Can I unbaptize myself

magicbastarder

i last used my birth cert a few months ago when i got married.

sbsquarepants

kneemos wrote: »

It would be a simple thing to make a note that you were de-babtised if they want to maintain historical records presumably.

It would be a fake historical record though, there is no such thing as being de-baptised. They might as well have a record saying you were de-caffeinated, it would be totally meaningless.
I view the church as an unhinged ex girlfriend who just won't take the hint and fúck off. They may claim you're still involved, doesn't mean you are though.:)

kneemos

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It would be a fake historical record though, there is no such thing as being de-baptised. They might as well have a record saying you were de-caffeinated, it would be totally meaningless.
I view the church as an unhinged ex girlfriend who just won't take the hint and fúck off. They may claim you're still involved, doesn't mean you are though.:)

Make a note that you no longer wish to be considered catholic then,like they were doing.

the culture of deference

magicbastarder wrote: »

plus, it's an offence to lie on the census form.
however, the census form is confidential, so if they know you're lying, they can't tell anyone.

kneemos wrote: »

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

Makes the word sound sexier!
If it's anonymouse:pac:, why do they need your name.

Don't fill in the form.

jhegarty wrote: »

It's a case that would fail.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a membership, it's only a record of an event that took place on a date in the past.

Where are the records stored.
What would happen if the storage location was burned down accidentally.

Galvasean wrote: »

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:

Catholic mammy's.

doctoremma wrote: »

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

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I view the church as an unhinged ex girlfriend who just won't take the hint and fúck off. They may claim you're still involved, doesn't mean you are though.:)

I think a lot of people confuse Irish and Catholic as the same thing. I am embarrassed to see such a high % in this day and age after everything RCC have done. I just cannot understand how anyone could attend a church for anything.

Bannasidhe

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It would be a fake historical record though, there is no such thing as being de-baptised. They might as well have a record saying you were de-caffeinated, it would be totally meaningless.
I view the church as an unhinged ex girlfriend who just won't take the hint and fúck off. They may claim you're still involved, doesn't mean you are though.:)

It wouldn't be fake - it would be amended to reflect that although an event occurred (baptism) which 'made' the person a member of the RCC that person later officially rejected membership of that organisation. Essentially, it is the unamended record which is 'fake' as it is inaccurate.

kneemos

De-caff catholic....hee hee.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It wouldn't be fake - it would be amended to reflect that although an event occurred (baptism) which 'made' the person a member of the RCC that person later officially rejected membership of that organisation. Essentially, it is the unamended record which is 'fake' as it is inaccurate.

"Officially" according to who. The RCC don't believe you can do such a thing. And no one else cares enough to recognize this. The State views religion as a choice you make at the moment you are asked the question "What religion are you".

Bannasidhe

Zombrex wrote: »

"Officially" according to who. The RCC don't believe you can do such a thing. And no one else cares enough to recognize this. The State views religion as a choice you make at the moment you are asked the question "What religion are you".

As I spend my working life researching written records, including baptismal certs, I am a bit of a fanatic about them as these records are then cited as sources to 'prove' what is being stated. Standard practice for historians and genealogists.

Now if a baptismal record simply states a person was baptised full stop then we will record that person as being of that religion. An amended record will allow us to say ok, this person was baptised but then rejected that religion as an adult - a true and accurate picture of the reality. I found my great grandfather's RCC baptismal record - it was amended to show he converted to COI in the 1930s. Investigation showed he did this in protest against what he felt was 'Rome Rule' in the Free State. That is an accurate record of this man's beliefs.

I want any descendents of mine who may in the distant future go in search of great great granny to see that I utterly rejected Roman Catholicism and ensured that this was made clear to them by my insistence on having my baptismal record amended.

Ask yourself this - if these records are not important to the RCC why did they stop allowing people to have them amended?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I spend my working life researching written records, including baptismal certs, I am a bit of a fanatic about them as these records are then cited as sources to 'prove' what is being stated. Standard practice for historians and genealogists.

A friend of mine was put up for adoption in the early 70's and the hospital, nuns, nurses and birth family all co-operated to falsify the birth cert. The document that's in the registry of births, marriages and deaths is still the fake document and I believe she has no right to correct anything on it, despite the open agreement of some of the fakers (she located her birth family some years ago) that it should be fixed.

Relatedly, a relative of mine moved temporarily to the USA and give birth to a child after she became pregnant in the late 60's. The kid was born shortly after christmas and was delivered into a "suitable" (read "catholic") family almost immediately. Nobody knows what happened to him/her and her generation isn't interested in following up for reasons that I could only speculate upon. At least the honor of the family was preserved.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

if these records are not important to the RCC why did they stop allowing people to have them amended?

I'd imagine that the RCC stopped people from requesting the annotation as it was increasing the admin workload for no benefit to the church and it was politically damaging to allow people the means to reject the RCC or what it stood for.

sbsquarepants

Bannasidhe, i see your point alright, but it just wouldn't be something i'd get worked up about. As has been previously stated 90% stated catholic in the census despite us all knowing that figure is extremely unaccurate. The vast majority simply wouldn't bother amending their records anyway - i know i personally couldn't be arsed for example! The church may claim me as catholic if they like, they can say i'm the pope if it floats their boat, what they say or think has no bearing on my day to day life. When it comes down to it we're probably all on record as being mormon anyway!:D
As for the catholics not wanting to ammend the records, well they are prone to lying to all and sundry and to deluding themselves so that's hardly a surprise.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I spend my working life researching written records, including baptismal certs, I am a bit of a fanatic about them as these records are then cited as sources to 'prove' what is being stated. Standard practice for historians and genealogists.

Now if a baptismal record simply states a person was baptised full stop then we will record that person as being of that religion. An amended record will allow us to say ok, this person was baptised but then rejected that religion as an adult - a true and accurate picture of the reality. I found my great grandfather's RCC baptismal record - it was amended to show he converted to COI in the 1930s. Investigation showed he did this in protest against what he felt was 'Rome Rule' in the Free State. That is an accurate record of this man's beliefs.

I want any descendents of mine who may in the distant future go in search of great great granny to see that I utterly rejected Roman Catholicism and ensured that this was made clear to them by my insistence on having my baptismal record amended.

Ask yourself this - if these records are not important to the RCC why did they stop allowing people to have them amended?

I would suggest you don't use baptisim certs as a guide to what religion a person is. Frankly I find that idea ridiculous given that most children are baptized Catholic when they are a year old. A baptism cert should be viewed as what it is, a record that a baptism took place. Viewing it as an indication of what the person will believe 20 years later is like using place of birth as indication of where a person died.

And I didn't say the records are not important to the RCC, I said the RCC do not accept that someone can ever be not-Catholic once baptized. So why would they record something they don't believe can happen?

wench

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.

kneemos wrote: »

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

The census is only anonymous for 100 years. After that the record will be available, as the 1901 & 1911 ones are now.

That will clearly show future generations your stated religion, rendering your parent's decision to baptise you irrelevant.

magicbastarder

wench wrote: »

The census is only anonymous for 100 years. After that the record will be available, as the 1901 & 1911 ones are now.

i emailed them asking about this very issue - apparently the law passed to cover anonymity in the census did not apply to censuses (censi?) including and prior to 1911. it applies to all subsequent ones, so they will not be able to release the records.

wench

magicbastarder wrote: »

i emailed them asking about this very issue - apparently the law passed to cover anonymity in the census did not apply to censuses (censi?) including and prior to 1911. it applies to all subsequent ones, so they will not be able to release the records.

The 1901 & 1911 census was taken under British legislation, which has since been superceded by our own.
The current legislation is the Statistics Act 1993, which does contain provision to release the data after 100 years

35.—In the case of a Census of Population undertaken under this Act or under the repealed enactments, the restrictions of sections 32 and 33 of this Act shall cease to apply 100 years after the date of the relevant Census.

http://www.cso.ie/en/census/aboutcensus2011/accesstooldrecords/

kneemos

wench wrote: »

The census is only anonymous for 100 years. After that the record will be available, as the 1901 & 1911 ones are now.

That will clearly show future generations your stated religion, rendering your parent's decision to baptise you irrelevant.

Don't matter a damn about the census either way,it's a personal issue.

robindch

A US official confirms that the Vatican believes baptism is irreversible. Also, they'll refuse to remove your name from the register. Nothing about annotating it, but it seems unlikely.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-church-says-de-baptism-is-impossible-68280

Christian Post wrote:

An official from the Roman Catholic Church says that it is "impossible" to undergo "de-baptism" as a growing number of people in Western Europe and the United States request such a process.

Jeannine Marino, program specialist for evangelization & catechesis at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told CP that atheists who seek to be "de-baptized" or "un-baptized" cannot technically do so. "From the Church's perspective, it is impossible to 'un-baptize' or 'de-baptize' someone because we believe that baptism permanently seals the person to Christ and the Church," said Marino. "People can stop participating in the Church, but we believe the grace of the sacrament has marked them forever." Marino explains that with baptism, "no matter how long they have been away from the Church" an individual "can return to the faith."

"If the request to be 'de-baptized' is meant to have one's name removed from the baptismal records, this would not be allowed since the baptismal record is a record of historical facts," said Marino. "Catholic canon law prohibits records from being substantially altered or deleted."

In Western Europe, the "de-baptize" movement is growing. In 2009, over 100,000 British atheists downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" as a way to disconnecting themselves from the Christian faith once and for all. In 2010, the Netherlands saw an estimated 2,000 people seek to remove their baptism from official records, and one French newspaper estimates that France sees around 1,000 people annually attempt to be "un-baptized."

Although the "de-baptize" movement can also be found in the United States, according to Jeff Field, director of communications for the Catholic League, they are not growing with the strength that they are in Western Europe. "There have been groups in the United States that have held de-baptisms, but they haven't caught on," said Field. "These events go to show that they are not happy enough to live a life with no religion, but they feel the need to disparage religion. It says more about their intentions than it does anything else."

"De-baptism," or the act of removing recognition of one's baptism, is treated like a sacrament by some atheist organizations. In the United States, the group American Atheists has overseen "de-baptisms," using a blow dryer on recipients of their ritual. Regarding how to reach out to those considering "de-baptism," evangelization & catechesis program specialist Marino talked about Pope Benedict XVI declaring a "Year of Faith" that would begin this coming October.

"The Year of Faith is a time for all Catholics to reach out to our missing brothers and sisters and invite them to rediscover the beauty of the Christian experience."

endacl

robindch wrote: »

A US official confirms that the Vatican believes baptism is irreversible. Also, they'll refuse to remove your name from the register. Nothing about annotating it, but it seems unlikely.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-church-says-de-baptism-is-impossible-68280

Christian Post wrote:

An official from the Roman Catholic Church says that it is "impossible" to undergo "de-baptism" as a growing number of people in Western Europe and the United States request such a process.

Jeannine Marino, program specialist for evangelization & catechesis at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, told CP that atheists who seek to be "de-baptized" or "un-baptized" cannot technically do so. "From the Church's perspective, it is impossible to 'un-baptize' or 'de-baptize' someone because we believe that baptism permanently seals the person to Christ and the Church," said Marino. "People can stop participating in the Church, but we believe the grace of the sacrament has marked them forever." Marino explains that with baptism, "no matter how long they have been away from the Church" an individual "can return to the faith."

"If the request to be 'de-baptized' is meant to have one's name removed from the baptismal records, this would not be allowed since the baptismal record is a record of historical facts," said Marino. "Catholic canon law prohibits records from being substantially altered or deleted."

In Western Europe, the "de-baptize" movement is growing. In 2009, over 100,000 British atheists downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" as a way to disconnecting themselves from the Christian faith once and for all. In 2010, the Netherlands saw an estimated 2,000 people seek to remove their baptism from official records, and one French newspaper estimates that France sees around 1,000 people annually attempt to be "un-baptized."

Although the "de-baptize" movement can also be found in the United States, according to Jeff Field, director of communications for the Catholic League, they are not growing with the strength that they are in Western Europe. "There have been groups in the United States that have held de-baptisms, but they haven't caught on," said Field. "These events go to show that they are not happy enough to live a life with no religion, but they feel the need to disparage religion. It says more about their intentions than it does anything else."

"De-baptism," or the act of removing recognition of one's baptism, is treated like a sacrament by some atheist organizations. In the United States, the group American Atheists has overseen "de-baptisms," using a blow dryer on recipients of their ritual. Regarding how to reach out to those considering "de-baptism," evangelization & catechesis program specialist Marino talked about Pope Benedict XVI declaring a "Year of Faith" that would begin this coming October.

"The Year of Faith is a time for all Catholics to reach out to our missing brothers and sisters and invite them to rediscover the beauty of the Christian experience."

Janey mackers! If an official said so, it must be official. That's us told.

Luckily a baptism didn't happen in my case. Just a surprising splash of water. Bloody annoying at the time, let me tell you! I was having a lovely kip...

kneemos

endacl wrote: »

Janey mackers! If an official said so, it must be official. That's us told.

Luckily a baptism didn't happen in my case. Just a surprising splash of water. Bloody annoying at the time, let me tell you! I was having a lovely kip...

How would being signed up to an organisation while not aware of it hold up in court.

Jellicoe

robindch wrote: »

A US official confirms that the Vatican believes baptism is irreversible. Also, they'll refuse to remove your name from the register. Nothing about annotating it, but it seems unlikely.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-church-says-de-baptism-is-impossible-68280

People are not trying to undo the occurrence of an event. That's impossible.

People are trying to have their peronal record truthfully recorded, e.g. "no longer considers themselves a Catholic", has already been recorded on these records in certain cases. These records are available to future generations, and therefore some people want their personal record set straight, and I would believe that is their right.

sbsquarepants

"Catholic canon law prohibits records from being substantially altered or deleted."

How do they say this shít without cracking up!

robindch

Jellicoe wrote: »

People are trying to have their peronal record truthfully recorded, e.g. "no longer considers themselves a Catholic", has already been recorded on these records in certain cases.

The issue is that people want the church to acknowledge that the church no longer considers whoever so desires, a catholic.

Jellicoe

robindch wrote: »

The issue is that people want the church to acknowledge that the church no longer considers whoever so desires, a catholic.

For some people . . .

And the church cannot decide, as that is entirely up to the individual, who can change their mind one way or another at anytime in their life if they so wish.

But, the personal public record IS the issue for many people, not what the church thinks.

robindch

Jellicoe wrote: »

But, the personal public record IS the issue for many people, not what the church thinks.

That may well be the case for many people. But some people want the church to cut all ties, and it refuses.

I wonder what would happen if people fought back and inducted random catholics, priests, religious etc and refused to let them relinquish the belief system they had no say in being linked to. An "ontological bond" could describe it quite neatly.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

A US official confirms that the Vatican believes baptism is irreversible.

I told you it was a supernatural event therefore couldn't be undone!

Random Bishop wrote:

"From the Church's perspective, it is impossible to 'un-baptize' or 'de-baptize' someone because we believe that baptism permanently seals the person to Christ and the Church,"

i.e. A permanent seal between a real-life organisation and a supernatural entity.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

The issue is that people want the church to acknowledge that the church no longer considers whoever so desires, a catholic.

and the rest of us couldn't give a flying **** what the church thinks, and believe that asking the church to amend the baptismal record only lends weight to the importance of it.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if people fought back and inducted random catholics, priests, religious etc and refused to let them relinquish the belief system they had no say in being linked to. An "ontological bond" could describe it quite neatly.

Someone should found "The Church of Homosexuality" and induct all priests and bishops in their absence :pac:

lamesausage

Although I consider them a plight on the world, and a thoroughly bizarre and irrational organisation with beliefs based on no evidence. I still care whether they consider me to be a catholic, eternally bound to the holy spirit or whatever. I want my rejection of their claims about the nature of reality to be recognized amongst themselves if there is a way. What was the countmeout site doing exactly? And if it is the case that there is ANY identification of myself as a catholic within the state, or if I am bound historically to my 'Roman Catholic' identity for future generations to see, then there is even more reason for seeking a formal defection.

When I say that I am not a catholic to some people, they ask, where you baptized? When I answer yes they refuse to accept I have nothing to do with them and consider me a 'non-practicing' Catholic. Which is absurd.

Being a catholic seems to translate to more than just what you believe for some reason.

magicbastarder

lamesausage wrote: »

And if it is the case that there is ANY identification of myself as a catholic within the state

the state does not consider you a roman catholic; the only relevant statutory instrument which can be used for the state to 'know' your religion is through the census, and that data is anonymised.

gozunda

magicbastarder wrote: »

lamesausage wrote: »

And if it is the case that there is ANY identification of myself as a catholic within the state

the state does not consider you a roman catholic; the only relevant statutory instrument which can be used for the state to 'know' your religion is through the census, and that data is anonymised.

Yes but the Roman Catholic Church does ...

How about I sign you up to the Nationlist Socialist party and then claim you are one of my many followers.... Not so nice once you change the context. Oh and it will be there for posterity as well even if you never ever attend a single rally ...oops sorry I meant religious service of course....

magicbastarder

godwin?
the catholic party do not claim you as an active member. they claim you were baptised, which is true.
they do not have your contact details, do not receive a monthly sub from you, do not even know if you're alive or not - unless you were buried in a catholic ceremony. it was something done on your behalf when you were a few months old; no-one is expecting that you did it of your own free will.