Catholicism, First/Third World, Congregation Numbers

Coriolanus

Diarmaid Martins comments recently, about how a la carte Catholics should have the maturity to leave the Church got me thinking.
I think we all know that the Vatican changed Canon law to dissallow further defections. Since it's not as if Govts use the Churchs own figures for these things, it can only be for internal usage that they want to keep the numbers plumped up. But why?
Are there other elections than the Papal one? The only thing I could think of was that the West probably has more Bishops than the rest of the world so when it comes time to vote, those Bishops have a disproportionate vote, so if they allowed their "official" numbers to drop, maybe they'd have to have less Bishops or something.
Is the number of Bishops per country to do with numbers in the congregation at all anyway or is there some other metric?

Doc Farrell

I suspect it's a vicious plan to irritate late night posters on forums, try not to upset yourself.
Alternatively you could always use the black arts of Wikipedia.


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

See footnote 13.

Coriolanus

Doc Farrell wrote: »

I suspect it's a vicious plan to irritate late night posters on forums, try not to upset yourself.
Alternatively you could always use the black arts of Wikipedia.


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

See footnote 13.

That doesn't actually answer anything. Thanks for trying though.

Peregrinus

So far as I know, the question of “defections” under canon law has nothing at all to do with claims about overall numbers of Catholics. Canon law is relevant to determining whether a particular person is, or is not, to be regarded as a Catholic for canon law purposes, which can sometimes be an important question for that person. But it’s irrelevant when it comes to judging the numbers of Catholics in a country, or in the world.

The Catholic church keeps a careful record of baptisms, and if a baptised Catholic formally defects from the church then a notation is added, if possible, to the baptismal record of the person concerned to indicate their later defection. (This isn’t always possible, of course, since the defecting person may not remember, or may not give, the details of his baptism, without which it is practically impossible to trace his baptismal record.)

But this doesn’t affect estimates of the total numbers of Catholics, because they are not based on baptismal records. They can’t be. Where baptismal records are marked up where possible to show defections, they are not marked up to show deaths, emigration, etc. Consequently, while it’s possible (in theory) to know exactly how many people were baptised in Ireland in (say) 1960, it’s not possible to know how many of them are (a) still alive, and (b) still in Ireland. Consequently baptismal records are useless for estimating total numbers of Catholics in Ireland - or any other country - and in fact they aren’t used for that purpose. Consequently registering a defection won’t reduce anyone’s estimate of how many Catholics there are, and refusing to register defections won’t increase anyone’s estimate.

Estimates of the total numbers of Catholics in Ireland (and most other countries) are based on people’s self-identification in the most recent census, adjusted to allow for estimates of births, deaths, migrations, etc since the date of the census.

In countries where the census doesn’t ask about religion, then estimates are usually made based on one (or both) of two methods: First, population surveys on a statistically stratified sample of the population investigate self-identification of religious denomination, and the results are extrapolated to the entire population. Second, parish registers, which are maintained by parishes record people currently living in the parish who register as Catholics (as opposed to people who were baptised there - most of whom, of course, do not live there as adults).

For the record, the number of bishops in a country has nothing to do with the number of Catholics in the country, and a lot to do with how long the country has been Christian. Countries Christianised before the modern era had very small dioceses, and therefore very many bishops. Ireland, for example, Christianised in the fifth century has 26 dioceses with an average of 160,000 Catholics per diocese, while Mexico, Christianised a thousand years later has 90 dioceses with an average of 1.3 million Catholics per diocese. Wealth also enters into it; a diocese has to be self-sustaining and to support a cathedral, a seminary, etc. It takes a fewer number of first-world Catholics to do this than third-world Catholics, so dioceses tend to be smaller in the first world.

There are very few occasions on which the world’s bishops all get a vote and, when they do, they don’t vote by country. So there would be no particular reason to keep up the number of bishops in a country in order to sustain a “voting bloc” of bishops.

Benny_Cake

Based on that Peregrinus, it must be the case that the national censuses is the basis used by the Catholic Church for estimating membership figures? So the whole http://www.countmeout.ie issue is irrelevant really.

Coriolanus

Thanks Peregrinus, that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

Peregrinus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Based on that Peregrinus, it must be the case that the national censuses is the basis used by the Catholic Church for estimating membership figures?

Yes. In fact, the Catholic church doesn't really "estimate" membership figures at all; it just quotes the figures from the most recent census. As does everyone else.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

So the whole http://www.countmeout.ie issue is irrelevant really.

It's not going to have any effect on estimates or claims about the total numbers of Catholics in Ireland, or the proportion of the population which is Catholic. If you want to have your impact on that, all you need to do is make sure you fill out your census form correctly.

But of course it may be personally important for someone formally to record their decision to leave the church. If that matters to someone, then it matters, so the campaign is not irrelevant in that sense.

The name is definitely misleading, though. Recording defections isn't going to affect anybody's "count" of anything.

Cato Maior

wgp wrote: »

Each priest and bishop keep account of the people in their parish and that information is stored by the leaders.... however sadly in today’s society baptisms doesn’t necessarily mean that child or person is brought up within the Catholic faith....

That might be a good reason to leave the defection route open to people.

I know of a few people who got their child baptised because of family pressure or in order to make sure that there would be no agro with the local school but they have no interest or intention in bringing their kids up as Catholics. For our part, both of our children were baptised, but we have since become non-Christians and needless to say our children will not be brought up 'within the faith'.

ISAW

Nevore wrote: »

Diarmaid Martins comments recently, about how a la carte Catholics should have the maturity to leave the Church got me thinking.
I think we all know that the Vatican changed Canon law to dissallow further defections.

Or avoid administration and paperwork.

Since it's not as if Govts use the Churchs own figures for these things, it can only be for internal usage that they want to keep the numbers plumped up. But why?

Or avoid being forced or required to count them. Just look at the threads here about "I am an ex Catholic atheist. Why cant I get an official form saying I have left"

Are there other elections than the Papal one?

Some Bishops - heads of orders /monastaries- are elected. In practice all diocesan bishops are discuss ed and approved by local priests so that is more like plebiscite than election.

The people stillhave power to elect bishops under vox populi

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

Title I Canon 1 - applies to Latin Rite so not to Eastern Rite abouyt 20 million plus Catholics
but that also have elections like the Orthodox.

Anyway Title IICanon 23
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4.HTM

Custom is the unwritten law developed by the community itself. Customs may be 1) optional – non-binding, no one would object to its modification or removal; 2) factual – actually observed, and considered binding, but doesn’t have the force of law, any superior or custom can remove; 3) legal – put in by force of law. Custom may be praeter ius beyond the law – an area not covered, or contra legis contrary to the law. Third traditional category of a custom in accord with law secundum legem is not helpful.

Custom isn’t law, but has the force of law. Vox populi – the community speaks, not leaders. Competent legislator is the supreme legislator of the territory. For contrary custom, the legislator whose law is derogated (or higher legislator) is competent. Approval may be tacit. Approval may be specific specialiter. Else it may be legal or general – custom is observed for 30 years, whether or not legislator is aware canon 24-26. A custom may be centenary >100 yr. or immemorial – as long as anyone can remember.
http://canonlaw.wikispot.org/Book_1

See also
BOOK I. GENERAL NORMS LIBER I. DE NORMIS GENERALIBUS
TITLE VI. PHYSICAL AND JURIDIC PERSONS (Cann. 96 - 123)
CHAPTER II. JURIDIC PERSONS

especially 119 and 120 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PD.HTM
An absolute majority of those present elects or decides, i.e. abstentions and invalid votes are counted. §3 Quod omnes tangit debet ab omnibus approbari.

Authentic Interpretation: On third ballot a relative majority wins.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_22091998_authentic-interp_lt.html

The only thing I could think of was that the West probably has more Bishops than the rest of the world so when it comes time to vote, those Bishops have a disproportionate vote, so if they allowed their "official" numbers to drop, maybe they'd have to have less Bishops or something.

Well depends on "order" bishops and who turns up . A Churchwide council of bishops or synod only happens once a century or so. And they don't divide along geographic lines but along what they think is best. Of course with the Internet, the Dicastery has the ability to poerate globally and in fact manages the Papal election also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_Bishops

Is the number of Bishops per country to do with numbers in the congregation at all anyway or is there some other metric?

Well small congregations say in a monastery might have a bishop .
A group of say three monks who hadn't elected a leader in 30 years still in operation if they had say 50 new monks joining could, in theory, elect a bishop. It depends on how far you puch the ftinge butin general I agree. More people wioth ordinary power -bishops - generally are where there are more Christian faithful. Rome itself might be another exception for obvious reasons.

ISAW

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far as I know, the question of “defections” under canon law has nothing at all to do with claims about overall numbers of Catholics.
There are very few occasions on which the world’s bishops all get a vote and, when they do, they don’t vote by country. So there would be no particular reason to keep up the number of bishops in a country in order to sustain a “voting bloc” of bishops.

Didnt read this before ny cumbersome ananswer which replicated many of your points.
A central one is this "count me out" issue as if they caused the church to change the rules out of fear of exposing mass defections. they didnt! this has been discussed at length here and in the A&A forum.

Defecting atheists represent less than a percent of Catholics and RCC aremore concerned with people in future getting baptised or married and how they will bring up their kids. In fact the whole "change" thing springs out of this "mixed marriage" issue and has nothing to do with trying to "hide" an atheist revival. Atheism has been a tiny percentage of population even in the most technologically developed Western democracies. The idea that"progressive" = "atheistic" is nonsense and the idea that hard line atheism represents more than a few per cent is ludicrous. It won't stop then creating myths however.

ISAW

Cato Maior wrote: »

That might be a good reason to leave the defection route open to people.

It was never closed! You just won't gt an official certificate.

I know of a few people who got their child baptised because of family pressure or in order to make sure that there would be no agro with the local school but they have no interest or intention in bringing their kids up as Catholics.

Butytou can't blame your personal choice or lack of interest on the Church.

For our part, both of our children were baptised, but we have since become non-Christians and needless to say our children will not be brought up 'within the faith'.

That is the kernel of the issue Dermot Martin raised. If you are not interested you should have said so. And if you want your kids raised in a non Catholic school you should say so. You should also go about the business of putting time aside to educate your children and not dump them on the church that you don't care about. It isnt fair on the child. If you wan't to stand aside from the promise you made to bring them up in a faith then the onus is on you to do some work about that.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Defecting atheists represent less than a percent of Catholics

It's atheist mathematics - a marvellous thing altogether.

10% of the population of China can be dismissed with a wave of the hand, but less than one percent of Irish Catholics is a flood! Who says they don't believe in miracles?

Cato Maior

ISAW wrote: »

It was never closed! You just won't gt an official certificate.

Every day is a learning day, although I never saw the point of defection if it was simply an expression of atheism. Simply stop going to mass etc. if you want to leave. No one was forcing anyone to go to church.

But you can't blame your personal choice or lack of interest on the Church.

Eh... I didn't and I don't. It's entirely my own choice. I was simply following up on the comment I quoted.

That is the kernel of the issue Dermot Martin raised. If you are not interested you should have said so. And if you want your kids raised in a non Catholic school you should say so. You should also go about the business of putting time aside to educate your children and not dump them on the church that you don't care about. It isnt fair on the child. If you wan't to stand aside from the promise you made to bring them up in a faith then the onus is on you to do some work about that.

When they were baptised I was a committed and practicing Catholic. I attended mass weekly and prayed the Divine Office daily and at the time fully intended bringing my children up as Catholics. I changed my mind on those issues after their baptism. Martin's recent issue does not address me at all. Since I left the church I have had little to do with them beyond my children attending the local national school which has a Catholic ethos, which is the only choice locally. If there was a non-Catholic option then I would have gone for that.

Cato Maior

PDN wrote: »

It's atheist mathematics - a marvellous thing altogether.

10% of the population of China can be dismissed with a wave of the hand, but less than one percent of Irish Catholics is a flood! Who says they don't believe in miracles?

Oh, I think that atheists will probably always be in the minority. The 'no religion' category can not be taken to mean atheist or even agnostic. Many of those will have some kind of spiritual beliefs and others will simply be indifferent to the whole issue.

Cato Maior

You should also go about the business of putting time aside to educate your children and not dump them on the church that you don't care about. It isnt fair on the child. If you wan't to stand aside from the promise you made to bring them up in a faith then the onus is on you to do some work about that.

Just on that; I do, of course, put effort into my children's education and in their ethical training. They are both being brought up in my ethical beliefs.

ISAW

Cato Maior wrote: »

When they were baptised I was a committed and practicing Catholic. I attended mass weekly and prayed the Divine Office daily and at the time fully intended bringing my children up as Catholics. I changed my mind on those issues after their baptism....If there was a non-Catholic option then I would have gone for that.

I respect that you were not aware of the option. If you had stayed in touch you might realise that the church is supporting non denominational schools. Again wher the state fails the church has to pick up the tab

Anyway I am genuinely interested in why you said "changed my mind". What caused that change? And was it a complete loss of faith , a lack of belief in Christ or just a decision to be an independent Christian or a non practicing Catholic? In any of the above what now informs your conscience and from where do you derive your values?

Cato Maior

ISAW wrote: »

I respect that you were not aware of the option. If you had stayed in touch you might realise that the church is supporting non denominational schools. Again wher the state fails the church has to pick up the tab

I'm aware of the church's position that but that does not change the fact that there is no current local option available. In any event, the local school is quite good and while it is a Catholic ethos school, it doesn't seem to take it that seriously, at least so far (1st class). Class prayers are rare and my son has not been taught any prayers or much else so far. Indeed the Alive-O programme itself seems quite 'new-age' to me. If I was still a Catholic, I would be somewhat upset with it.

Anyway I am genuinely interested in why you said "changed my mind". What caused that change? And was it a complete loss of faith , a lack of belief in Christ or just a decision to be an independent Christian or a non practicing Catholic? In any of the above what now informs your conscience and from where do you derive your values?

My change of mind started about four years ago when I sat down quietly in my living room, surrounded by my many books, and determined that I would spend the day investigating and testing my beliefs. I started the day as a faithful Christian, of the Catholic persuasion. Only that morning I had prayed the Matins from the ‘Divine Office’ a practice that I had kept up from my time in Maynooth as a seminarian. I finished the day as an atheist and with the first stirrings of a nihilism that was to intensify over the next two years.

What followed was depression, indeed severe depression, and strong suicidal urges with which I spent the next few years battling. These eventually landed my in hospital twice, once for a lengthy period of time. The treatments were standard – medication and counseling. Neither worked nor did me any good. Indeed, the medication eventually ended up being somewhat harmful itself to my happiness and well being.

Eventually, I returned to the activity that had somewhat abated during my depression and I began to read again. It was as if some urge compelled me to read my way out of my difficulties and in many ways this is what happened. By twists and turns I picked up the scent of Stoic philosophy and followed it. In college we had only touched against it, almost as a name check, and it was not covered in any significant way, but now I grasped it with both hands.

From the start it made sense to me, not their physics or their logic, but their ethics. I determined to put Stoic practices into my life and implemented their ‘ethical technology’. It started to improve things very quickly. Some months after engaging with it, I weaned myself of the frankly huge amount of medication they had put me on and, once the rather strong withdrawal symptoms passed, I never looked back.

I am now a committed Stoic and live my life according to that ethic. I am no longer interested in atheist/theist battles, am no longer as comfortable as I initially was with the atheist tag, and find the question of whether or not god exists to be irrelevant to how I lead my life. I continue to find religion quite an interesting topic though, from a political, ethical, and philosophical point of view. I think that there will always be a large body of religious believers, even a majority of them and it is important to engage and understand them.

Cato Maior

Apologies to all, that seemed a touch off-topic.

PDN

Cato Maior wrote: »

Apologies to all, that seemed a touch off-topic.

Not at all, I think it helps discussion flow when we know where someone is coming from.

it is also refreshing to engage in discussion with those who have genuinely considered theological and philosophical issues, rather than just following the party line.