviour.

Actually, Jesus was probably an athiest who was killed because he was outing the church and its leaders as fraudsters. When they realized it may have gone too far, they co-opted him and turned him into a religious figure, which, indeed, worked out well for them since using the teachings of “God” along with the teachings of “Jesus” allowed them to reel in far more people since they now had two diametrically opposed books of “teachings” that allowed them to justify anything to anyone as an “acceptable” religious practise, and on the other hand, to condemn anything if it was convenient.

Church is a win-win for the foolhardy. If you believe people should be killed for acting differently, here’s your book. If you believe no action cannot be forgiven, here’s your book. How convenient. Here’s the collection plate.

This is the beginning of every intelligent conversation with a friend or loved one about religion.  What exactly do you believe?  If you don’t believe it… you can’t call yourself a Catholic.  I’m an atheist in a fox hole.  I have an incurable blood cancer and a family full of people praying for me.  I can’t say what I want to say which is forget the prayers and donate $$$ to medical research.  I also don’t want to alienate these folks so I smile and nod and say thank you.  Frustrating beyond belief.   

 A touching memory, thank you for sharing it.

I wanted to press the “like” button, but I was afraid it would be taken the wrong way.

 Well, not now, (and probably not ever), although I was raised as a Catholic.  Even as a child, it struck me as ridiculous – having to go to confession aged 7 and I felt I had to make up sins!

This is one of the examples of hypocrisy that pushed me from tolerant non-belief to downright hatred of the Catholic faith I was nominally born into.  There are the Vatican teachings, and they don’t match at all with the old testament except for a few nasty elements.  The Vatican practices don’t match the teachings of Jesus (mythical or not, he does express some good principles), and the laity doesn’t follow any of these.

-Birth control: Jesus said nothing about it, the old testament said nothing concrete about it (that spilling seed thing doesn’t stand up), the Vatican says it’s a sin, but every Catholic does it.
-Transubstantiation, as already mentioned
-Leviticus: homosexuality is evil, but we can ignore the part about shellfish, mixed fibres, stoning unruly kids
-“suffer the little children to come onto me”, and pedophile clergy.  So many aspects of that whole situation scream of hypocrisy.
-A monk who was reportedly actively gay, and is now deemed a saint
-Priests who are supposedly celibate, but a large portion who are actively gay, and by some accounts 50% of whom aren’t celibate, not to mention those pedophiles again
-A belief that “God heals”, but fortunately almost none rely on.

I can accept a difference in beliefs from those I hold, whether I think them wrong or simply different.  However, I have no respect whatsoever for hypocrisy.  If you don’t act on the beliefs you claim to hold, either directly or by association, how can you claim either are right?

I forget who the comedian was, but he did a great routine on the wafers….he called them “Jes-its”…and then he talked about grabbing the whole bowl of wafers, pouring milk on it, and then eating it like a “great big old bowl of Christ-Chex”….

Very funny.

 Oh, I totally get that. I wish I was less afraid of alienating myself- I would LOVE to debate that point with people who say they are Catholic but don’t actually believe the fine print! It always amazes me how people can believe some bits of arbitrary nonsense while decrying other bits as totally wacky 😛

Who is a “true” Catholic? Thst’s pretty much a matter for each Catholic and for the Church to decide. It absolutely is not a question for Mr. Dawkins — or you — to decide. More than a little arrogant for him —or you — to be telling people who believe they are Catholics that they’re not really and ought to get out now. Dawkins at his unappealing preachiest.

The poll is interesting but not I think all that surprising. As Mr. Dennett noted in his recent taped conversation with Mr. Dawkins, most believers of most modern faiths are not theologians, and don’t examine their beliefs in any rigorous way, for at all for that matter. That’s my experience as well. (Raised Catholic but grew up long ago.) My parents could not have explained transsubstantian or the immavulate conception nor did they ever think about them at all. And they and most of the Catholic adults (converts excepted) around us simply discounted what priests said when it conflicted with their understanding of what made sense to them ( e.g. prohibition on birth control).

The Church is, happy to say, in deep trouble of its own making and is losing adherants. Under the circumstances, I think Dennett’s right: shrill ridicule-couchrd commands from outsiders to get out now, immediately, do more harm than good. People reach the quitting point over time, mostly, on their own for their own reasons until they come to realize one day that they just don’t believe any more. It is for most I think a slow process not a sudden and dramatic de-conversion experience.

Protestants are fond of saying that most Catholics are Anglican (or Lutheran) at heart.  But this brings up an interesting point.  It is questionable if the Catholics who reject this central teaching can be Catholic. I believe the Church allows some flexibility on defining Catholic, allowing for human imperfections and the chance to learn and grow, and that would be fair.  After all, they may not believe because nobody told them, or told them in a bad way, or they were taught not to believe by someone who didn’t believe.  You can’t just say ‘aha’ over one stat and make a call.
But assuming that they do know, have been taught, and choose to reject the teaching, are they Catholic?  And if not, if they do something terrible or evil, can you blame their Catholicism, and hence the Catholic faith for it?   Interesting questions.

As an ex-Catholic I never really met anyone who is truly a Catholic. Sure they “believe” it’s the actual body and blood of Christ but none of them really do. The majority of Catholics just go to church and celebrate religious holidays because it’s their tradition to do so. For years I was a Catholic not because I even really believed in god, but because I convinced myself it was a tradition worth carrying on. 

People generally don’t have any motivation to change and exposing the horrible crap that the church does with their money just generates a shrug from them because it doesn’t effect them directly. Unfortunately it also tends to dictate how some of them vote (but not all of them, you would be surprised how many Catholics will vote for pro-choice candidates. I even attended a church once where the priest implored people not to vote on a single issue though this didn’t make him popular among several older parishioners).

I think a big part of many Irish people still clinging to a vague sense of Catholicism is in part to do with the fact that it differentiates the majority of the population from a tenant of English identity (Protestantism). Same with the fact Irish people are more likely to own a house than rent – the land was taken from us so there’s a weird cultural fear lingering in our behaviours, even down through the generations. It wasn’t too long ago that Ireland was under the crown, so despite the relationship with England being great now there’s still a lot of traditions rather than beliefs held on to in order to be “Irish” and not some sort of “west Brit”.

I’m not sure I follow your points. 

it’s not really up for debate, Hemant is 100% correct. what interests me is that this is something that has gotten me in more trouble than any other observation i may make as an atheist questioning the different ways in which people of faith describe it. you want to piss off a moderate or liberal “christian?” make this point to them. so many of them don’t take their “faith” very seriously, in the sense that they ignore and deny the truth of their own creeds. and think they have some right to never be called on the inconsistency. 

I thought we DIDN’T like the No True Scotsman argument? 

Of course religious faith is flexible. As evidence, I present… every religious faith ever. I’m not going to list some set beliefs that every Catholic must have to be called a Catholic, because a) I don’t believe such a set exists and b) Catholics would give you a lot of different responses. I don’t think that we should define Catholics as only those subscribing to all the official doctrines. While that might have some religious significance (official doctrine dictates what is Catholic because official doctrine dictates that it does), it doesn’t accurately describe the *reality* that there are people who are Catholic and who don’t subscribe to all those beliefs. Why should you privilege a religious dictate over an actual observation of reality? 
I personally define someone as a member of a religious community if they identify with it and have some sort of relationship with it, and I think they are in sync with it *enough*. Of course, the “enough” is subjective, and would vary from person to person. But I don’t see why we can automatically privilege one person’s definition of what is “close enough” to be a True Believer just because it is closer to “official doctrine.” Then the question becomes, why do we privilege the definition that includes adherence to all official doctrine? And then you get into the circular reasoning of official doctrine says that official doctrine is right, etc. 

 That’s very generous of you.

I, personally, don’t believe Jesus is my lord or savior, but I think I he had cool sandals and I dig the beard. I think that makes me a Christian, right?

you seem to be struggling with the definitions of words like “belief” “faith” and “creed.” they mean something, something rather specific, in fact. i can call myself an Asian-American; it doesn’t mean that is fact. if you participate in an organization and ritual without even understanding what you are saying and doing, that’s just sort of pathetic. it also doesn’t qualify as true “belief.” that requires understanding. 

I think the next time someone tells me they are Catholic, I am going to respond by saying I am a citizen of France.

Were you born in France? No.
Do you live there? No…

But I’ve visited there many times and I watch the Tour de France every year on TV.

i know some real Christians. not many, but they do exist. my BIL is one. he prays in secret. he gives charity unstintingly. he doesn’t lie, cheat or steal. he’s even humble. he admits that he’s not enough of a Christian to give away all his wealth, but I think after his kids are grown, he might. 

Not all believe that it’s just a metaphor for the last supper or something. Even some non-Catholic sects (most notably Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that it’s substantially similar to the real body. Look up “real presence”.

It’s just that the sects that don’t believe in the real presence – like Baptists and Calvanists – are far more common in the US and almost non-existent in Europe.

“I thought we DIDN’T like the No True Scotsman argument?”
You are right as regards anything that doesn’t have a central defining authority. There’s no Scottish pope who decides what a true Scotsman wears under his Kilt – it’s just a generalization about Scotsmen and the fellow sharing a pint with you has just as much right to say as you do.
_
It’s a bit different with Catholicism; there’s one guy who supposedly defines the church and its practice. Start from there and you can make “No True Catholic” arguments all day as Dawkins has done. Start from What Catholics Actually Do and Dawkins is all wet. Unless you circle back around and say all those people, on account of not following that one guy, are not True Catholics. In which case, why do they keep sending their money to the Vatican?
_
Wait – I may have just stumbled on what the Vatican regards as the real core of Catholicism…

Everything Dawkins is saying makes so much sense to me. I really don’t know where the disconnect is, except for a feeling of belonging to a group; collective identity. That would explain the ad hoc rationalizations. It never was a matter of belief or understanding, but just that of belonging to a group.
BTW, Pope Pius XII infallibly declared in 1950 that all Catholics must believe that Mary ascended bodily up into heaven. I’ve never met a Catholic that accepts that doctrine. 

If I could give you many likes, I would. The question of who’s “in” and who’s “out” should be left to the fundamentalists who can argue about it all they want.

The irony is that Richard Dawkins is, by his own admission, the least qualified person in the world to decide what constitutes a “true Catholic”. I was led to understand that he was downright proud of his ignorance of matters theological.

The arrogance comes not from Mr. Dawkins pointing out inconsistencies, and even absurdities, in Catholic theology [or any other].  It comes from his insistence that adherents of whatever faith he is mocking should get out and get out now and from his insistence that if they do not fit his definition of what a Catholic [or Mormon or Baptist etc.] is, then they are not Catholics.  

From the Pope’s point of view, not taking transubstantiation literally makes them, certainly, uninformed Catholics, and perhaps bad ones. It does not make them “not Catholic.”   Again, as Dennett noted, most people are not theologians and do not constantly [or ever] examine their faith rigorously.  Mr. Dawkins is a scientist and an academic and lives and works in a world where he expects, should new evidence demand it, that he revise or even jettison long-held beliefs.  However much we might wish everyone to live  such a rigorously evidence-based life, the simple fact is, most people, particularly where matters of their religion is concerned, do not.   Dawkins’ approach — “If only you were as rigorous a thinker as I am, you would realize you are not a Catholic and get out!”  — is pretty arrogant, seems to me, and not likely to resonate effectively among the great numbers of believers who have never, and don’t now, rigorously examine their own faiths. 

However pathetic you may find it, millions of Americans, as Mr. Dennett noted, live quite comfortably in their various faiths without ever rigorously examining same.   And they consider themselves believers, whether it seems to you “true” belief or not. Again, that’s not something you get to decide for them. 

Only this is not a case of “No True Scotsman”.

In the original fallacy Antony Flew used the case of a scottish man saying that declaring a man from aberdeen (in scotland!) not a Scotsman. However had he said that about a man from Coventry (england) he would be right. In the case of Catholics (or any religious person) who do not believe in the basic tenants of their religion, they are the man from Coventry. 

I suppose I could elaborate a whole lot on each of these, but that could be a whole essay, or several. 

The first point is that the Catholic dogma doesn’t match the bible, despite it being the purported basis of the faith.  The latest stance on the US nuns reflects that.  In saying that the nuns spend too much time helping the poor (which Jesus is certainly said to have commanded) and too little time fighting contraception and homosexuality (which Jesus said nothing of), they’ve shown that what they don’t follow the basis of the whole faith.

Second, the actual beliefs of the believers doesn’t match either of these.  Contraception and transubstantiation are just two examples. 

I think I may see why you’re questioning my assertions.  Why does it matter that these don’t match up?  In judging the church, it matters because the moral claims that it makes don’t at all match up with it’s actions, or the claimed source of those assertions.  How can anyone make moral assertions that it chooses not to live by itself?  I’m not talking about slips and mistakes by either individuals or the organization.  Everybody can fail to live up to what they wish to be, and I certainly make no claims of being above that.  However, when its deliberate and considered actions continuously run counter to its teachings, it shows itself to be deeply hypocritical, and thus unworthy of moral claims.

That individuals don’t actually believe what they are supposed to believe is would be less of an issue if they weren’t lending support to an organization that does a great deal of harm. 

How is this a “No True Scotsman” argument?   It isn’t.  Look it up if you’re unclear  what that term refers to.

Beyond that, I don’t understand why you think it’s OK for you to “personally define someone as a member of a religious community if they
identify with it and have some sort of relationship with it” and then deny Hemant the same privilege.  It’s rather obviously self-contradictory.

 And how is transubstantiation a basic tenet? Compared to, for example, the resurrection or the virgin birth, it’s downright peripheral.

Here’s a little trivia test for the atheists here.  Let’s see who has done their homework.  What is the significance of the timing of this story’s release?  Hint: It’s an annual thing.

 So you are saying that you can be a Catholic atheist? Interesting. 

After all, many atheists went through the Catholic sacraments (baptism, confirmation) to become Catholic on paper and some likely attend church and go through the motions (take communion).  Under your definition, they are Catholics. 

It doesn’t matter what you were taught. It doesn’t matter because there is doctrine, and there is reality. Doctrine may be important. Most Catholics probably believe that… all the while they are adjusting it for the reality of their lives.

The RCC has changed radically over the course of its existence, and will certainly continue to do so. To suggest it has no need to change is to ignore the actual behavior of human institutions. It must adjust its doctrine to be consistent with the actual beliefs of its members, or it will fade to insignificance.

Umm . . . “this man was a good person who had good things to teach to us” . . . OK, sure, maybe, but how do you sort the good person/good things part out from all the crazy stories and lies?

Religion is an elaborate system of denial, prevarication, and evasive reasoning.  I think your grandmother wanted to think Jesus was a good man with good things to teach, but like all religious people just bought into an elaborate mythology.

Do you actually think people are going to give up the rest of their faith practices, traditions, and their community because of this?  US Catholics tend not to agree with the Vatican over birth control as well as many other issues, as well. This is nothing new.

“I wouldn’t hold back on the ridicule”.

Thus supporting the stereotype of atheists as intellectual elitists who enjoy sneering at others.  Is this really the message you want to send?

It’s nice to see Dawkins is consistent in his message, though.

As usual, I find myself imagining how far my rights as an LGBT person would have progressed by now if folks had adopted the strategy of mocking and ridiculing straight people during the past few decades.

As far as I am aware the whole “new covenent” is a sham. Jesus explicitly says in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
This is inconvenient for some christians who invent ways around it as an excuse to repudiate the nastier bits of the OT and preserve the whole “gentle Jesus, meek and mild ” schtik they prefer

..which technically, makes one a Catholic in very bad standing with the Church, but still a Catholic.

It can’t be long before the Catholic heirarchy have a big important meeting about transubstantiation, and announce a new version of “the truth”.

Then they can spin it like they’re a modern church all up to speed with modernist thinking.

Until then, they’re going to continue to have to bear the burden of the ludicrous notion of transubstantiation, like a big sign around their neck saying “Kick me, I’m stupid.”.

But the catholic church doesn’t always separate doctrine and reality.  The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, for example, would be something is that a doctrine that is claim about objective reality.  Rejection of the doctrine of Jesus being the son of god and of god would be, in the eyes of the church, a rejection of reality.

Transubstantiation seems to be something less so, insofar as 13 years of catholic school didn’t really hammer that point home to me (I think it was mentioned like *once* and then pretty much swept aside as anything of any import).

I see where you’re going with the whole “actual beliefs of its members” thing, at some point there is enough of a discrepancy in acceptance of doctrine of it’s members that eventually someone nails a piece of paper on the door of a church.

 No, I think you’re right on. Many of the cultural aspects of Catholicism, at least as I’ve seen them growing up Irish Catholic in the US, are innocuous or even pleasant. I feel no need to throw stones at those in my family who hold liberal values and yet still go to mass on Sunday. The only sticking point for me is the question of whether this kind of participation constitutes lending material support to an organization that does some very bad things at a high level. I’d rather that folks just walk away from it, but I’ll settle for putting an end to the most flagrant abuses.

 Again, I see no arrogance in point out that many self-described Catholics by their own admission do not accept a tenet of the faith which the Church hierarchy claims as central to their faith. Dawkins is not saying they aren’t Catholic because they don’t meet his standards of what a Catholic should be; he’s saying they don’t even meet the Church’s own standards.

Admittedly, it’s been some years since I was in Catholic school, so maybe the doctrinal position on transubstantiation is not what I remember. If the Church does not hold that to be a key element of their faith, then it certainly is not Dawkins’ place to state that it ought to be.

As to the arrogance of telling people they should leave the Church, sure, it is a little arrogant. The same way that it’s arrogant when I tell my relatives that they really ought to not smoke, and get exercise, and eat healthy. It’s presuming to know what’s best for other people, which, even if you’re right, is a bit arrogant. Not worse than believers telling atheists they’ll burn in hell for their lack of faith, but nonetheless.

 You’ve made this argument several times, and I will reply likewise: would you take me at my word that I’m a vegetarian, even if you see me eating bacon, simply because I do not believe that bacon is meat? Does my self-identification with a certain group outweigh the fact that I don’t understand or adhere to that group’s defining practices? Would it be okay for me to call myself an astronaut if I’ve never gone higher than my house’s attic, and would you be arrogant for pointing out that I’m mistaken?

No takers?  Nobody knows? 

So geography is the deciding factor?  Well, there’s a novel escape hatch.

Oh, OK.  I actually had a longer question, but for some odd reason, it kept freezing on me at the time.
A couple of things.  I don’t blame the often used ‘Christianity doesn’t match the whole Bible’ on non-believers.  Most progressive believers made a tremendous amount of hay out of that one, even though they knew the answer.  The answer is what is known as ‘Development of Doctrine.’  It’s a teaching that is as fundamental to the historic faith as the belief in God, and goes all the way back to before the beginning of Christianity.

In fact, several NT letters and the book of Acts deals with this very thing: how much of the traditional religious law applies to the new revelation in light of the ministry of Jesus?  In Acts, the meeting of the leaders of the Church to decide this question is recorded.  Other letters are addressed to the early discussion over those who feel more of the Jewish religious laws should apply,while others felt that in light of this new ‘testament’, most would no longer apply.  It was something that already saw disagreement in the religious environment of pre-1st century Judaism.  It’s not really the slam dunk answer that so many think, but again, it was used by progressive Christians to validate their rejecting of traditional teachings, and has become part of the debate.

I’m not sure the address to the US nuns says all that. The media’s headline interpretations haven’t matched the actual events, and of course the Vatican has made it clear it is not aimed at all nuns, only those who have openly opposed the Church’s teachings.  In reading the actual Vatican statements, it seems to say ‘we appreciate what you do, but would appreciate it more if you stayed within the parameters of Church teaching.’  After all, it’s hard to hold the Church accountable for those who reject its teaching if we then turn around and condemn the Church for trying to get those in leadership positions to stay loyal to Church teaching.  As I said elsewhere, some people may not follow the Church because those doing the teaching have taught them not to.  At that point, does it really reflect on the Church? Especially if we feel the CHurch has no recourse to correct it?
As for the majority rejecting the Church’s teaching, that is true.  It’s true because unlike Protestantism, where one can simply shop around until one finds the right teaching, Catholics only have one Church, and so feel they can pick and choose as they please, while still being Catholic.  That the Catholic Church doesn’t throw them out seems to solidify this idea.  Fact is, the Church has allowed for quite a bit of debate and disagreement over the ages.  Hollywood tales of the Church dragging endless hordes of people to be burned over any little disagreement is overstating the history.  Typically, only if people challenged the authority of the Church, or attempted to cause a split, were there actual repercussions.  That’s why we know of the various disagreements and debates – often from those who remained within the Church while harboring strong disagreements. 

Of course you must make the call, and you’ve done that.  I can respect that.  But I thought I would speak to a couple ideas and clarify from a different angle, or at least what I understand from my studies in history over the years.

There is nothing peripheral about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ during mass.  It is the central purpose of the occasion.  Where did you ever get the idea it was not all that important.  Somebody was raised to be a very poor Catholic.

 Well, June 6th is the Feast Day of Claude the Thaumaturge, who was into all that miraculous acts of the Saints shite..

Well, I consider myself to be the King of England, with all my heart.  Just because I have no proof does not invalidate my belief.  So please call me “Your Highness,” or you’re being bigoted and denying me my rights.

Stupid? Yes.  It’s the same argument as claiming to be a Catholic without the proof of following the dogmatic rules.

 Thank you for sharing. I’m sorry for your loss.

This would be a question to the church authorities: if the wafer actually changes to flesh, why does it still cause problems for coeliacs?

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  It was so easy, too.  I would like to think folks know a little bit about what they’re rejecting.  It was almost a give away.

The answer is, this weekend was the Feast of Corpus Christi.  Hence the irony of the findings, which is why it was significant that the story was released at this particular moment.  Whether or not those who published this story knew this, of course, is up in the air.  I wouldn’t be shocked if it was just a coincidence.  Nevertheless, that was the answer. 

 Which is a moveable feast – I vaguely remember it falling later in June, but not having been involved for years, it didn’t really stick in my mind.  Plus, only the really religious Catholics I know would bother with it, even in Ireland. 

I’m not sure how the doctrine can be “switched out”, nor how this claimed ability makes transubstantiation to be not central to Catholicism.

Now, if the Church were to switch it out for something eles, then you would be on to something; it would no longer be central.

But hey, if you want to go ahead a claim that it’s not a central part of the RC faith, go ahead.

I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

To all of the wooly “ah well you can disagree with the belief and stll be a Catholic” comments I have to say this.

NONSENSE

Im afraid you are not just slightly misinformed. You are completely wrong.  You haven’t got a clue how the Roman Catholic Church works in respect of doctrine.  I went to a Cath school till 18 and this was drlled into us again and again.

The RCC canon law of Magisterium is very clear. The Pope, on matters of faith and morality, is infallible. His word is official church doctrine, beyond any question, and is not a matter of debate.

Church central doctrine on the matter of transubstatiation is very clear. It is an essential article of faith. ESSENTIAL. No question, no wobble room. You either believe in it, or you are a schismatic heretic outwith the Church teachings. You either believe in it and state that as fact, or you can not call yourself a Catholic, nor are you allowed to take the sacrement.

To deny transubstantiation (and especially to deny it and take communion) is as bad a heresy as denying the trinity or the divinity of Jesus.

Transubstantiation is the central doctrinal difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. The RCC position is unchanged. Essential article of faith.

So Dr D is right. Again…..

Aaahh but merely Googling the answer would not have been in the spirit of the game.

Ok, one last reply before I get back to what I should really be doing.  And thanks for your civil and thought out feedback.  Too often it can descend into insults and rote bible quotes.

Teachings have progressed, it’s true, although not fast.  And if if the Vatican were clearly to say the OT teachings were simply superceded, then it would be clear.  However, when one sentence of Leviticus for example can be used to call one a sinner, and another line completely ignored, then we have hypocrisy.  Unless of course there is something in the NT to clarify, but I’ve never seen a clear answer to why homosexuality, but not lobsters.  To be fair, it may be some of the more literalist Protestant sects who are the worst offenders.

On the nun issue, I may have been to hasty based on some one-sided reports.  In what I’ve read of the Vatican texts, it’s not as blatant, although the views I mentioned are certainly easy to see in them.  The statements are simply too politically vague, so their full intent isn’t obvious.  To infer is fair, to accuse may not be.

The hypocrisy runs so much deeper than that.  The pedophile priest situation is painfully blatant.  The incidents of ongoing non-celibacy and homosexual acts among clergy and nuns, while decrying basic sexual education and promoting abstinence in deed and thought is too deep.  Frankly, if a couple of Sisters want some discrete fun, have at it, and I’ll do no more than snicker.  They would still be hypocritical, but harmless.  But don’t tell me that even my thoughts are sinfull.  You may well say that their sin doesn’t negate the truth of their statements, and that would be fair.  But when the morality of the statements hangs on the church’s moral position, they need to actually follow their own teachings.  They simply haven’t.

The laity’s hypocrisy is mostly harmless.  In fact, it may be better than actually acting on doctrine.  If most actually believed that prayer cured disease, they would be dangerous to their kids.  If they believed dissobedient kids and gays were to be stoned to death, they’d be murderers.  If they actually believed that birth control was wrong, we’d be over populating much faster.  If they actually believed blended fibres were an abomination… well, that one wouldn’t hurt too badly.

But enough for now.  You’ve softened my opinion on a couple of the points, but certainly not overall.

Good response, but since you must get on with the finer things of life, I’ll leave you to it.  I will say that some of the development issues were actually handled in the NT.  But I see you must be going.  Perhaps at a later time we’ll run across some more points to discuss.  Till then, ciao.

This isn’t rocket science. The failure is in the pollster’s lack of correct categorization. If there was a ‘lapsed Catholic’ entry, the results would make a little more sense. For other denominations, there really isn’t the same sort of sense: there isn’t such a thing as a “Lapsed Methodist” or whatever.

The origin of the confusion is that a bunch of people started calling themselves “Christian” while ignoring what the Body of Christ on Earth in Communion with the Pope (aka the Church Militant) teaches. So, Catholics (Roman, Eastern Rite, etc, whoever is in communion with the Pope) are the only group properly called Christians, and, for instance ‘sola fidei’ protestants are properly called heretics. But, because a lot of you are or would be confused, we accept the term “Catholic” as being the same as what we mean by “Christian”, since catholic means universal, and our Lord offered himself for all men, and gave His Body – on the Cross, in the Eucharist, and in the Church – for their salvation. But, like He said: “But whoever denies me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” So, denying the authority of the Church is denying the Lordship of Jesus.

You don’t have to like it.

You are a Catholic if you have been baptized into the faith or later joined through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). At the end of time, we know that certain people who have been baptized or joined will not enter Heaven (see above – unlike Calvinists think, you can lose your salvation by your own acts subsequent to the primary act).

You are a Catholic in a state of grace – a “good Catholic” – if your conscience is not dead but nevertheless does not presently convict you of a mortal sin. You can tell for the most part if your conscience isn’t dead if it relatively often convicts you of venial (that is, wounding but not deadly) sin. Other items: You follow the precepts of the Church (go to Church every Sunday, go to confession at least once a year, recieve communion at least once a year, keep the Friday penance – all assuming you are capable of doing these things: e.g. if you’re sick and can’t go, you’re cool, etc).  A Catholic in a state of grace can merit additional grace in various ways and may transmit that grace to others by suffrage (which is the way all intercessory prayer works). Increased knowledge of the truths of the Church and an increase in the virtue of Faith are forms of supernatural grace that a Catholic in a state of grace can merit, which cooperates with the natural graces. A Catholic in a habitual state of Grace is effectively sanctifying themselves and will likely be given the perseverance needed to end up a Saint in Heaven at the end of Time.

You are a lapsed (fallen) Catholic  if you are in a state of serious sin – you have committed at least one mortal sin (that is, a sin deadly to the presence of charity in the soul) with knowledge and consent, and have not repented of it and confessed it. Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or willful refusal to assent to it: basically, if you don’t know the truth and can’t be bothered to learn what the Church teaches, you are fallen. Most of the things we usually think of as sins fall into this category (adultery in various forms, murder, child abuse, lust, anger, gossip, other acts born of other the vices). Regardless, in a state of mortal sin, you are not permitted to go to receive the Eucharist, and one ought to work to correct the fault, and go to confession as soon as possible. To die in a state of mortal sin lands you in hell.

The penalty of sin is a darkening of the intellect and a weakening of will – which, you’ll note, begets more sin – a further and deeper ‘fall’, usually into the next category. That said, the grace of repentence is always offered while there is life in the human person. Thus, a person who is habitually or usually fallen is not habitually working with God’s grace, and is heading in the ‘wrong direction’.

Finally, one could be an excommunicated Catholic (which you could also say is a special category of lapsed – it’s even further away) – which is the level of ‘not really a Catholic’. You are not in communion with the Church. This happens in only a few instances: if you participate in an abortion, if you commit apostasy (repudiation of the Faith), heresy (obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth of the faith – and rejection of the Real Presence falls in this category), or schism (refusal of submission to the Pope or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him), or divorce and remarriage outside the Church. Excommunicated Catholics can be denied Christian burial by the Church, and ought never claim to be Catholic, although the duties of a Catholic that are permitted them (like attending mass and doing the friday fast, acts of charity, etc) are still duties.

There used to be a ‘formal defection’ from the faith, which was a document you signed, but the truth is it was probably never really necessary or that it did anything real. There’s really not a time after one has been brought into the Church that one can actually leave, substantially: the defection is one of will – sin – rather than ontology, since Baptism is a character change that persists. One can be Baptized and in hell. One might even still be a priest in Hell. However, while one is still alive, the grace of repentance is extended to you because you are a Catholic.

The explanation I heard is that the ‘substance’ changes, not the ‘accidents’. To the RCC these words do not have an every day meaning. They are not disconcerted that the chemical and other physical properties didn’t change when the priestly magician spoke the words of power over the bread and wine.

Some say that two miracles occur. One for turning stuff into Jesus, and another for disguising him as identical to what was there before.

 As a former catholic I fully agree with this. There are many people that do not agree with the Catholic bishops or the pope and consider themselves catholic. The reasoning (In my case) went like this:   I made a distinction between the “holy church” which is whatever god actually wanted from us, from the “human” church, the imperfect flawed real thing.  So I disagreed with the “human” church on many areas and tried to follow what I believed was the moral core of the church. Also I used to believe that the sacraments “worked” independently of the human defects of the particular  priest.  I stopped being catholic in my view,  when I stopped believing in god, but some people that are in the church mainly to help other people, stay even beyond that point because they consider what they are doing important or valuable enough.
I agree that there is an element of cognitive dissonance in the way people justify why they are still catholic but don’t agree with everything the Pope says.  But that does not mean they don’t sincerely believe this. And that they don’t believe they are doing it for the right reasons.

The Catholic Church is too big to only have one point of view and set of beliefs. This is why it has survived this long.  Of course the more conservative fundamentalist part of the church would agree with Dawkins on this point. But when they try to enforce that view now that they don’t have the state on their side, they run the risk of alienating the very people that have kept the church around all this time. This is probably not a bad thing I guess.

I am not excusing the catholic church from any of it’s crimes.  The recent scandals and the way the current bishops are campaigning for the republicans, would prevent me from going back even if I started believing again, which is highly unlikely.  But assuming that you “know” what a real catholic is, better than the people who self identify as catholic is
 very arrogant.  And any definition based on so little knowledge is not very useful.

The Council of Trent declared back in the 16th century that disbelief in transubstantiation was subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema, that is, major excommunication. You weren’t just denied communion, you were severed from the Church.
They certainly didn’t consider it to be peripheral.

Only as arrogant as the church wanting to make abortion illegal because they believe it’s bad, or Righties in general wanting to deny marriage equality because it’s “wrong.” 

One person giving their opinion more weight than it should have. 

No idea if it has been repudiated in some way but as I said before, the Council of Trent, while dealing with the Protestant Heresy, declared disbelief in transubstantiation to be deserving of  ‘anathema’, sometimes referred to as major excommunication.

Minor excommunication which is what you are describing means that you are still part of the Church, just not allowed communion, etc.

I doubt the hierarchy goes out of its way to pronounce people to be anathema for this, but for all I know, this could also be ‘latae sententiae’ (automatic, no specific declaration required) as is the penalty for getting an abortion.

Sir or madam, I left that disgusting belief system 10 years ago. I have no intrest in wading back through the catchism. If you wish me to retract my statement, Done.

In which case, why do they keep sending their money to the Vatican?

Many don’t. If you put money in the collection receptacle at your local Roman Catholic church, exactly none of it ends up in the Vatican.

The Vatican is funded almost completely by issue of stamps and coins, tourist souvenirs, admission fees, publication sales and miscellaneous services (e.g. printing). There is the practice of “Peter’s Pence”, but I’m lend to understand that many Catholics in the developed world simply don’t do it these days. There are a few rich Catholics in the US who give a lot around 29 June, which tends to skew the statistics.

Well said, sir. Were Richard Dawkins big enough to do the same, the world would be a better place.

An excommunicated Catholic is not “not Catholic”. They are still, for example, encouraged to attend mass, even if they don’t partake in the sacraments.

“I’ve got to say, I’ve never met a single one who’s…chopped off his hands because he sinned with them.”

Well, they certainly won’t be replying here.

“Believes in the basic tenants of the religion” doesn’t sound very conservative to me…

Point to you. As I said above I might be a little rusty on the Theology.

…and don’t forget he “used” to be an atheist.

Tom Lehrer FTW

First, I don’t think the argument that you can call yourself whatever you want and that’s what you are applies well to Catholicism. If you call yourself Christian, then you’re a Christian, as far as I’m concerned, but if you call yourself Catholic, well there’s a clear central authority and set of tenants that you are signing on to by calling yourself that. There is one Roman Catholic Church, with one set of doctrines that you are required to believe and by saying you’re Catholic, you are saying that you believe them.

But to address your final point, how do you SHOW a Catholic that they’re wrong, their God doesn’t exist, and they’d be better off without him? You could start by saying: Look, your religion says right here that you must believe the following things, do you believe them? No? Then are you really Catholic? Why should you believe the Catholic God exists if you don’t believe one of the core tenants of the Catholic faith (and it really is core, this is actually far more fundamental to Catholicism than say, birth control, which the overwhelming majority of Catholic women disagree with the Church on.)

This is more a rhetorical tactic, it’s not as if Hemant or Dawkins think they do or should have the authority to decide who’s Catholic and who’s not, it’s a strong way of making a point: Do Catholics really believe Catholic doctrine? The answer is a resounding “No”.

While I see your point on there being only one Catholic church and therefore one doctrine etc I think you’ll find that its priets and adherents hold a vastly more diverse set of beliefs than we have come to expect. I’m reminded of the priest interviewed in Religulous who has some opinions which are far from orthodox. You can see a bit of the interview here: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9FdbGxbSk4

There is also a long tradition of Papal decrees which countermand each other. This is bound to create division both in the church and in peoples’ minds. Imagine growing up to the age of, I dunno, 30 believing in the concept of Limbo or transubstantiation or Invincible Ignorance (which would be a great name for an Atheist blog, BTW) or evolution, for that matter only to then be told that the new Pope has changed his mind.

Catholics, like any other sect are people first and Catholics second whatever they tell you and like everyone else, they pick and choose the parts of their religion which make sense to them. It’s a cliche but it holds true, there are almost as many kinds of Christianity as there are Christians. Catholics particularly have to jump though so many logical hoops to remain believers that it’s going to be a lot easier for them to simply dismiss transubstantiation as a metaphor to make the pieces fit than it is to give up their entire religion.

When “we” start to pick at a person’s beliefs and criticise them for not adhering to dogma in every way that we expect them to we run a very real risk as coming across as unbelievably arrogant and that doesn’t help our case. I get particularly pissed off when people criticise Dawkins for being arrogant because I’ve read a couple of his books and I don’t think he is but I could understand someone’s point were they to offer this video as evidence. I just think a better debating tactic is to simply come up with reasons why their God doesn’t exist rather than play gotcha. 

Lastly, and I really don’t mean to be snarky in any way so apologies in advance but I would rather know if it were me: It’s “tenet”, not “tenant”.

Edit: and apologies for the wall of text 😉

What acts? I don’t think it is possible to be kicked out of the RCC. The most severe censure it can mete out is excommunication, which does not make the recipient non-Catholic, but merely limits his communion with the Church.

I used a word incorrectly recently arguing with a homophobic bigot (seriously, the guy was horrifically obnoxious) on a different forum. Unfortunately, not only did he point out my mistake but my incorrect usage of the word kind of made it sound like I agreed with him. It also helped him make the point that I shouldn’t use so many “big words”. Nonetheless, I thanked him for the correction. What else can you do? It did sting though….

It sounds like you had a similar de-conversion to me in some ways. I was raised Anglican, proper be nice to each other and tea with the Vicar* CofE so it wasn’t such a stretch dogma-wise. It just didn’t seem right to have a belief system which you were supposed to hold as the very core of the human experience that allowed you to pick and choose which bits you agreed with so readily.

My Grandmother was a staunch Catholic though and very active in the church. Toward the end of her life, in a prayer meeting or similar, she raised the subject of her Atheist grandson and when the priest intimated that I was hell-bound or similar she apparently told him she didn’t believe that, stood up, left the room and found a different church to attend. My father told me that story as if it was a *bad* thing.

Maybe these criticisms can be seen as a chink in their armour and maybe they can be leveraged. I hope so. I just worry about how we’ll be perceived.

I’m not surprised you’re frustrated with Catholic hypocrisy. I think we can all empathise there. I’m fond of making the point that we hear nothing from groups calling themselves things like: “Concerned Catholics Against Paedos”. But if I lived in the States I would be especially torqued right now. Over here, everyone who wants it gets free birth control from the government, paid for by our taxes and no-one says a damn thing.

*That Vicar, a Rev. Zeal if you can believe that, was the man that convinced me that it was okay to not believe in God, BTW.

Your I forgot that the only thing that makes you a Member is being Baptised without consent:)

You are a scholar and a gentleperson.

 seriously.  a lot of the time it will be said “but that’s the WRONG christians who think that!” but in this case, it’s in their own fucking church.

And all of this “well, religion SHOULD be flexible” (obviously so that it can never be falsified) bullshit?  Come on, for transubstantiation, either stamp out the delusion among the 26% that think magic is actually happening, or else show that it is actual magic and revolutionize science.  they have to pick one, I don’t see how this can be flexible.

+”I thought we DIDN’T like the No True Scotsman argument? ”

The no true Scotsman fallacy only applies in cases where the arguer arbitrarily invents the rules determining what a true scotsman is to suit his argument.

It’s like begging the question.

Stating that the self proclaimed christians in prison are not true christians is an example of that logical fallacy, because the arguer is arbitrarily defining what a true christian is to suit his argument. 

Stating that someone is not a true lawyer because he doesn’t have a law degree or bar licence, is NOT an example of the fallacy because those things are basic pre-requisites for the definition of the label.

Likewise, belief in transubstantiation is a basic tenant of the roman catholic religion.  Given the relatively recent ramblings of the current pope, I’d be willing to bet quite a lot that he would agree with Dawkins on this issue.

Sure, blame the scammers not the scammed. 

Church leaders are wrong to teach fictions as facts. Their followers merely misinformed about divine miracles.But this is no ordinary credulity…>>Just over a quarter believe it is transformed (26 per cent)… priests performing weekly miracles? Seems like an invitation to ridicule the believer, ie. ridiculous.

Yes. Because a wafer is not Jesus. Also, wine is not blood. QED.

That was fun. Let’s play again sometime.

Okay, so your argument is to purely beg the question? That’s not an intelligent argument in my book.

Are we debating only the poll results?  Or the principle about Transubstantiation?  Even if these numbers aren’t accurate, I suspect there are many Catholics who don’t buy into the wine-into-blood story…

There are plenty of Catholic churches near me but I won’t be attending any time soon as I’ve done my time in church over the years, sometimes for Catholic services. I never knew it was called anything as painful as “Eucharistic Adoration” though. Creepy.

I’d be surprised if most Catholics didn’t know about transubstantiation or the real presence though. What makes you think they’re ignorant of it?

It’s a good point you raise. But also be aware that Dawkins (and Mr. Mehta) also contributes to the stereotype of atheists as closed-minded intellectual cretins with nonsense like this. Seriously, how’s this for an ‘intellectual’ argument: “Transubstantiation includes the idea that a wafer becomes Jesus; therefore transubstantiation is a silly theory because a wafer isn’t Jesus – QED.” Like wow, you really pondered that one deeply, didn’t you fellas?

Uh… right. Actually the Church NEVER separates doctrine from reality. To do so would be to proclaim false doctrine, wouldn’t it?

The Church has successfully faced down haters and dissenters for 200o years. I don’t know why you and Peterson would think that something is about to change with that, but perhaps a consideration of the real history of the Church (not polemical fairy tale histories where it’s all just awful) would give you pause in your willingness to take seriously these kinds of predictions about the imminent demise of the magisterium of the Church. Or go ahead and believe your little ‘fairy tales for adults.’ 😉

Like I said, I’ve been to church plenty. Most of my family are various flavours of church going Christian, I was myself until I was 11 and I’ve seen plenty of services of plenty of denominations. My maternal Grandmother, a close cousin and her family, my father until he converted to Anglicanism, all Catholic. Short of God himself giving the sermon, no church services will make me change my mind at this point. However “open” it is. To paraphrase Tim Minchin: “If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.”

What’s more, I’ve discussed the finer points of religious belief with a lot of my family and a fair few clergy to be honest and none of them seem to agree. But that’s not really the point. What happens when the church changes its mind on a dogmatic principle? The existence of Limbo, for example. What happens then? Does every Catholic around the world suddenly and miraculously change their mind as well? Do you all believe in Papal infallibility too? What if he decides that from now on, up is down and the sky is green, do you all just nod in agreement and go about your day?

What data do you have to make the proclamations that “most Catholics aren’t pick and choose types” and “Most Catholics are ignorant about many things Catholic”? And if the second premise is true, are they still Catholics and do they get to go to Heaven?

I’m not even going to respond to: “most people – whether Catholic, atheist, or whatever – are not very bright and haven’t been very well taught.” as it’s so ludicrously condescending. I do agree with you that most things Catholic are difficult to understand. I find them absolutely baffling most of the time.

And finally, it’s painful and creepy because if you believe that the wafer and wine actually turn into flesh and blood it’s weird to call it “adoration”. I mean, I adore tacos but I can’t imagine doing so were they made from some 2,000 year old dude.

This comment box is getting small now so I’ll keep it as brief as possible.

1) Pascal’s wager, really?
2) Yes it does and there are lots of examples, Limbo being one. My examples were meant to be absurd but they demonstrate the absurdity of believing in the infallibility of whichever stupid-hatted-one currently sits on the massive golden throne in Vatican city.
3) I misquoted you slightly, for which I apologise but my point remains. What data do you have to support your claim? Oh, you “know a lot of catholics”. That’s a tiny sample set. How many Catholics can you possibly know? A thousand? Ten thousand? A million? It’s not good data. It’s hearsay. 
4) I can’t argue with that wild assertion. Either you’ve met a sufficiently large portion of the world’s population or you’re being condescending in concluding they’re mostly “not very bright”. I wonder what they’d all think of you.
5) Please tell me the point I’m missing when i conclude that adoring drinking a dead guy’s blood is creepy. Actually, don’t bother. You’re right in concluding that I’m not that concerned by the logical conclusion you have reached about the evolution of a thousands-of-years-old blood sacrifice ritual.

tenet, not tenant.  you should know what a tenant is.