For People Who Want To Leave The Church

SebBerkovich

The Irish Times has this

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0129/breaking36.html

From the very folk who helped people leave the church.. while it was aloud
It suggests getting your details from your parish.

endacl

Everybody telling the truth when census time comes around would be the way to go on this one I think. I don't really care if the church considers me in or out. I know I'm out. They're wrong. The fact that they're wrong on so many big things really dwarfs the fact that they're wrong on lil' ol' me's membership.

yeppydeppy

I got this from them after they brought in their ridiculous canon law:


Cloyne Diocesan Office <info@cloynediocese.ie>

23/12/2011

to me

Yeppydeppy,

I can now confirm that a note has been made in the baptism register stating that you no longer wish to be considered a member of the Catholic church.

Yours sincerely,

Fr Jim Killeen

SebBerkovich

I got in there before they stopped all that "leaving the church business"

Have the defection letter from the bishop at home somewhere.
Made me feel like i had just cancelled my membership to a Gym i never went to.

robindch

yeppydeppy wrote: »

I can now confirm that a note has been made in the baptism register stating that you no longer wish to be considered a member of the Catholic church.

I just love the language here. Translated from Vatican diplo-speak, it reads "We accept that you don't want to be a member of our organization, but we're not going to let you become a non-member".

Splendidly Orwellian.

magicbastarder

'we have made a note in our records that you no longer wish to be incarcerated for the crime of murder, for which you were found guilty'.

Geomy

What's the problem,its only print on paper...
It's easy to make a mature decision and walk away from the church,I did...

Worried about some print on a piece of paper in some dusty filing cabinet in the Vatican.

Kiwi in IE

So the RCC won't 'let' people 'leave' once baptised? Why do you care? I can understand that it is annoying a patronising that they refuse to acknowledge that you want nothing to do with their fairytales and rituals. However it is you that has the power, not them. If you do not want to be a Catholic, then you are not one! The fact they keep your name on some baptismal record and count you among their numbers is their delusion. And let's be honest here delusions are surely not something new from them!

Red Pepper

I did not realise they changed "canon" law so that you couldn't leave the Roman CC. What a crowd of crazies they are in the Vatican.

I think that most people are still baptising their kids but I have noticed more and more parents refusing to indulge in communion/confession and confirmation which can only be a good thing. The trend is postive but the Roman CC still have a stranglehold on Irish people's minds. Many pass it off as "cultural" but I see it as plain brain-washing.

Obliq

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The fact they keep your name on some baptismal record and count you among their numbers is their delusion. And let's be honest here delusions are surely not something new from them!

Well it's not quite the same thing as the Leinster orienteering champions keeping me on for nearly 25 years in spite of me not running a mile for them since then, is it? This is more a measure of you as a PERSON than your personal fitness catagory.

We are all catagorised. By the state, by each other, by whatever measure we choose to subscribe to.......oh wait, I said CHOOSE and SUBSCRIBE! And that's where it gets downright outrageous - that Catholic people had no choice but be subscribed to this from an early age, and therefore continued to be counted as Catholic.

I don't mind still being counted as fit! (Ha!)

magicbastarder

Red Pepper wrote: »

I did not realise they changed "canon" law so that you couldn't leave the Roman CC.

why is a camera company allowed decide these things anyway?

Kiwi in IE

Obliq wrote: »

Well it's not quite the same thing as the Leinster orienteering champions keeping me on for nearly 25 years in spite of me not running a mile for them since then, is it? This is more a measure of you as a PERSON than your personal fitness catagory.

We are all catagorised. By the state, by each other, by whatever measure we choose to subscribe to.......oh wait, I said CHOOSE and SUBSCRIBE! And that's where it gets downright outrageous - that Catholic people had no choice but be subscribed to this from an early age, and therefore continued to be counted as Catholic.

I don't mind still being counted as fit! (Ha!)

I get this Obliq, you had no choice in whether you were baptised, did communion etc. But you have a choice now, and if you choose not to be a Catholic then you are not. End of story! So the RCC say that you are! They also say that Virgins have babies, the creation story is reality, it is a 'sin' to use contraception, water can be turned to wine, wafers turn to flesh after being 'blessed'. Because they say it does not make it so!

endacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

They also say that Virgins have babies, the creation story is reality, it is a 'sin' to use contraception, water can be turned to wine, wafers turn to flesh after being 'blessed'.

Some of those aren't even true!!

Obliq

Ha, what....you mean they made stuff up?! Yeah Kiwi, I knew you knew that - just that I can feel for people who are really angry about it, even though they probably rationalise the RCC's response in the same way as you have said. I wasn't baptised at all, so I'm only guessing about the anger....I just know I'd have a hard time with it and might feel like throttling the person who'd send me a letter like that.

Geomy

There are ways of dealing with the anger.
That anger means the church still has power over the people.

I for one will not let some print on some dusty piece of paper inside a cabinet in Rome worry me.

eviltwin

I felt the same way for a long time as some of the posters here. I got into Count me Out just in time but my reasons for wanting to leave where not considered good enough so my request was denied!! I asked for the original copies of my records from my childhood church and was refused.

I stewed over it for ages but now I don't care, as Kiwi says we have choice and that gives us power. For me the simple act of putting myself down as atheist on my census form was enough. The Church can consider me a member all they want, the fact is I don't contribute or participate in anything to do with the RCC and never will, the State knows my status now and for me that is all that matters.

Kiwi in IE

Obliq wrote: »

Ha, what....you mean they made stuff up?! Yeah Kiwi, I knew you knew that - just that I can feel for people who are really angry about it, even though they probably rationalise the RCC's response in the same way as you have said. I wasn't baptised at all, so I'm only guessing about the anger....I just know I'd have a hard time with it and might feel like throttling the person who'd send me a letter like that.

Haha Obliq, I understand exactly how those people feel. I have to rationalise it, because I am furious with myself for going along with having my son baptised because it was important to my partners family! I was pretty naive about Catholicism at the time and thought it was more respectful to my in laws to go along with it rather than refuse. I have regretted it ever since. He is NOT Catholic!

krudler

It annoys me when people go "oh its just your name someplace it doesn't matter" if it was just my name someplace the church wouldnt have a problem taking it off, the fact they won't means it DOES matter.

Geomy

To some it matters to more its just ink on paper.

swampgas

Geomy wrote: »

To some it matters to more its just ink on paper.

Your passport and driving license are just ink on paper. That doesn't mean they don't have significance.

TwoShedsJackson

Geomy wrote: »

To some it matters to more its just ink on paper.

Baptismal records are used by the Church to show how many members they have, and thus gain influence in society and politics. They should have neither, and as stated above, if it's just ink on paper why do the Church refuse to let people have their names removed?

Geomy

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Baptismal records are used by the Church to show how many members they have, and thus gain influence in society and politics. They should have neither, and as stated above, if it's just ink on paper why do the Church refuse to let people have their names removed?

I see your point.

Ok I'm different,I don't really give a toss about church records.

From reading some posts I can see some of us think about this more than others.

I now understand why it upsets some people and others have a who gives a s&!t
attitude.

I hope it gets sorted for those who want to get out of the records etc

Wishing ye luck

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

I felt the same way for a long time as some of the posters here. I got into Count me Out just in time but my reasons for wanting to leave where not considered good enough so my request was denied!! I asked for the original copies of my records from my childhood church and was refused.

I got out too. But they made no effort to have me stay...they just waved me goodbye with an air of don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I feel so unloved - and proud. All at the same time.

Cool Mo D

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Baptismal records are used by the Church to show how many members they have, and thus gain influence in society and politics...

Do they though? When have they actually done this?

TwoShedsJackson

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Do they though? When have they actually done this?

Throughout recorded history.

Why would politicians etc. pay any attention to them unless they thought that the Church represented a section of society of sufficent numbers to be worth paying attention to?

As their influence declines in society today, so the power of the Church hierarchy becomes less and less, and they are now clinging desperately to baptismal records in an attempt to justify some scrap of relevance.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder

Why does no one take a legal challenge, and what is Athiest.ie doing about this situation ?

Peregrinus

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

Why does no one take a legal challenge, and what is Athiest.ie doing about this situation ?

Lack of standing. To mount a legal claim, somebody has got to show that they are being treated as a member by the Catholic church when they are not, in fact, a member or don't want to be.

It's an article of faith on this board that the Catholic church does this, but if concrete examples of the church doing this are ever called for, all that is offered is flannelly answers like Twoshed Jackson's above. That's plainly not going to get you very far in the High Court.

The actual fact is that, from the Catholic point of view, it is extremely easy to leave the Catholic church. You can do it unilaterally; there is no form you have to complete or notice you have to give; you don't need anyone's permission, agreement or acknowledgement. There are no barriers at all to leaving. (For a time, there was a formal procedure you had to go through if, for the purposes of certain provisions of canon law regarding marriage, you wanted the church to regard you as having left. But that procedure was dismantled a few years ago.)

Dades

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

Why does no one take a legal challenge, and what is Athiest.ie doing about this situation ?

The church effectively claim something supernatural happened at baptism that can't be undone.

Taking to the courts with this nonsense cropping up as a defense would be an exercise in futility for everyone.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder

Dades wrote: »

The church effectively claim something supernatural happened at baptism that can't be undone.

Taking to the courts with this nonsense cropping up as a defense would be an exercise in futility for everyone.

I think you're getting mixed up here, we're not dealing with the validity of any supernatural claims. That's a separate issue.

We're dealing with written records that claim that we are permanently recorded on publicly accessible records, for all future generations to see, that we have gone though the Church initiation process. (albeit against our wills). Unamended, these records may be taken as read, that we remained as voluntary members of the Catholic Church after having undergone their initiation process, and not objected to same, and no publically accessible record is kept of our objection. So at the very least these publicly accessible historical records should be amended to set the record straight, for future generations and the records of History where a person requests them to be so.

Would you want it on publically acessable record for all time that you had gone though the initiation ceremony for he Nazi party in Nazi Germany, and then after the war, this publically acessable record remained unamended that you had totally objected to that ?

At the very least Atheist.ie should be seeking legal advice on the matter on behalf of Atheists

TPD

What do you need to do to be excommunicated these days?

kylith

TPD wrote: »

What do you need to do to be excommunicated these days?

You could try kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse...

It wouldn't make any difference anyway, you'd still be counted as Catholic, just an excommunicated one.

eyescreamcone

TPD wrote: »

What do you need to do to be excommunicated these days?

Kick Bishop Brennan up the arse??

eyescreamcone

Snap

eviltwin

Even if you are excommunicated you are still obliged to go to Mass etc, you just can't recieve the sacrements or take communion.

Dades

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

I think you're getting mixed up here, we're not dealing with the validity of any supernatural claims. That's a separate issue.

We're dealing with written records that claim that we are permanently recorded on publicly accessible records, for all future generations to see, that we have gone though the Church initiation process. (albeit against our wills). Unamended, these records may be taken as read, that we remained as voluntary members of the Catholic Church after having undergone their initiation process, and not objected to same, and no publically accessible record is kept of our objection. So at the very least these publicly accessible historical records should be amended to set the record straight, for future generations and the records of History where a person requests them to be so.

But don't those records simply record that you were baptised? You either were, or you weren't.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

Would you want it on publically acessable record for all time that you had gone though the initiation ceremony for he Nazi party in Nazi Germany, and then after the war, this publically acessable record remained unamended that you had totally objected to that ?

No you wouldn't want it, but short of destroying the record that reflected what actually happened, all you are doing is making a statement that you no longer want to be associated with such an organisation. You can't actually amend a record that says you were baptised, when you were, you can only add a side-note to say "but no longer self-identifies as a catholic".

It's somewhat pointless in that the church will still consider you a catholic due to the supernatural bit, and it's not as if they adjust their numbers every time when passing them on to the Vatican or whoever.

And if you're worried about being misrepresented, in a hundred years if an ancestor of yours tracing their roots is going to have a lot more to go on than parish records on which to build up a picture of you and your beliefs. Heck, your posts here will probably be archived somewhere.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder

Dades wrote: »

But don't those records simply record that you were baptised? You either were, or you weren't.

Yes, and it should also be clearly recorded beside this publically accessible record, that as an adult you objected to this. Do you get it yet ?

Dades wrote: »

No you wouldn't want it, but short of destroying the record that reflected what actually happened, all you are doing is making a statement that you no longer want to be associated with such an organisation. You can't actually amend a record that says you were baptised, when you were, you can only add a side-note to say "but no longer self-identifies as a catholic".

That's what is called setting the publically accessible record straight, thing is you are not allowed to do that anymore. At the very least, that needs to be challenged by Atheist.ie on behalf of atheists.

Dades

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

Yes, and it should also be clearly recorded beside this publically accessible record, that as an adult you objected to this. Do you get it yet ?

As an adult you objected to being baptised as a child? No, I don't get it. If you now object to having being baptised, you need to take it up with your parents.

And you'd want adjust your superior attitude because if you keep talking like that to posters here you'll be infracted.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

That's what is called setting the publically accessible record straight, thing is you are not allowed to do that anymore.

The record states you were baptised. Unless you weren't baptised, there's nothing to put straight. Add an addendum to the baptism record is functional purely on an emotional level on the part of the person demanding the addition.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote:

At the very least, that needs to be challenged by Atheist.ie on behalf of atheists.

I'm an atheist and I don't want AI challenging this on my behalf.

Peregrinus

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

We're dealing with written records that claim that we are permanently recorded on publicly accessible records, for all future generations to see, that we have gone though the Church initiation process. (albeit against our wills). Unamended, these records may be taken as read, that we remained as voluntary members of the Catholic Church after having undergone their initiation process, and not objected to same, and no publically accessible record is kept of our objection. So at the very least these publicly accessible historical records should be amended to set the record straight, for future generations and the records of History where a person requests them to be so.

Baptismal records are not publicly accessible.

In any event, baptism records simply record that a baptism took place. They do not assert that the baptism has any particular consequence or continuing relevance.

By the same token, my birth certificate records my birth in Ireland. As a result of having been born in Ireland, I am an Irish citizen. However if I were to lose my Irish citizenship, my birth certificate would not be amended to note the fact. The certificate records nothing but the fact of my birth, and not the downstream consequences of that. Baptismal certificates are the same.

Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »

At the very least Atheist.ie should be seeking legal advice on the matter on behalf of Atheists

There is in fact a case winding its way through the French courts on this at present. The plaintiff is demanding that his baptismal record be deleted entirely, on the grounds that it is data personal to him, and that under French law a record of this data may not be kept without his consent. (Note, though, that his case does not depend on the fact that he has left the church. He could make the same case even if he were the most devout Catholic.)

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

. . . It's somewhat pointless in that the church will still consider you a catholic due to the supernatural bit, and it's not as if they adjust their numbers every time when passing them on to the Vatican or whoever.

Actually, no. It's true that the spiritual effects of baptism are considered to be irreversible, but those irreversible spiritual effects do not include permanent membership of the Catholic church. The church doesn't claim that everyone who was ever baptised is a member for ever afterwards.

The figures reported to the Vatican each year are estimates, not counts. The are supposed to be adjusted to reflect numbers leaving the church, but at the great bulk of people who leave the church do not contact the church at all about their decision, get a handle on this is probably not easy. But if the figures were only adjusted to reflect those contacting the church to say they were leaving, then leavers would certainly be drastically undercounted.

(This is the reason the formal leaving procedure was abandoned, incidentally. Very few people actually followed it, with the result that many people who had in fact left the church were being treated as if they were still members for certain purposes of canon law. This wasn't a good thing.)

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. It's true that the spiritual effects of baptism are considered to be irreversible, but those irreversible spiritual effects do not include permanent membership of the Catholic church. The church doesn't claim that everyone who was ever baptised is a member for ever afterwards.

The figures reported to the Vatican each year are estimates, not counts. The are supposed to be adjusted to reflect numbers leaving the church, but at the great bulk of people who leave the church do not contact the church at all about their decision, get a handle on this is probably not easy. But if the figures were only adjusted to reflect those contacting the church to say they were leaving, then leavers would certainly be drastically undercounted.

(This is the reason the formal leaving procedure was abandoned, incidentally. Very few people actually followed it, with the result that many people who had in fact left the church were being treated as if they were still members for certain purposes of canon law. This wasn't a good thing.)

Really?

The "official" Vatican headcount is usually published in the Annuario Pontificio which from previous threads we have found to be based on the number of baptisms.

Now, since ISAW is no longer with us, perhaps you might be so good as to present evidence that the Church actually acknowledges people leaving the church in their numbers at all.

Peregrinus

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The "official" Vatican headcount is usually published in the Annuario Pontificio which from previous threads we have found to be based on the number of baptisms.

Now, since ISAW is no longer with us, perhaps you might be so good as to present evidence that the Church actually acknowledges people leaving the church in their numbers at all.

Well. Let’s think about this a little. Let’s look at the evidence, and be a little bit rational.

First point: Reason tells us that she fact that the church estimate is “based on the number of baptisms” does not necessarily mean that the church estimate is simply a count of the number of baptisms.

Second point: Reason also tells us that it’s highly unlikely to be a count of the number of baptisms. The great majority of people baptised in the Diocese of (say) Tuam are dead, but the baptismal records don’t show who’s dead and who’s alive. So if your estimate of the number of Catholics in the diocese of Tuam was simply a tot of the number of people baptised there, you’d come up with a figure vastly in excess of the total population of the diocese.

By the same token, many of the people baptised in the diocese of Tuam now live in the Diocese of Galway. Or Dublin. Or Boston. Or anywhere, really. But, again, this doesn’t appear on their baptismal records.

So, while the baptismal records may be a significant datum employed in coming up with the estimate, they are plainly not the only factor. The baptismal records show historic events. To come up with a current estimate for the number of Catholics in the diocese, you need to make adjustments to reflect events since baptism. Events such as

- Catholics baptised in Tuam dying
- Catholics baptised in Tuam moving away
- Catholics leaving the church
- Catholics baptised in other dioceses moving to Tuam
- Christians baptised in other denominations entering the Catholic church in Tuam

Clearly, adjustments are made, since the overall estimates are not what they would be if they represented simply a tot of baptisms.

The allegation being made is that no adjustment is made for Catholics leaving the church. Despite many times of asking, I have never seen any evidence in support of that allegation.

Third point: The church estimate for Catholics in Ireland tally well with the counts of Catholics conducted by the CSO and the NISRA, which in both cases are based on self-identification. That does suggest that the methods used by the church to arrive at its estimate are reasonably robust. It could of course be that the church methods are defective, and the fact that they produce the same result as the official counts is a happy coincidence, but in that case I’m being asked to accept a proposition which is unsupported by evidence and which requires a happy coincidence. Why would I do that? Why would you?

Fourth point: We can come at this another way. We can ask why so many on this board believe that those who leave the church are still counted as Catholics, despite the complete absence of evidence.

It’s perhaps for them to say, but they are generally coy about doing so. Still, I do note a constant assertion that Catholic doctrine is that, if you have ever been baptised, you are Catholic for ever.

If that were Catholic doctrine, then naturally the Catholic church would disregard defections in its estimate of numbers, and if you believe that it is Catholic doctrine, then you will easily believe that the estimates are calculated accordingly.

The thing is, as pointed out already, this actually isn’t the Catholic position. And we would expect the Catholic church to make its estimate of Catholics based on its own understandings of what it is to be Catholic, and not based on the erroneous impressions that others have of its position. In Catholic thinking, people can leave the church, and do leave the church, and we would expect any estimate of Catholics conducted by the church to take account of that. Which, again, strengthens the case for saying that those who insist it does not really need to produce some evidence if they want to be taken seriously.

Fifth point: Another “argument” advanced is that the Catholic church deliberately inflates its estimate in order to give its representations on public affairs more more weight. I’ve already pointed out that this claim often advanced, but rarely evidenced. Those who make this argument need, at a minimum, to find examples of Catholic bishops quoting their own estimates, rather than census figures, in this context; my observation is that it is the census figures that are mostly used in this regard. Plus, since the church estimates are not very different from the census figures, if the church is trying to massage the figures they're remarkably bad at it. Finally, the argument discounts entirely the possibility that the church might need reliable figures for its own purposes, like making resource allocation decisions.

The bottom line, for me, is that this claim doesn’t make a lot of sense on its own terms, its proponents are unwilling or unable to upported it with any evidence, and the rather limited arguments offered in support of it are based on misconceptions and don’t stand up to examination. So why would I accept it? Why would any skeptic accept it?

Dades

There's definitely a thread about this somewhere here where quotes from the church have supported the idea that they think baptism is for ever (i.e. supernatural) no matter what you write in the margins. Must try to dig it out.

Regarding insisting on getting something recorded so the numbers aren't cooked, who wold ever trust this insideous organisation to do anything anyway? Best option? Answer the census correctly, and try and forget the infants whose mammy's decide for them they're Catholics ( despite none of them having set foot in a church on Sunday forever...)

expectationlost

...it is my understanding that the data could not be deleted from the Register as it is essential for the administration of Church affairs to maintain a register of all the people who have been baptised. Indeed it is of course a factual record of an event that happened. However the proposed noting of the register would more than comply with Section 6 of the Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=107&StartDate=01+January+2007

magicbastarder

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Baptismal records are used by the Church to show how many members they have, and thus gain influence in society and politics.

generally speaking, it is census returns which give the church its clout, and not baptismal rolls. i think you're giving the church's records too much significance.

the baptismal rolls of the church show you were baptised. which is true.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

generally speaking, it is census returns which give the church its clout, and not baptismal rolls. i think you're giving the church's records too much significance.

the baptismal rolls of the church show you were baptised. which is true.

Then why can there not be an annotation to show one also officially rejected that Baptism?

Let me put it this way - my parents separated 30 years ago but never divorced (Irish Catlicks :rolleyes:) so officially they are still married just like those whose names are on the Baptismal record are 'officially' Catholics.



When a marriage takes place there is a record. When a marriage ends and is dissolved by divorce - there is an official record. What is the difference? No one is disputing that Baptism took place, but one should be able to have ones 'divorce' also noted.

krudler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then why can there not be an annotation to show one also officially rejected that Baptism?

Let me put it this way - my parents separated 30 years ago but never divorced (Irish Catlicks :rolleyes:) so officially they are still married just like those whose names are on the Baptismal record are 'officially' Catholics.



When a marriage takes place there is a record. When a marriage ends and is dissolved by divorce - there is an official record. What is the difference? No one is disputing that Baptism took place, but one should be able to have ones 'divorce' also noted.

^ that, you can have it officially shown you were once married and now longer are, why not with baptism? I had no choice in it and yes I reject everything about it, so why can't I have that recognised. If it wasnt such a big deal they wouldnt have a problem doing it.

TheChizler

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well. Let’s think about this a little. Let’s look at the evidence, and be a little bit rational.

First point: Reason tells us that she fact that the church estimate is “based on the number of baptisms” does not necessarily mean that the church estimate is simply a count of the number of baptisms.

Second point: Reason also tells us that it’s highly unlikely to be a count of the number of baptisms. The great majority of people baptised in the Diocese of (say) Tuam are dead, but the baptismal records don’t show who’s dead and who’s alive. So if your estimate of the number of Catholics in the diocese of Tuam was simply a tot of the number of people baptised there, you’d come up with a figure vastly in excess of the total population of the diocese.

By the same token, many of the people baptised in the diocese of Tuam now live in the Diocese of Galway. Or Dublin. Or Boston. Or anywhere, really. But, again, this doesn’t appear on their baptismal records.

So, while the baptismal records may be a significant datum employed in coming up with the estimate, they are plainly not the only factor. The baptismal records show historic events. To come up with a current estimate for the number of Catholics in the diocese, you need to make adjustments to reflect events since baptism. Events such as

- Catholics baptised in Tuam dying
- Catholics baptised in Tuam moving away
- Catholics leaving the church
- Catholics baptised in other dioceses moving to Tuam
- Christians baptised in other denominations entering the Catholic church in Tuam

Clearly, adjustments are made, since the overall estimates are not what they would be if they represented simply a tot of baptisms.

Have to agree entirely on this one; just totting up the baptisms would give an hugely inaccurate figure. As Dades points out there was another thread that went through this in detail, I think it was generally agreed that they probably use some combination of the number of new baptisms every year and actuarial tables based on death, emigration, attendance and defection rates to come up with a meaningful figure. It's most likely a complicated statistical exercise.

To base on baptism records alone would require cross referencing with every country in the world to establish if that member was still alive to give any meaning to the figure, an impossible task.

What is important to note that is that they probably (maybe?) account for defection rates in their model, which is the one figure we could influence by making our wishes known. So if you want to help make the figure as accurate as possible by all means make your wishes known to the relevant diocese.

Of course all this hinges on the presumption that there IS some kind of membership list in existence, and any figure presented by the church is any more than wishful thinking and a back of the envelope calculation.

I once knew somebody who insisted that they didn't want to be Catholic, but was adamant that they absolutely had to still be a functioning member (regular mass etc.) purely because the countmeout process had been shut down. No amount of reason would get through to them. I don't think anyone here is that bad yet! So by all means make a point and let your wishes be known, but don't put yourself out and be complicit in your own oppression.

Personally I'm happy to just know it's all bollox.

Just aside for a bit, isn't there some Mormon or something list that we're all supposedly on? I heard they go through phonebooks and things for names!

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

There's definitely a thread about this somewhere here where quotes from the church have supported the idea that they think baptism is for ever (i.e. supernatural) no matter what you write in the margins. Must try to dig it out.

Look, this is not difficult to grasp:

1. In the Catholic view, the spiritual effects of baptism are indeed irreversible.

2. But “baptism” =/= “membership of the church”. As we say in logical analytics, baptism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for membership of the Catholic church.

3. Consequently baptism does not result in permanent membership of the Catholic church.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then why can there not be an annotation to show one also officially rejected that Baptism? . . . No one is disputing that Baptism took place, but one should be able to have ones 'divorce' also noted.

Oh, sure. I can entirely see why someone would want some kind of official acknowledgement from the Catholic church that they have left the church, or that they do not accept that they were ever a member.

All I’m saying is that not getting such an acknowledgement in the form you expect - a note added to the baptismal record - or indeed in any form does not mean that the (1) you are still a member of the Catholic church, or (2) you are still claimed as a member by the Catholic church, or (3) you are still counted as a member by the Catholic church, and those who assert that it does mean any of those things need to produce some evidence.

The focus on the baptismal register is misplaced. It arises out of the mistaken belief that Dades has just expressed - that, because you are baptized, you are regarded as a Catholic for ever, and therefore to leave the church it is your baptism that needs to be reversed, annulled, cancelled or whatever.

To continue your own marriage/divorce analogy a bit, if your parents divorced, their marriage certificate would not be annotated, altered, cancelled or changed in any way. Nor is the entry in the marriage register. In fact, SFAIK the registrar-general keeps no records of divorces, and no-one consulting his records would have any way of knowing that your parents were divorced. The evidence of your parents’ divorces would be a court order, made and recorded by an entirely different organ of the state, and which would even less publicly accessible than their marriage cert.

If that’s acceptable from the state, should something similar not be acceptable from the church? So if you leave the church, write a letter to your bishop (or to the man who would be your bishop) telling him that you are not, or are no longer, a Catholic, and asking him to acknowledge your position. Odds are you’ll get a polite letter back, noting (no doubt with some expression of regret) your position. And there’s your documentary evidence.

TheChizler wrote: »

Have to agree entirely on this one; just totting up the baptisms would give a hugely inaccurate figure. As Dades points out there was another thread that went through this in detail, I think it was generally agreed that they probably use some combination of the number of new baptisms every year and actuarial tables based on death, emigration, attendance and defection rates to come up with a meaningful figure. It's most likely a complicated statistical exercise.

SFAIK, there’s no mandated method for coming up with the estimate; it’s up to each diocese to develop its own methodology, which will no doubt depend on the local circumstances, the resources they have, and the resources they wish to devote to the exercise (which, for most, is probably not their greatest priority). In Germany, for example, the state keeps records of church membership (for tax reasons), and I think the churches just relay the state’s figures to Rome as their estimates. Elsewhere, though, methods may be cruder. It’s not unknown for the diocesan figures to be suspiciously round (“150,000”) and to remain unchanged for years, before undergoing a sudden step-change to some other, equally round figure.

TheChizler wrote: »

What is important to note that is that they probably (maybe?) account for defection rates in their model, which is the one figure we could influence by making our wishes known. So if you want to help make the figure as accurate as possible by all means make your wishes known to the relevant diocese.

Even when there was a formal canon law procedure for having your departure noted, very few departing Catholics could be arsed to go through it. Consequently an estimate of Catholics which only counted formal defections/notifications would certainly be an over-estimate. A more realistic estimate would have to apply some multiplier = assume that for every notification you received, say, 19 others had left without bothering to notify you. But how would you come up with a reliable multiplier?

It strikes me that there are other, and probably better, ways of estimating defection rates. For instance, if you have a handle on how many ever-baptised-Catholic people there are, and of their demographic profile, and of their fertility (and you can get the latter two items from the census) then you have a pretty good idea of how many babies they’re having each year, and you can compare that to the number of babies presented for baptism. The difference between the two points to a cohort of young parents who have probably bailed out, and you can extrapolate from that to young adults who are not parents, or not yet parents. Techniques like that might give you a better estimate of leaving rates than counting formal notifications and applying a multiplier which, as far as I can see, you’d really just have to pluck out of the air.

The bottom line, I think, is that a formal notification/acknowledgement of leaving might be important to the individual, and it should be available. But there is no reason why it has to be by way of adjustment to the baptismal records, and if it’s not available it does not mean that you are still a Catholic, or counted or claimed as a Catholic. And whether it’s available or not, the number issued probably doesn’t impact hugely on the church’s own membership estimates. Those dioceses concerned to make an accurate estimate will probably use other techniques as well to identify leavers; counting the notifications is never going to produce a reliably accurate figure for leavers.

TheChizler wrote: »

Of course all this hinges on the presumption that there IS some kind of membership list in existence, and any figure presented by the church is any more than wishful thinking and a back of the envelope calculation.

There is no membership list. And the church membership figures are, explicitly, estimates, not counts of individuals. (If there were a membership list, there would be no need to estimate numbers; you could simply count them.) Thus you can never say that the church membership figures do, or do not, claim Peregrinus or TheChizler as members; they may (and should) reflect that a number of Catholics have left, but for the purposes of the figure it’s not necessary to identify which Catholics have left, and which remain.

magicbastarder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When a marriage takes place there is a record. When a marriage ends and is dissolved by divorce - there is an official record. What is the difference? No one is disputing that Baptism took place, but one should be able to have ones 'divorce' also noted.

the difference is that remaining officially married has very tangible real-world knock on effects, relating to finances, inheritance, etc.
'remaining' baptised has had absolutely no effect on my life. zero. zilch.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, this is not difficult to grasp:

Charmed, I'm sure.

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. In the Catholic view, the spiritual effects of baptism are indeed irreversible.

2. But “baptism” =/= “membership of the church”. As we say in logical analytics, baptism is a necessary but not sufficient condition for membership of the Catholic church.

3. Consequently baptism does not result in permanent membership of the Catholic church.

I don't disagree with any of the above.

So, assuming we agree baptism doesn't mean you are a permanent member of the church, why the necessity to change a record that reflects only a historical fact?

Also, in case anyone's interested, here's the article (found by Robindch, previously) I mentioned earlier:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/catholic-church-says-de-baptism-is-impossible-68280/

The 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.

expectationlost

so Peregrinus what do the golf club rules say does result in permanent membership of the Catholic church?