What countries are considered Catholic

[domandcarols]

With Ireland, I think it depends where you are.

Them’s fighting words.

 

[domandcarols]

Poland. If no one said that already…

 

[Hokomai]

Whatever happened to respect for national sovereignty? Only the population of a sovereign nation should have a say in the law on church and state.

I think there is a problematic attitude that what works for Americans (the the state shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion) must work for all others. This simply isn’t the case.

You can’t have a state religion without taking away the individual rights of individual people. if Islam were to be the state religion, as a Christian you would be expected to take oaths, say prayers ad express views which you do not hold. I am trying to make the world safe for believers (and us unbelievers too).

 

[psr13]

85% of the people in the Philippines are Catholics. Where I go to church thousands of people are at each mass on Sunday (and many have to watch from outside because the very large church is filled up), and there are a number of Sunday masses in the morning and the afternoon. Abortion is illegal and even divorce is illegal. Catholicism has a pervasive influence on society.
There are Moslems in the southern island of Mindanao where I live with their own languages and social institutions, and they are accepted. But they do not have an effect on the national culture

Yeah, the Muslim population is mostly in Mindanao. From what I’ve been reading, though, Protestants have been really increasing missionary efforts in the Philippines.

 

[Hokomai]

There’s really no reason in the world to be rude to Hokomai. This whole thread is “nobody’s business”. And Hokomai didn’t say that it was anyone’s business to decide – just gave an opinion like anyone else on a discussion forum. Can we try to all get along and play nice?

Thanks Rence. I have a thick skin and it is nice of you all to put up with us open unbelievers on Catholic discussion boards.

 

[stanczyk]

You can’t have a state religion without taking away the individual rights of individual people. if Islam were to be the state religion, as a Christian you would be expected to take oaths, say prayers ad express views which you do not hold. I am trying to make the world safe for believers (and us unbelievers too).

Thankfully, you don’t get to make the world safe for anybody. Sovereignty of independent nations must be respected, and the implementation of a state religion does not infringe on human rights.

I’m getting pretty sick of seeing Islam being used as the go-to bogeyman around here. It is the prerogative of Islamic countries to implement Islam as a state religion, just as it is the prerogative of Catholic countries to be Catholic and secular countries to be secular. I will say a prayer that people who have a irrational hatred for Islam can get over their prejudice.

 

[Leegal]

I’m getting pretty sick of seeing Islam being used as the go-to bogeyman around here. It is the prerogative of Islamic countries to implement Islam as a state religion, just as it is the prerogative of Catholic countries to be Catholic and secular countries to be secular. I will say a prayer that people who have a irrational hatred for Islam can get over their prejudice.

I am not sitting here in NYC fearing the Muslims in my neighborhood. I’m stating fact – and the Arab Spring may not see the rise of democracy that everyone claimed it to be. If you think it’s a good thing – a theocracy as the perogative of any Muslim country – I direct you to Iran as an example of theocracy in action.

 

[Leegal]

Sovereignty of independent nations must be respected, and the implementation of a state religion does not infringe on human rights.

Respectfully but most assuredly disagree that a state religion does not infringe on human rights.

I can give examples of where the implementation of a state religion has, and is now, infringing on human rights. Look at Saudi Arabia and Iran. Well, Saudi Arabia is an Oligarchy if one considers 5,000 family members, many of whom adhere to Whabbisim, to be a rule by the few. It’s a theocracy in all but name because the law of the land is religious law – Sharia. They may not be Mullahs – but they are extreme.

 

[Hokomai]

Thankfully, you don’t get to make the world safe for anybody. Sovereignty of independent nations must be respected, and the implementation of a state religion does not infringe on human rights.

I’m getting pretty sick of seeing Islam being used as the go-to bogeyman around here. It is the prerogative of Islamic countries to implement Islam as a state religion, just as it is the prerogative of Catholic countries to be Catholic and secular countries to be secular. I will say a prayer that people who have a irrational hatred for Islam can get over their prejudice.

It is good to see a Catholic clearly stating what happens when the church gains sufficient influence. i think of Ireland, until recently, and its ban on contraception, and the Syllabus of Errors and its encouragement to ban non-Catholic immigrants from "Catholic’ countries, and the discrimination against Catholics in the UK. In my view all practicing Catholics and other religious people standing for office should be asked if they support a state religion, or state sponsorship of any religion, and should be opposed if they do. (Actually in thinking further, I think all candidates should be asked this!)

 

[stanczyk]

Respectfully but most assuredly disagree that a state religion does not infringe on human rights.

Not to put words in your mouth but the logical consequence of what you’re saying is that the Vatican is violating human rights.

I disagree, of course. The implementation of a state religion does not, in and of itself, violate any human right.

 

[stanczyk]

In my view all practicing Catholics and other religious people standing for office should be asked if they support a state religion, or state sponsorship of any religion, and should be opposed if they do. (Actually in thinking further, I think all candidates should be asked this!)

That’s a weird view! But I respect your honesty.

Incidentally, I think this idea of yours would be held unconstitutional in the US as against Article VI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.

 

[severus68]

Here’s a list by population.

Catholic Stats by Country

I think some of the stats are not accurate. Is Belgium included?

 

[severus68]

Thankfully, you don’t get to make the world safe for anybody. Sovereignty of independent nations must be respected, and the implementation of a state religion does not infringe on human rights.

I’m getting pretty sick of seeing Islam being used as the go-to bogeyman around here. It is the prerogative of Islamic countries to implement Islam as a state religion, just as it is the prerogative of Catholic countries to be Catholic and secular countries to be secular. I will say a prayer that people who have a irrational hatred for Islam can get over their prejudice.

Perhaps if you listen to Muslims saying that the Catholics led in the corruption of the bible? It is not an irrational hatred. It is a fact that many Muslims believe that Islam hold the only Truth and too many are prepared to use any means to turn the world Muslim. They are many Muslims who are moderate and non violent but unfortunately, they are not the most vocal.

I am against state religion because power corrupts. The most unethical, immoral, power hungry and merciless will always get their way and impose their agendas and rules. Christianity is not a religion of force.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s true. So considering that how does one determine a percentage of Catholics in a country if the only thing to go on is baptismal certificates? if the only thing to go on is baptismal certificates, that includes fallen away Catholics, and those who even have left the faith and practice another religion.

Well, there are several surveys. I believe in some census, religion is one of the questions asked. There could also be surveys, but again many fallen away Catholics will identify themselves as Catholics even though they haven’t set foot in a church for years.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, I would not consider Harvard to be Catholic.

What about the Phillippines? You have your own Muslim problems, in a country with a significant Spanish/Catholic influence.

85% of the people in the Philippines are Catholics. Where I go to church thousands of people are at each mass on Sunday (and many have to watch from outside because the very large church is filled up), and there are a number of Sunday masses in the morning and the afternoon. Abortion is illegal and even divorce is illegal. Catholicism has a pervasive influence on society.
There are Moslems in the southern island of Mindanao where I live with their own languages and social institutions, and they are accepted. But they do not have an effect on the national culture

To add, Muslims are but a minority, and they are isolated in the deep southern part of the country. As mdgspencer have stated, outside of the provinces they dominate, they have no social influence.

Yeah, the Muslim population is mostly in Mindanao. From what I’ve been reading, though, Protestants have been really increasing missionary efforts in the Philippines.

Unfortunately, yes. I think 85% is very a very generous estimate. I would put it down at 60%. Maybe I’m a bit pessimistic, but most people I know are not Evangelicals. Granted that “people I know” is not a valid statistical sample, if 85% of Filipinos are Catholics, why do most people I know are Evangelicals? Did I just “luck out” in having friends who happen to be part of the 15% who are non-Catholics? No, just means there’s more of them than we’re willing to admit. And a great majority of them are recent converts.

 

[TradionalWay]

Well, the question was “considered” Catholic.

I would look forward to that day too, but the reality of the situation is that there are those countries, right now, who are in the midst of a dominoe effect revolution – and I fear theocracy is going to be on the rise.

I don’t see a problem in theocracy???

 

[Hokomai]

That’s a weird view! But I respect your honesty.

Incidentally, I think this idea of yours would be held unconstitutional in the US as against Article VI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution.

I expressed my weird view badly! I meant that voters should ask candidates if they support State-sponsored religion, and if they do they should vote against them. i was not saying that people who are less weird than me in their views should not be allowed to stand.

 

[thistle]

To add, Muslims are but a minority, and they are isolated in the deep southern part of the country. As mdgspencer have stated, outside of the provinces they dominate, they have no social influence.

Unfortunately, yes. I think 85% is very a very generous estimate. I would put it down at 60%. Maybe I’m a bit pessimistic, but most people I know are not Evangelicals. Granted that “people I know” is not a valid statistical sample, if 85% of Filipinos are Catholics, why do most people I know are Evangelicals? Did I just “luck out” in having friends who happen to be part of the 15% who are non-Catholics? No, just means there’s more of them than we’re willing to admit. And a great majority of them are recent converts.

You are right. “people I know” is not a valid statistic. I live in the Philippines and I would say that over 95% of the people I know are Catholic!

 

[Leegal]

I expressed my weird view badly! I meant that voters should ask candidates if they support State-sponsored religion, and if they do they should vote against them. i was not saying that people who are less weird than me in their views should not be allowed to stand.

Maybe I can clarify myself too. I’m not opposed to religion, but I am opposed to the abuse that can arise where the government sponsors one religion over another and bases secular law on religious law. Such as the imposition of Sharia law which is imposed in so many of the Arab/Muslim countries to the deteriment of human rights, especially rights for women.

I don’t want to see Canon law become the law of a country either because that can lead to abuse and discrimination based on other differences. Secular law and religious law can be in sync – I think the abolition of the death penalty in this country is one such law that Catholics oppose and many secularists do too. But in that case, no rights are being violated, but affirmed. No one is being singled out for harm. That’s the distinction.

Roe is bad law in a secular sense (but I won’t babble on about Roe). In that case, the problem with Roe is in it’s fashioning and that comports with those who are against abortion. There are legit and legal reasons to overturn Roe that can be found in secular law and conforms to religious laws.

I am not Muslim bashing – but in today’s world it’s the Muslim countries that have erased the line between religious and secular law – or are actively attempting to do so. If it’s fear, it’s a fear of what Sharia law brings.

Some countries such as Morocco (in the major cities) acccept a woman’s head uncovered. But Morocco is a tribal country so when you go outside of the cities, you must dress much more modestly. I’m okay with that. I can respect some customs.

But then you have headcoverings which, in other countries, lead to veiling, which leads to complete body covering. Now, the Saudis are trying, or have imposed, a law that women, who cannot drive at all, should cover their eyes when outside. The Taliban did not let women out of the house, without male family escort, and had another head covering, equally obstructive. They did not educate girls. How non-discriminatory is that? This is what happens when there is no difference between the secular and the religious – in this case Sharia law.

Religion plays a role in the secular and I would not interfere with that. I, as a Catholic, should know how to dress and behave. I would not change people’s dress here and say, for example, Orthodox Jewish women should not cover their heads nor would I suggest that Orthodox Jews must open for business on a Saturday, because we should have a uniform day of rest, and cut their ear locks because no one else has ear lock. Those religious practices harm no one. They are choice. When it becomes the secular law too, that’s when I see a problem.

Israel is another example – a good one. They are a Jewish state but have managed to keep the secular and the religious separate to a large degree. The Orthodoxy (those who accept Israel as part of the prophecy), would like to impose more religious law. Thus far Israel has resisted from crossing the line from a Jewish state to a religious state.

 

[Leegal]

Not to put words in your mouth but the logical consequence of what you’re saying is that the Vatican is violating human rights.

I disagree, of course. The implementation of a state religion does not, in and of itself, violate any human right.

It does when it singles out the non-believers or those who practice another faith. We saw that with Henry VIII (who did not start out to change the Catholic Church, only to put himself as the Head of the Catholic Church in England – and then went on to persecute not only Catholics but the increasing sects that comprised Protestant relgions), and William of Orange who when he took the throne in England around 1688, persecuted Catholics here in the colonies.

When Viginia adopted a state religion – they chased out the Puritans from Virginia because they were not Anglican. This was before the formation of our country. State sponsored religions always bring some discrimination of the minority or other faiths.

In fact, Iraq did it under Saddam Hussein. The state sect was Sunni – a minority of about 35%. That minority repressed the Shiite who are about 65%, and are waiting now for their turn.