# Cattolico non praticante



## Flaky

Hi all,

How do you translate this phrase in English? It's to define a person that doesn't go to church very frequently. It is better to say _none practising_ or _non practising?_ I thought _non practising_ but an English friend told me _none.._I would be glad to Know other opinions..
thanks


----------



## Alessandrino

_He/she's not a churchgoer.

_EDIT: _He/she's not a Church-going Catholic _.
EDIT 2: _He/she's a non Church-going Catholic_.


----------



## cecil

Flaky said:


> Hi all,
> 
> How do you translate this phrase in English? It's to define a person that doesn't go to church very frequently. It is better to say _none practising_ or _non practising?_ I thought _non practising_ but an English friend told me _none.._I would be glad to Know other opinions..
> thanks


 
American English: definitely "non-practising."


----------



## Alessandrino

cecil said:


> American English: definitely "non-practising."


As far as I know, _non-practising _is used also in Britain. What's wrong with it, Flaky? What did your friend tell you?


----------



## FrodoBeutlin

Definitely _non_, not _none_ -- but sadly seems to be a common mistake, I also have a friend who always writes _none_.


----------



## macforever

Non-practi_c_ing Catholic. Con quella "c" suona più americano?


----------



## Flaky

Alessandrino said:


> As far as I know, _non-practising _is used also in Britain. What's wrong with it, Flaky? What did your friend tell you?


 
to tell you the truth I don't know why she corrected it..anyway I think it should be a spelling mistake because _none_ means "nessuno" or "niente" so, for me,without any sense in this context..isn't it?


----------



## anglomania1

Hi there, 
I've often heard the phrase "lapsed catholic" - not sure if it's exactly the same, but it should be quite close.
Hope this helps, 
Anglo


----------



## SPQR

macforever said:


> Non-practi_c_ing Catholic. Con quella "c" suona più americano?


 
"Suona" lo stesso in AE e BE, la differenza è soltanto in come si scrive.


----------



## krissmix

anglomania1 said:


> I've often heard the phrase "lapsed catholic" - not sure if it's exactly the same, but it should be quite close.
> Anglo



A lapsed catholic is one who commits apostasy, meaning a willfully falling away or rebelling.

Being a non-practicing catholic does not necessarily involve apostasy.

Ciao


----------



## anglomania1

krissmix said:


> A lapsed catholic is one who commits apostasy, meaning a willfully falling away or rebelling.
> 
> Being a non-practicing catholic does not necessarily involve apostasy.
> 
> Ciao


Hi there, 
I found this on wiki
Anglo


----------



## krissmix

Ciao Anglo,

I suppose in the modern sense it may have become practically the same, but originally it was not.
See here: 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09001b.htm


----------



## anglomania1

krissmix said:


> Ciao Anglo,
> 
> I suppose in the modern sense it may have become practically the same, but originally it was not.
> See here:
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09001b.htm


Hi there, 
it sounds terrible!!
In fact, I'm no expert, that's why I asked. And I'm not sure that Wiki is 100% reliable, either - so I'm glad to have an opinion from someone who knows more than me!
But I think that in a modern sense, we use it for someone who doesn't go to church much anymore.
Anglo


----------



## krissmix

I know! It does sound awful...
I guess in those days it was a real concern 
Sure isn't now...


----------



## sound shift

Flaky said:


> Hi all,
> 
> How do you translate this phrase in English? It's to define a person that doesn't go to church very frequently. It is better to say _none practising_ or _non practising?_ I thought _non practising_ but an English friend told me _none.._I would be glad to Know other opinions..
> thanks


The correct form is "non-practicing" or "non-practising". I suspect your English friend comes from an area where "non" and "none" are both pronounced /nɒn/.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Either "Non-practising Catholic" or "Non-practicing Catholic".
GS


----------



## marcolettici

sound shift said:


> The correct form is "non-practicing" or "non-practising". I suspect your English friend comes from an area where "non" and "none" are both pronounced /nɒn/.


----------



## rrose17

Just to add _non-observing_ is a term that's often used also. But for some reason it's used mostly for Jews who don't "observe" the sabbath and holiday traditions.


----------



## tsoapm

krissmix said:


> A lapsed catholic is one who commits apostasy, meaning a willfully falling away or rebelling.



I’m afraid I don’t think that’s right. I think there’s overlap between non-practising and lapsed.

I’d say that lapsing is more like ignoring or forgetting about faith, whereas apostasy (I think the etymology of the Greek word suggests departing from a position) is actively abandoning faith.


----------



## Einstein

In BE I've always used _practise_ for the verb (so _practising_) and _practice_ for the noun.
I thought AE had a single spelling, but now I'm not sure which it is! Can anyone clarify?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hi, Ein.
I think that as far as the noun is concerned, the spelling "practice" is common on both sides of the water: As for the verb, you Brits are expected to write "practise", while your "contemporary ancestors" across the Atlantic sea* are expected to write "practice".
In short, the Americans' single spelling seems to be "practice".
Best.
GS
* (_... and I'm a genius genius..._)


----------



## Einstein

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> In short, the Americans' single spelling seems to be "practice".


So it seemed, but look at post #3 from an American.


----------



## krissmix

TSoaPM said:


> I’m afraid I don’t think that’s right. I think there’s overlap between non-practising and lapsed.
> 
> I’d say that lapsing is more like ignoring or forgetting about faith, whereas apostasy (I think the etymology of the Greek word suggests departing from a position) is actively abandoning faith.



Yes, I know that in the modern sense there may be an overlapping in a layperson's point of view but strictly speaking they are two different things according to the Catholic church.

Check this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09001b.htm

Ciao


----------



## tsoapm

krissmix said:


> Yes, I know that in the modern sense there may be an overlapping in a layperson's point of view but strictly speaking they are two different things according to the Catholic church.
> 
> Check this link:
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09001b.htm
> 
> Ciao



Well, I think I’m sticking to my guns.

That’s a definition of a Latin term, not the English, from an Encyclopedia which is about a century old. My shorter OED talks about a "falling away" from faith, possibly into heresy, but not necessarily.

I doubt the Church has an authoritative position on the term in English, and _da madrelinga_ it doesn’t suggest outright apostasy to me.

Appreciate the link though.


----------



## You little ripper!

A 'nominal Catholic' is someone who doesn't practise Catholicism; he is a Catholic in name only.


----------



## london calling

Charles Costante said:


> A 'nominal Catholic' is someone who doesn't practise Catholicism; he is a Catholic in name only.


That's how I would have translated it.


----------



## krissmix

No problem at all.

However, New Advent is a current encyclopedia, only the references within the article are from the 1910 old edition.

Also, Garzanti indicates the meaning as follows: 
"Lapsed: agg. *1* scaduto: _lapsed policy_, polizza scaduta *2* che fa apostasia: _she was a lapsed Presbyterian_, era una Presbiteriana che aveva ripudiato la propria religione.

Ciao e buon lavoro 



london calling said:


> That's how I would have translated it.



Ditto!


----------



## tsoapm

krissmix said:


> New Advent is a current encyclopedia, only the references within the article are from the 1910 old edition.



I’m sorry if I seem to be constantly arguing with you (and I hope it’s not OT – I think it’s important for anyone considering our contributions), but I’d like to check this, because when I look at the site I come away with a different conclusion.

The references indicate a publication date of 1910 and then there’s today’s date to indicate that the information was retrieved today. I used the MLA referencing system in my university days, and it seems clear to me that it should be considered as dating to 1910. The 2009 copyright below must refer to the website as a whole, but it seems unlikely to me that a traditional contemporary encyclopedia would be available for free on the Internet. If it is from 1910 however, there’s a good possibility that the copyright has expired and can therefore be displayed freely.

Is there some other information that says that it’s current? It must have a publication date of one kind or another.

Thanks
Mark


----------



## anglomania1

TSoaPM said:


> I’m sorry if I seem to be constantly arguing with you (and I hope it’s not OT – I think it’s important for anyone considering our contributions), but I’d like to check this, because when I look at the site I come away with a different conclusion.
> 
> The references indicate a publication date of 1910 and then there’s today’s date to indicate that the information was retrieved today. I used the MLA referencing system in my university days, and it seems clear to me that it should be considered as dating to 1910. The 2009 copyright below must refer to the website as a whole, but it seems unlikely to me that a traditional contemporary encyclopedia would be available for free on the Internet. If it is from 1910 however, there’s a good possibility that the copyright has expired and can therefore be displayed freely.
> 
> Is there some other information that says that it’s current? It must have a publication date of one kind or another.
> 
> Thanks
> Mark


 Hi there, I have to say I agree with you on this. My first instinct was "lapsed catholic" that's why I suggested it.
I'm not catholic or even religious so I am absolutely NOT an expert and I bow down before those who know more than me on this subject (probably most of the people on this forum!!). 
But just speaking as an ordinary native using laymen's terms I'm quite sure most Brits would understand a lapsed catholic to be the "cattolico non praticante" of this thread - wouldn't you agree?
Perhaps the original meaning was very different but I'm talking about what the man in the street would use and understand.
For example, I've never heard of "nominal catholic" as a term, though it's obvous what it means, I'd never use it myself.
Just my thoughts, so don't quote me as gospel!!
Anglo


----------



## krissmix

Hi Mark, no worries.. 

I do appreciate the intellectual stimulation and growth that arguments provide.
You are probably right, the encyclopedia portion is basically the 1910 edition, even the official Catholic Catechism dates back then; what is constantly updated is the collection of church documents to include the latest encyclicals, etc.

Earlier I wrote the meaning I found on Garzanti because it is a more modern dictionary that apparently takes into consideration the historical as well as the religious context of the word "lapsed" in reference to any religion.

Ciao Mark


----------



## Einstein

I'll add my one-and-a-half eurocents' worth:
In the Anglican church there are people who go to church only three times: for their christening (baptism), their wedding and their funeral. Such a person is a non-practising Anglican, but still considers himself/herself as linked to the church in some way. I wouldn't use "lapsed" here.
However, the Catholic church seems to demand more discipline and it takes a more conscious decision to stop going to church, so here maybe "lapsed" is right.

Like Anglo, I am quite ignorant about the church, so this is just a personal impression.


----------



## london calling

anglomania1 said:


> My first instinct was "lapsed catholic", that's why I suggested it. My father calls himself _a nominal Catholic_: he was brought up a strict Catholic but as an adult has never practised through choice ( I mean, he was obliged to practise as a boy, by his family, by the Catholic Boy's School he went to which was run by monks).  But just speaking as an ordinary native using laymen's terms I'm quite sure most Brits would understand a lapsed catholic to be the "cattolico non praticante" of this thread - wouldn't you agree? You might well be right, although I've always taken it to mean someone who had once had faith but later abandoned it: my father never had any faith to abandon (it having been forced upon him)!
> Just my thoughts, so don't quote me as gospel!! Ditto!


----------



## krissmix

Thank you Einstein,

That's exactly the point, there are nuances to consider in using non-practicing or nominal vs. lapsed.
The first option means that you are still somewhat linked to your religion even if it means just going through Catholic rites of passage (comunione, cresima, matrimonio e funerale) while the second term connotes a more conscious decision.  
And yes, being a practicing Catholic is quite demanding.


----------



## anglomania1

Hi Jo, 
that's my point, you knew the word "nominal" because there's some connection to catholicism in your family! I'd never heard of it because I've never come across one, though I have heard lapsed catholic many times!
I wouldn't call your dad a lapsed catholic, but maybe I would use it for someone who just lost interest.
I'm not sure what this thread is referring to - I must go back to the beginning and have a look!
 Anglo


----------



## cecil

Einstein said:


> So it seemed, but look at post #3 from an American.


 
See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/practice

However, WORD 2010 (USA) will correct "non-practising" to "non-practicing."  Google's spell check does not. That makes everything clear.


----------



## Tunalagatta

The OP asks how to describe someone who 


Flaky said:


> doesn't go to church _very frequently_


, so I don't know if this qualifies them as a completely non-practising, non-practicing, or lapsed Catholic. Also, isn't religious faith a very personal, spiritual thing that can't be measured in frequency of church attendance etc etc.

Anyway, I'll add 

_an irregular/infrequent/fairweather church-goer_.


----------



## anglomania1

Tunalagatta said:


> The OP asks how to describe someone who
> , so I don't know if this qualifies them as a completely non-practising, non-practicing, or lapsed Catholic. Also, isn't religious faith a very personal, spiritual thing that can't be measured in frequency of church attendance etc etc.
> 
> Anyway, I'll add
> 
> _an irregular/infrequent/fairweather church-goer_.


Hi there, 
good point!

However, in the original question it's true that Flaky says "doesn't go to church _very frequently_". My question now is: Flaky put "cattolico non-praticante" in the title - but is this the correct term for someone who doesn't go very often, or should it be used for someone who doesn't go at all??? 
I mean if we are asking ourselves this question for "non practising", shouldn't we be asking the same question for the same term in Italian??
Just a thought

Maybe it could be a lapsed catholic after all, because I understand it as someone who doesn't go much or at all.

Anglo


----------



## london calling

anglomania1 said:


> I mean if we are asking ourselves this question for "non practising", shouldn't we be asking the same question for the same term in Italian??
> Very true!


We were misled by the title, I think.


----------



## Einstein

london calling said:


> We were misl*e*d by the title, I think.


----------



## london calling

Einstein said:


>


Whoops!


----------



## Tunalagatta

anglomania1 said:


> Hi there,
> 
> However, in the original question it's true that Flaky says "doesn't go to church _very frequently_". My question now is: Flaky put "cattolico non-praticante" in the title - but is this the correct term for someone who doesn't go very often, or should it be used for someone who doesn't go at all???
> I mean if we are asking ourselves this question for "non practising", shouldn't we be asking the same question for the same term in Italian??
> Just a thought
> 
> Maybe it could be a lapsed catholic after all, because I understand it as someone who doesn't go much or at all.
> 
> Anglo




I probably picked up on an irrelevant detail, as the thread topic is indeed _Cattolico non praticante_, and _non-practising/lapsed _are translations of this, and it's more than likely what Flaky meant anyway. I was just noting that some people still consider themselves to be practising Catholics, Christians and so on, even if they don't go to church/other place of traditional worship regularly. 

As for whether an infrequent churchgoing Catholic should be called_ non praticante _or not... - as Father Jack Hackett would say, "That would be an ecumenical matter!" (I know it wouldn't really).


----------

