Diarmuid Martin, lapsed Catholics should have the maturity to leave the church.

the culture of deference

Todays delusional message from the fools of the one true church.


Correct me if I am wrong but you can never leave the church once they get you.



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/archbishop-urges-lapsed-catholics-to-leave-the-faith-2959884.html


The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has urged the country's lapsed Catholics to have the maturity to leave the church.


Over the past two decades, rising numbers of 'a la carte' Catholics simply turn up at the altar for the sacraments like baptism, communion and marriage.


But in a new documentary on the future of the church, priests reveal they will expect a firmer commitment from their flock in the future. It shows how church pews swell to almost full capacity for celebratory sacraments, while Sunday services have dwindling numbers.


Archbishop Martin urged non-believers to walk away from the church.
He said: "It requires maturity on those people who want their children to become members of the church community and maturity on those people who say 'I don't believe in God and I really shouldn't be hanging on to the vestiges of faith when I don't really believe in it'."


Fr Michael Drumm, from the Catholic Schools Partnership, said the church would be getting firmer with parents looking to have their children baptised as a Catholic.


Archbishop Martin also said the church was anxious to start parting ways from some of its Catholic schools.


"It can't be done overnight. There is still a very strong demand for Catholic education."

My name is URL

Was he referring to officially leaving the catholic church or just about not partaking in & attending special services like communion, confirmation, weddings etc?

tayto lover

He should put his own house in order first.
What about all the priests and even the Cardinal who broke their vows to God?
Are they also being asked to leave?

ToddyDoody

Three words. Pay. Us. Off.

MrMatisse

For those looking to do as there told:

http://www.countmeout.ie/

There you go.

Print off the form, send it in and your out:cool:


O h hang on, they blocked that so we cannot leave!

How do we do it so Diarmuid?

Skid

MrMatisse wrote: »

For those looking to do as there told:

http://www.countmeout.ie/

There you go.

Print off the form, send it in and your out:cool:

That process is suspended.

Despite what dopey Diarmuid claims, once they get you, you have no way to leave unless they excommunicate you.

My name is URL

"It requires maturity on those people who want their children to become members of the church community and maturity on those people who say 'I don't believe in God and I really shouldn't be hanging on to the vestiges of faith when I don't really believe in it'."

I really don't see the problem with what he is saying there.. which amounts to if you don't believe in God, then don't engage with the church at any level.

People are simply looking for something to be pissed off about here.

St.Spodo

Tried leaving it months ago, they changed canon law and now you can't. Once a catholic, always a catholic!

Biggins

Can't leave if they wanted to - the cnuts cancelled the process.

I wish someone would give their legal services for free, I will sign up in a flash to challenge their revoking of ways to leave.

Cnuts have you in their corrupt org, they REFUSE to let you out officially.

Biggins

Skid wrote: »

...Despite what dopey Diarmuid claims, once they get you, you have no way to leave unless they excommunicate you.

What does it take to get excommunicated then? I'll fcuking do it!

philologos

the culture of deference wrote: »

Todays delusional message from the fools of the one true church.

Correct me if I am wrong but you can never leave the church once they get you.

That's not delusional.

As a non-Catholic I admire Diarmuid Martin, he's been one of the more vocally critical figure of what has gone on in the RCC.

This is good sense. If you don't hold to the principles of Roman Catholicism why would you go to a Roman Catholic church? Statements like this are good for encouraging people to probe into their belief systems and decide for themselves whether or not they want to follow them, or reject them.

As a Christian, I long for other people to discover who Jesus is and what He has achieved for mankind for themselves rather than following mere tradition, and as a result I wholeheartedly support what he's said.

slavetothegrind

the arrogance of the man to equate attendance to his criminal church institution with belief and faith in god.

Skid

Biggins wrote: »

What does it take to get excommunicated then? I'll fcuking do it!

http://atheism.about.com/od/ideasforatheistactivism/a/Excommunication.htm

A few ideas here!

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

...I wholeheartedly support what he's said.

He's a stupid bollox!
He says this schite and either (a) he KNOWS people can't officially leave or (b) he don't know people can't leave - and if he is that uninformed, what in gods name is he doing in such a technical position as his, if he is that stupid!

Bannasidhe

Biggins wrote: »

What does it take to get excommunicated then? I'll fcuking do it!

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/easy-steps-excommunication

As of 1983 there are nine canons under which excommunication can take place. Five of them only apply to priests or bishops. One of the others is physically attacking the pope, and criminal acts can hardly be recommended. Another is 'violation of sacred species', normally called desecrating a consecrated host. It is hard to imagine doing this without committing a criminal act; and it would certainly deeply offend almost everybody. Next to last is 'procuring of abortion'. Excommunication for this is supposed to be automatic, but it only applies to the doctor and the woman involved. I am told the church does not seek out such cases. In any case one would hardly choose an abortion solely for the sake of excommunication. It may pay to mention any active work you have done on behalf of making access to abortion safe and legal, and any work you have done help women procure abortions. Recently, the church mentioned that it does consider such work to be and excommunicatable offence, but that it will not seek offenders out. Thus, by contributing a small amount to an organization, like Planned Parenthood, or Global Population Concern, or helping out at any women's medical clinic which offers contraceptive and abortion services, you can easily make yourself eligible for excommunication. Otherwise, there is canon 1364, ©1 Apostasy, heresy, or schism. This involves automatic excommunication, if you can convince the church that it applies to you. The most common usage of this canon is when a former Catholic embraces another religion. Obviously, if you are now a Muslim, a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, you are automatically no longer a Catholic. It is your task to convince the church that you, as an atheistic secular humanist, (or whatever) are in the same 'non-Catholic' category as a Muslim or Buddhist. In your favor is a nineteenth century ruling which stated that ":those who make a public renunciation of all religion may be subsumed under this category [apostates]." You will need to write a letter to your current parish. It should include the necessary information to meet all of the criteria for deserving to be excommunicated. You may also present this to your birth parish, if this is convenient.

dceire

MrMatisse wrote: »

For those looking to do as there told:

http://www.countmeout.ie/

There you go.

Print off the form, send it in and your out:cool:


O h hang on, they blocked that so we cannot leave!

How do we do it so Diarmuid?

I managed to do this just in time then, I even got a letter from my Bishop explaining the consequences; marriage, funerals, etc.

What have they changed that means it's no longer possible?

the culture of deference

philologos wrote: »

That's not delusional.


This is good sense. If you don't hold to the principles of Roman Catholicism why would you go to a Roman Catholic church? Statements like this are good for encouraging people to probe into their belief systems and decide for themselves whether or not they want to follow them, or reject them..

This is exactly what I was thinking when at the age of 3 weeks old I decided that the RCC was the one for me.

I CAN NEVER LEAVE

Mike 1972

If there were still a suitable exit process in place he might have had a point but........

Skid wrote: »

Despite what dopey Diarmuid claims, once they get you, you have no way to leave unless they excommunicate you.

Isint apostasy supposed one of the grounds for excommunication ?

In that case isint it time they got their fingers out of their altar boys @r$€;s and get busy dealing with the considerable backlog of excommunicating which needs to be done ?

But in a new documentary on the future of the church, priests reveal they will expect a firmer commitment from their flock in the future.

Giving that weddings in particular rank among their more profitable rackets theyd be pretty stupid to rock the boat too much on this one (even if their failure to do so makes the hypocricy pretty much double-sided) In all probability the most theyll do is a half @r$€;d comprimise requiring four weeks of church attendance prior to "the big day" as is the practice in parts of England, Poland and elsewhere.

slavetothegrind

The sooner their influence, and religeous education is outlawed from state funded schools the better.
Then you wouldn't have so many lapsed catholics forced to baptise their children in order that they are not made to feel different in school come communion time.

Then you have a true congregation of believers and you win too Diarmud!!!!

googsy

Where do excommunicated people get buried ?

If there was a way of leaving that didn't require me to do something like walk into a church full of mass goers and rock a piss on the statue of jesus for desecration reasons I'd love to leave...

Jimoslimos

Biggins wrote: »

What does it take to get excommunicated then? I'll fcuking do it!

Not a lot, summarised pretty well by Dara.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUVNZFylTdo

orourkeda

Biggins wrote: »

Can't leave if they wanted to - the cnuts cancelled the process.

I wish someone would give their legal services for free, I will sign up in a flash to challenge their revoking of ways to leave.

Cnuts have you in their corrupt org, they REFUSE to let you out officially.

That more unlikely than leaving the church smoothly

Biggins

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/easy-steps-excommunication

:mad:

The Act of Apostasy allows someone to declare themselves an apostate to the faith, i.e. one who rejects Christian teachings. Canon Law stipulates that an apostate to the faith automatically incurs a latae senteniae excommunication. In response to the 16 Acts of Apostasy which were sent to the Archdiocese of Dublin in June 2011, a spokesperson stated that they would not be accepted. Furthermore, it was stated that excommunication does not mean that somebody is no longer a member of the church."

So the reality is the church is much like "The Hotel California", you can try check out anytime you want, but you never ever get to leave!

From a post someone else says after the news item.

TheZohanS

The Catholic Church: Believe or GTFO!


The Catholic Church: Jesus welcomes Everybody Regardless of Faith; But We Think You're A Cnut!

slavetothegrind

googsy there is this boghole near me and it is legendary for not giving up it's dead.....

i'll do you a special rate;)

the culture of deference

My name is URL wrote: »

I really don't see the problem with what he is saying there.. which amounts to if you don't believe in God, then don't engage with the church at any level.

People are simply looking for something to be pissed off about here.

yeah, but you are still counted as a catholic in their annual membership figures.

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

He's a stupid bollox!
He says this schite and either (a) he KNOWS people can't officially leave or (b) he don't know people can't leave - and if he is that uninformed, what in gods name is he doing in such a technical position as his, if he is that stupid!

I don't see what this has to do with Diarmuid Martin. Call him whatever you like.

His statement is good. The RCC's position on people leaving is daft. It means that one can campaign vigorously against Roman Catholicism while simultaneously being a Roman Catholic. That's a paradox. I think Diarmuid Martin probably appreciates this much too, but he'd have to be asked about it.

He's one of the people in the RCC heirarchy that I admire.

the culture of deference wrote: »

This is exactly what I was thinking when at the age of 3 weeks old I decided that the RCC was the one for me.

I CAN NEVER LEAVE

You can't leave according to the RCC's teaching. Why do you care about the RCC's teaching if you weren't a Roman Catholic?

For all intents and purposes if you don't go to church, and if you reject Roman Catholicism and go to another faith, or reject faith entirely it is clear to anyone that you are not a Roman Catholic.

Hearing what some of the RC's on the Christianity forum say about alacarte Roman Catholics I would probably say that they believe that people can leave the RCC even if the Vatican has something else to say on the matter.

I don't see why I should have a negative opinion of Diarmuid Martin because the Vatican happens to think one thing and he clearly another as far as I see it.

There are a number of things in the RCC that I disagree with, and I can't envision myself ever formally being involved in the RCC, but that doesn't mean that I have to have a negative opinion of everything that is in it, or every person that happens to be involved in it.

If you're wondering if I were to put my own colours to the mast it would be the Evangelical / Reformed perspective of Christianity.

John Doe1

How about all catholics are rounded up and given their own island of the coast of greenland

slavetothegrind

careful now....or it'll be off to the christianity forum with this thread...

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

I don't see what this has to do with Diarmuid Martin. Call him whatever you like.

His statement is good. The RCC's position on people leaving is daft. It means that one can campaign vigorously against Roman Catholicism while simultaneously being a Roman Catholic. That's a paradox. I think Diarmuid Martin probably appreciates this much too, but he'd have to be asked about it.

He's one of the people in the RCC heirarchy that I admire.

His statement is full of holes given that people can't leave!
With the crap he's once again coming out which CLEARLY conflicts with actual reality, it show once again just what an out of touch tool he is!

As one other poster to the paper said:

What an arrogant bastard! Not believing in this church does not make one a non-believer in God.

My name is URL

Some amount of stupidity in this thread, it has to be said.

the culture of deference

John Doe1 wrote: »

How about all catholics are rounded up and given their own island of the coast of greenland

how many real catholics are left in ireland judging by what diarmuid classes as a true catholic

St.Spodo

FWIW, I've always thought Diarmuid Martin to be a good man and I'm not knocking him. However, the fact that you become a R.C. member as a baby and cannot leave when you have the intellectual capacity to form an opinion on theology and the merits of the R.C. organisation does no-one any favours. They don't want me and I don't want them, therefore, I should be allowed leave at will.

slavetothegrind

John Doe1 wrote: »

How about all catholics are rounded up and given their own island of the coast of greenland

feck that! by their own register i'd be included!!!

gerryo777

Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
Would ya's get a grip FFS. If you don't want to be part of a church, any church, well then don't go near it. There's more important things going on in this world!:mad:

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

His statement is full of holes given that people can't leave!
With the crap he's once again coming out which CLEARLY conflicts with actual reality, it show once again just what an out of touch tool he is!

As one other poster to the paper said:

I don't think you're being the most rational about this.

I'm simply considering the contents of what he has said. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in it, and I think he's quite reasonable in coming out and saying it. He's challenging people to earnestly think about what they believe, or indeed what they don't believe.

I regard that as entirely fruitful, and it could end up being more beneficial for the RCC if such a policy was taken further.

Calling someone a "tool", a "bollox", an "arrogant bastard" or that he's talking "****e" isn't a starting point for reasonable conversation about this.

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

I don't think you're being the most rational about this.

I'm simply considering the contents of what he has said. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment in it, and I think he's quite reasonable in coming out and saying it. He's challenging people to earnestly think about what they believe, or indeed what they don't believe.

I regard that as entirely fruitful, and it could end up being more beneficial for the RCC if such a policy was taken further.

Calling someone a "tool", a "bollox" or that he's talking "****e" isn't a starting point for reasonable conversation about this.

If is going to say crap like this - and it subsequently CANNOT BE DONE - and he should know this (!) - he's gonna be judged by the public for his stupidity.

Its your opinion he's a nice guy.
Its my opinion he's a god-damn tool - and stupid one at that.

We can agree to differ.

Bannasidhe

Biggins wrote: »

:mad:



From a post someone else says after the news item.

Lovely bit of double speak here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. Undoubtedly there can and do exist other penal measures which entail the loss of certain fixed rights; among them are other censures, e.g. suspension for clerics, interdict for clerics and laymen, irregularity ex delicto, etc. Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from these penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

So even though the 'club' has suspended your membership - you are still a member as you may see the error of your ways and follow the rules. Besides which - once you join - membership of for life.
Only option is to join another 'club' - one that is easy to leave.

philologos

Did you even bother reading my previous posts on this thread Biggins?

I fail to see how Diarmuid Martin is "stupid" for stating something so reasonable. If you have beef with the Vatican about their policy on leaving the RCC it might be better if you actually criticised the Vatican rather then Diarmuid Martin.

up for anything

Biggins wrote: »

What does it take to get excommunicated then? I'll fcuking do it!

Excommunication doesn't mean that you're out!

The Catholic Church
See also: List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church
In Roman Catholic canon law, excommunication is a censure and thus a "medicinal penalty" intended to invite the person to change behaviour or attitude, to repent and return to full communion.[1] It is not an "expiatory penalty", designed to make satisfaction for the wrong done, still less a merely "vindictive penalty", designed solely to punish.
Excommunication can be either latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment of committing the offence for which canon law imposes that penalty); or it can ferendae sententiae (incurred only when imposed by a legitimate superior or declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court).[2]
Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).[3] However, their communion with the Church is considered gravely impaired.[4] In spite of that, they are urged to retain a relationship with the Church, as the goal is to encourage them to repent and return to active participation in its life.
Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive the Eucharist, but is not barred from attending Mass). They are also forbidden to exercise any ecclesiastical office or the like.[5] If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, stricter effects follow, such as the obligation on others to prevent the excommunicated person from acting in a ministerial capacity in the liturgy or, if this proves impossible, to suspend the liturgical service, and the invalidity of acts of ecclesiastical governance by the excommunicated person.[6]
In the Catholic Church, excommunication is normally resolved by a declaration of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offence involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicated person, and the lifting of the censure (absolution) by a priest or bishop empowered to do this. "The absolution can be in the internal (private) forum only, or also in the external (public) forum, depending on whether scandal would be given if a person were privately absolved and yet publicly considered unrepentant."[7] Since excommunication excludes from reception of the sacraments, absolution from excommunication is required before absolution can be given from the sin that led to the censure. In many cases, the whole process takes place on a single occasion in the privacy of the confessional. For some more serious wrong-doings, absolution from excommunication is reserved to a bishop or other ordinary or even to the Pope. These can delegate a priest to act on their behalf.
Before the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there were two degrees of excommunication: the excommunicate was either a vitandus (shunned, literally "to be avoided", by other Catholics), or a toleratus (tolerated, allowing Catholics to continue to have business and social relationships with the excommunicated person). This distinction no longer applies.
In the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were sometimes accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out — hence the idiom "to condemn with bell, book and candle". Such ceremonies are not held today, but the effect is the same.
Interdict is a censure similar to excommunication. It too excludes from ministerial functions in public worship and from reception of the sacraments, but not from the exercise of governance.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

Did you even bother reading my previous posts on this thread Biggins?

I fail to see how Diarmuid Martin is "stupid" for stating something so reasonable. If you have beef with the Vatican about their policy on leaving the RCC it might be better if you actually criticised the Vatican rather then Diarmuid Martin.

I have, repeatedly.
Directly to their local door, to Rome, I even reported one of them for assaulting my wife at our own front door.
I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. Its one huge org filled with a shower of corrupt, two faced fcuks!

Zebra3

gerryo777 wrote: »

Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
Would ya's get a grip FFS.

Why don't you get a grip "ffs"? :rolleyes:

It's valid criticism of a corrupt, criminal organisation that protected child rapists.

ejmaztec

gerryo777 wrote: »

Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
Would ya's get a grip FFS. If you don't want to be part of a church, any church, well then don't go near it. There's more important things going on in this world!:mad:

But the OP wouldn't have anything to do if he couldn't start one of these every five minutes.

goose2005

the culture of deference wrote: »

Archbishop Martin also said the church was anxious to start parting ways from some of its Catholic schools.

"It can't be done overnight. There is still a very strong demand for Catholic education."

No, there is a very strong demand for education, but you people have a monopoly. It could be easily done overnight, but how will you trick people into believing in you if you don't start them at age 5?

philologos

Biggins: My point is that I'd like to discuss about what has actually been said by Diarmuid Martin rather than emotions about what people think of anyone who happens to be involved in some way with the Roman Catholic Church.

Stuff like your wife being assaulted at your front door would probably be best off reported to the Gardaí. Other feelings about the RCC aren't the most relevant to the discussion either.

God forbid, but I want to try look at the topic a little more closely.

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

...God forbid, but I want to try look at the topic a little more closely.

(It was said to the cops)

Then lets do so.

He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.
I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!

Mike 1972

gerryo777 wrote: »

Can't beat another Catholic bashing thread on a lovely saturday morning!!
Would ya's get a grip FFS.

If one says a bad initial is one supposed to go to confession ?

up for anything wrote: »

Excommunication doesn't mean that you're out!

I suppose assualting the pregnant mother of the popes child to the extent hat she sufferes a miscarriage might do the trick but one would need a good lawyer and an understanding judge.

the culture of deference wrote: »

how many real catholics are left in ireland judging by what diarmuid classes as a true catholic

About three fiddy ?

Biggins wrote: »

I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!

At the end of the day I dunno of any legal process to prevent a private club to whom one has longsince ceased paying membership dues continuing to list ones name on their membership register unless one can convince a jury that it constitutes defamation ?

gerryo777

Biggins wrote: »

(It was said to the cops)

Then lets do so.

He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.
I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!

It's a free country, consult a solicitor and challenge it then.

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

He says they should leave. They/we/I can't - end of story.
I want to be able to challenge that problem in a court of law!

I fail to see what the point of that would be. I suspect that any such attempt would ultimately fail on the basis that the Vatican are a separate State. No other faith in the world has that scale of legal protection.

For all intents and purposes you're not a Roman Catholic if you don't attend that church.

If I were in a position where I left the Roman Catholic church I wouldn't particularly care whether or not I happened to be on some form of list. I agree with you and others that it seems to be a little bit like "Hotel California" and that it should be changed, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

hooradiation

philologos wrote: »

God forbid, but I want to try look at the topic a little more closely.

Diarmuid Martin is right. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Populist rants containing mince oaths aside, if people had been paying attention then they'd have noticed that second paragraph describes the problem, and Diarmuid Martin's solution is perfectly valid.
If you're only turning up for big events like getting married, having your child baptised or for their 1st holy and not turning up at other times, then you'd be better off just growing up and just not attending at all.

Whining about "but I can never leave!" is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with this. If you're already a committed to never going to church then this message isn't for you.

Jesus wept......

headmaster

If what Dr Martin said, was that A La Carte members should leave the church, then I agree with him 100%. It's shocking to see these hypocrites turning up at xmas mass and easter, but not a sight of them all year long. The same with people who want to get married in the church and all the other sacraments. You're either a practising Catholic or you're not.