Can I unbaptize myself

Dades

robindch wrote: »

They're not claiming a supernatural event. On the contrary, they're asserting the existence of an "ontological bond" which is, effectively, a statement concerning the state of some quality of an individual, a state which baptism confers and which is indissoluble within the terms of the church.

You say tomatoes... :pac:

Galvasean

magicbastarder wrote: »

plus, it's an offence to lie on the census form.

Better fine the vast majority of 'Catholics' so.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

You say tomatoes...

I'm sure the Vatican can redefine them as fish for theological purposes

kneemos

If babtism is indissoluble within the terms of the church how come they were dissolving them a couple of years ago?

endacl

robindch wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

You say tomatoes...

I'm sure the Vatican can redefine them as fish for theological purposes

Hmmm... Think I might have to redefine the Vatican. Their own definition doesn't suit me. What's good for the goose, and all that. Any suggestions, good and witty people of A&A?

theteal

fill out the census form properly, op. job done

norrie rugger

Does the church not use the baptismal records as an argument for numbers of "Catholics" in the country?

If they are using these figures to boost their standing and to "legitimise" themselves, then I would imagine that there should be a way to "unsubscribe"

Galvasean

norrie rugger wrote: »

Does the church not use the baptismal records as an argument for numbers of "Catholics" in the country?

If they are using these figures to boost their standing and to "legitimise" themselves, then I would imagine that there should be a way to "unsubscribe"

I don't think they really need to when 90 odd percent of Irish people are happy to count themselves as 'Catholic' on the census which is considered a more legitimate way of counting. :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

kneemos wrote: »

If babtism is indissoluble within the terms of the church how come they were dissolving them a couple of years ago?

they weren't dissolving them afaik, they were placing a supplementary note on the the baptismal reigster that X no longer wanted to be considered catholic.

kneemos

magicbastarder wrote: »

they weren't dissolving them afaik, they were placing a supplementary note on the the baptismal reigster that X no longer wanted to be considered catholic.

That would be good enough for me.

Jellicoe

magicbastarder wrote: »

they weren't dissolving them afaik, they were placing a supplementary note on the the baptismal reigster that X no longer wanted to be considered catholic.

indeed that would suffice to set the public record straight for future generations, so why are others not allowed to do so ? surely they have the same rights in Irish state as those who got their public records amended ?

magicbastarder

future generations will depend on census returns rather than baptismal records, so as long as you put yourself down as no religion on the census, you've set the record straight.

kneemos

magicbastarder wrote: »

future generations will depend on census returns rather than baptismal records, so as long as you put yourself down as no religion on the census, you've set the record straight.

The census is anonymouse and has nothing whatsoever to do with unbabtising yourself.

doctoremma

kneemos wrote: »

The census is anonymouse and has nothing whatsoever to do with unbabtising yourself.

Although it might not name a specific person as having defected, a quick comparison of numbers will show how many people have left the church after baptism.

kneemos

doctoremma wrote: »

Although it might not name a specific person as having defected, a quick comparison of numbers will show how many people have left the church after baptism.

Couldn't care less about the numbers it's purely a personal thing to break all ties with the church

endacl

kneemos wrote: »

Couldn't care less about the numbers it's purely a personal thing to break all ties with the church

Consider them broken then. Works for loads of people. I'm not sure why people get so exercised by the de-baptism thingummy. My personal perspective, as an athiest and a not-a-catholic, is that the 'baptism' was an empty charade, carried out by a delusional (though no doubt well-meaning) man in a dress. I didn't consent to it. I certainly didn't participate, and it therefore didn't happen. What did happen was a baby got an unexpected and inefficient head wash. And in cold water too I'd imagine. Oh, and my family had a nice day out. I presume. I don't remember it....

What the church might consider me to be is of little concern. It's just one more item on the looooooooooong list of things they're wrong about.

doctoremma

kneemos wrote: »

Couldn't care less about the numbers it's purely a personal thing to break all ties with the church

Understood. Just saying that if you look at, say, 4 million baptised, then see that only 2 million declare Catholicism, you can tell immediately that a fair few have broken ties with the church.

I haven't ever made a formal declaration but openly admit that I don't live in a country where Catholicism is anything other than a minority (indeed, far more minor than the atheist sector). Were I to find out that my name on that record was somehow allowing the church to demand power, I'd probably try to have it updated in some way.

I think officially, the census is the way to go. Personally, you can make your views known to family and friends.

kneemos

I think it's because the church are so fond of having ties and control over people that it would make me happier if I had no connection,just feel uneasy about having anything to do with it.

magicbastarder

my stance is that i'm not going to worry about the effects of a ceremony which i don't believe has any effect.
no point in giving credence to it by requiring it be undone.

endacl

kneemos wrote: »

I think it's because the church are so fond of having ties and control over people that it would make me happier if I had no connection,just feel uneasy about having anything to do with it.

But you don't have a connection. Their misunderstanding. You don't have anything to do with it.

Solair

Simplest way is to just :

1) Stop going to church services.
2) Stop filling in forms (especially the census) saying you're whatever religion you were baptised into.
3) Stop giving them money.
4) Do not describe yourself as a lapsed (insert religion).

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAo_rEgR4xU

Ha ha. Brilliant.

kneemos

endacl wrote: »

But you don't have a connection. Their misunderstanding. You don't have anything to do with it.

I know and maybe your right but as I say personally I would prefer to be off the list.

endacl

Solair wrote: »

Simplest way is to just :

1) Stop going to church services.
2) Stop filling in forms (especially the census) saying you're whatever religion you were baptised into.
3) Stop giving them money.
4) Do not describe yourself as a lapsed (insert religion).

5) Grow back your mutilated genitals*.

*Puts things in perspective. At least all catholics generally have to ignore is a head wetting as an infant, and gradually dissipating mild societal expectation.

It could be worse...

Jellicoe

magicbastarder wrote: »

my stance is that i'm not going to worry about the effects of a ceremony which i don't believe has any effect.
no point in giving credence to it by requiring it be undone.

It’s not the ceremony or belief that bothers most people, its the permanent un-amended public record, for future generations to see, the so called members of that club, that is the problem.

magicbastarder

have you ever looked up your great great grandfather's baptismal record?

Jellicoe

magicbastarder wrote: »

have you ever looked up your great great grandfather's baptismal record?

No, but then again I've no need to, as from time to time, relatives have produced copies for all to see during the course of their family tree hobbies etc. Some people today don't want to be publically listed as card carrying members for future generations, while others have successfully managed to have these public records properly amended to reflect their personal feelings on the matter.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

have you ever looked up your great great grandfather's baptismal record?

I have and (much to my father's disgust) G-G-Grandfather was COE but I also learned that G-G-Grandfather was buried in a private non-Conformist/Jewish cemetery in Jersey rather than the local COE one. Now, that is interesting as it raises many questions.

I had my baptismal record amended to show I do not consider myself a Roman Catholic and I am glad I did. Yes, it is a historical record (and as a historian I am all about the records) but, if unamended, it is an inaccurate record as it indicates the person was content to allow the record to stand as is.

The right to have records amended to reflect reality is very much in the news now with Ireland finally preparing legislation to allow transgendered people to change their birth cert. Now, if we are to use the 'it's a historical record' argument then why does Ireland need to allow people to amend their birthcerts given that they can already obtain driver's licences and passports in their true ('reassigned') gender?
Think about this - if someone is born biologically male but transgenders then the 'it's a historical record' argument says that their birth cert should always state they were born male and that as the State recognises that this person who 'born' male is now female by issuing driver's licences and passports to the female thereby providing official 'proof' there is no need to change the birth cert.

There is a baptismal record in a RC church in Cork that states I was baptised when I was three days old, this record also states that as an I adult I requested that this record be amended to show that despite being baptised I do not consider myself a member of the RCC. That is an accurate record. My distancing of myself from the RCC is there for future generation to see in black and white. It says 'this woman was not a Catholic', unamended records imply that the person was content to allow the record stand as is -i.e. they retained this 'historical' link with the RCC through their own volition.

magicbastarder

the difference between your birth and your baptismal certs is that your baptismal cert is (probably? i don't know the ins and outs of this) only required for church reasons - i.e. you'll only need it if you choose to continue to partake in catholic ceremonies.

with a birth cert, it's required for statutory reasons later in life. you can't choose to leave your birth cert behind; so the reasons for amending the birth cert are quite different.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

the difference between your birth and your baptismal certs is that your baptismal cert is (probably? i don't know the ins and outs of this) only required for church reasons - i.e. you'll only need it if you choose to continue to partake in catholic ceremonies.

with a birth cert, it's required for statutory reasons later in life. you can't choose to leave your birth cert behind; so the reasons for amending the birth cert are quite different.

That argument would be valid if other official forms of ID were not available to transgendered people. But, since passports and driver's licences are available which reflect the 'change' in gender, and these are both not just acceptable forms of ID but the are the usual (in fact most of us only use our birth certs to help us get a passport which we then use as ID to get driver's licence), why does the birth cert itself need to be amended?

How often do you actually use your birth cert?
Mine is in a box somewhere last seen when I lost my passport 6 years ago and had to get a new one issued. My driver's licence is in my wallet and my passport will be in my hand on Friday when I head to Spain - birth cert will still be in which ever box it's currently in. If I had transgendered my passport would state I am male, so what does it matter what a piece of paper in a box says?