Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
For People Who Want To Leave The Church
Options
Comments
-
-
Snap
0 -
Even if you are excommunicated you are still obliged to go to Mass etc, you just can't recieve the sacrements or take communion.0
-
But don't those records simply record that you were baptised? You either were, or you weren't.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.
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".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 ?
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. 0 -
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 ?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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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 ?
And you'd want adjust your superior attitude because if you keep talking like that to posters here you'll be infracted.
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: »That's what is called setting the publically accessible record straight, thing is you are not allowed to do that anymore.
I'm an atheist and I don't want AI challenging this on my behalf.Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote:At the very least, that needs to be challenged by Atheist.ie on behalf of atheists.0 -
Baptismal records are not publicly accessible.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.
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.
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.)Wibbly Wobbly Wonder wrote: »At the very least Atheist.ie should be seeking legal advice on the matter on behalf of Atheists0 -
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.. . . 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.
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.)0 -
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.0 -
Well. Let’s think about this a little. Let’s look at the evidence, and be a little bit rational.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.
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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...)0 -
http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=107&StartDate=01+January+2007...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 2003.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,557 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48006
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.TwoShedsJackson wrote: »Baptismal records are used by the Church to show how many members they have, and thus gain influence in society and politics.
the baptismal rolls of the church show you were baptised. which is true.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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!0 -
Look, this is not difficult to grasp: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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: »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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,557 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48006
the difference is that remaining officially married has very tangible real-world knock on effects, relating to finances, inheritance, etc.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.
'remaining' baptised has had absolutely no effect on my life. zero. zilch.0 -
Charmed, I'm sure.Peregrinus wrote: »Look, this is not difficult to grasp:
I don't disagree with any of the above.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.
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.0 -
so Peregrinus what do the golf club rules say does result in permanent membership of the Catholic church?0
-
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Well. Let’s think about this a little. Let’s look at the evidence, and be a little bit rational.
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?
Rather than respond in detail to your reply, thank you btw, I want to restate my last post because you seem to have misread it in some respects.
This debate, in so much as it began in this thread, really began with a thread some time back, here:
Leaving the Catholic Church
In this thread the debate progressed as this one has done until ISAW appeared and when challenged by Penn:Penn wrote:When the Catholic Church claims to have XXX number of followers, do you think that's because they took a headcount at all the Masses that week? No. I was baptised, got my communion and confirmation. In their eyes, I am still a Catholic. The priest isn't at Mass thinking "Gee, Barrington hasn't been here in a while"
ISAW responded with this:ISAW wrote:Yes ~that is why it ius called "census sunday"
It measures the numbers at Mass.
in which ISAW claimed that the figures reported by the Vatican as to the number of Catholics in the world was an accurate measure of practising Catholics and not an estimate.
Throughout the rest of the thread, despite the repeated requests of multiple posters, ISAW never provided any evidence to corroborate such an event. Neither did he provide any evidence to suggest that the figures quoted by the Vatican are in any way accurate.
He kept directing us to our local parishes and dioceses where after some fruitless digging I eventually found this:
Parish Pastoral Report to Bishop
which is the closest I've seen to a framework for tallying catholics.
Eventually ISAW made claims about the Annuario Pontifico referenced in my last post and also the Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae.
However, both of these documents purport to be counts, not estimates and only mention the catholic faithful within the context of baptism.The incidence of baptized persons per 100 inhabitants in Oceania is stable even though much lower figures are involved.
Now, I agree with what you have said in your posts, particularly this:Peregrinus wrote: »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.
So, in summary, the point I was trying to get across is that the figures reported by each parish, diocese etc. to the Vatican to generate the 1.1 billion quoted in official documents as the number of catholics in the world must be by definition, vastly overstated.
Just to illustrate this, if the church were to be lax and just use state data then we know that this figure is well overstated. The current census figure lists a catholic population of 87%. However, mass attendance figures here and here put the actual number of faithful Catholics at about half of that.
EDIT: Just to add to what Dades posted, here is another of the links Robin previously supplied regarding the church's view of baptism:
ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICAIt remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.0 -
ISAW never did supply numbers for Census Sunday. I'd imagine when compared to the numbers from baptismal records, you'd get something like 6.5% >_>0
-
-
Nothing. There is no "permanent membership" of the Catholic church. Leaving is always possible.expectationlost wrote: »so Peregrinus what do the golf club rules say does result in permanent membership of the Catholic church?0 -
Well, here’s another thing we agree on! There is no “necessity to change a record that reflects only a historical fact”.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?
In fact I’d go slightly further: you shouldn/t change a record that reflects a historical fact. Because, well, why falsify the historical record? And, should a robust and confident atheist identity depend on, or require, or favour, falsifying or concealing historical facts, even trivial ones?
And I look in vain in that article for any assertion that a baptized person is forever a member of the Catholic church.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/
Granted, it does say that a baptized person “permanently seals the person to Christ and the church”, and on a casual reading that might be assumed to mean permanent membership of the Catholic church.
But a moment’s thought will show that it doesn’t. If it did, Ian Paisley would be [claimed as] a member of the Catholic church. So would the Queen of England, and every member of the Church of England. So would the entire membership of, say, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Church of Scotland, The Episcopalian Church of the USA, Lutheran churches everywhere, etc, etc. They are all baptized. They are all, in the Catholic view, “permanently sealed to Christ and the church”. But none of them are claimed, regarded, treated or counted as members of the Catholic church.
I suggest that a key word in the article is “participate”, as in “people can stop participating in the church, but the grace of the sacrament has marked them forever”. “Membership” of the church is, somewhat surprising, not a concept that comes up a lot in canon law or in Catholic ecclesiology. The church doesn’t see itself as a club constituted by members, which - practical considerations aside - is one of the reasons there is no membership register. But “participate”, meaning to have a part or share in, is a regularly-invoked concept. So, in the Catholic view, a baptized person can have a part or share in the church, or they can have no part or share in the church, but either way they remain marked by the grace of baptism.0 -
OK. As far as I am concerned, ISAW was wrong. The figures published by the Vatican are (nearly all*) estimates, not counts, and they are estimates of Catholics, not of practicing Catholics.. . . in which ISAW claimed that the figures reported by the Vatican as to the number of Catholics in the world was an accurate measure of practising Catholics and not an estimate.
* (I think the German figures are counts, rather than estimates. They are counts conducted by the state.)
There are mass attendance counts conducted from time to time. I’m not aware that this is a co-ordinated world-wide effort; I think they are conducted ad hoc at a national or diocesan level if and when the bishops think they would yield useful information. I could be wrong about that. But they are not the basis for estimates of Catholic population, if only because they regularly lead to lamentation about the low proportion of the Catholic population that actually goes to mass. One of their purposes is in fact to find out what proportion of Catholics go to mass, an exercise which would be pretty pointless if we defined a Catholic as “someone who goes to mass”.
If you treat them as estimates of practicing Catholics, or of regularly practising Catholics, they are vastly overstated. But, with due respect to ISAW, that’s not what they purport to be.So, in summary, the point I was trying to get across is that the figures reported by each parish, diocese etc. to the Vatican to generate the 1.1 billion quoted in official documents as the number of catholics in the world must be by definition, vastly overstated.
If we treat them just as estimates of Catholics, we might think that they are not terribly precise, but I don’t see that we have any solid reason to assume they are overestimates rather than underestimates.
When I checked this before, I found that the Irish estimate accords fairly well with Catholic self-identification as disclosed in censuses, etc, conducted by the state. If we could be bothered, we could examine other countries to see whether the same holds up, or whether a pattern of either over-estimating or under-estimating vis-à-vis Catholic self-identification emerges. Unless they do that or something similar, however, anyone asserting that the numbers are either overestimates or underestimates is guilty of practicing pre-enlightnment science; pontificating without bothering to examine the available evidence.
Indeed, if by “faithful” you mean “coming to mass on Sunday”.Just to illustrate this, if the church were to be lax and just use state data then we know that this figure is well overstated. The current census figure lists a catholic population of 87%. However, mass attendance figures here and here put the actual number of faithful Catholics at about half of that.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Nothing. There is no "permanent membership" of the Catholic church. Leaving is always possible.
so Peregrinus what do the golf club rules say does result in permanent membership of the Catholic church?0 -
expectationlost wrote: »so Peregrinus what do the golf club rules say does result in permanent membership of the Catholic church?
If you’re expecting something like golf club rules, I’m afraid you're going to be disappointed. Despite what you might wish, a golf club is not a particularly useful analogy for the Catholic church.
(If, on the other hand, you’re just having a sneer, fine.)
Since it’s not actually a matter of written law, you’ll find a couple of formulations of what, in Catholic ecclesiology, it is to be a Catholic, but they mostly look something like this:
A Catholic is
(a) a baptized Christian, who
(b) is in eucharistic communion (through participation in a particular local community) with the worldwide communion whose pastor is the Bishop of Rome.
“Communion” is the key word here. It refers to a relationship and (like most relationships of any significance) the status of your relationship is not a simple binary. You can have a healthy relationship, or a problematic one, or a seriously impaired one, or none at all.
You leave the church by completely ending your relationship of communion, which you can do unilaterally, by a simple act of will. (In theory, I suppose, they could unilaterally end the relationship, too, but they rarely if ever do.) Nobody but yourself will know you’ve left the church, though, unless you tell them, or unless you manifest your leaving through some unambiguous external sign. The leading authority on whether you’ve left the church or not, unsurprisingly, is you.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »They are all baptized. They are all, in the Catholic view, “permanently sealed to Christ and the church”. But none of them are claimed, regarded, treated or counted as members of the Catholic church.
How do you know? The reported membership of the church is just a number, names aren't attached. How do you know who is and isn't being regarded as a member?Peregrinus wrote: »I suggest that a key word in the article is “participate”
I think the key word is "belonging". As in, you cannot stop belonging to the church after getting baptised: As Dades quoted from the ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA:the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.Peregrinus wrote: »The church doesn’t see itself as a club constituted by members
Really? Odd then that it makes articles about "CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND PASTORAL CO-RESPONSIBILITY". I think you are mistaking church members complete lack of say in the running of the church as them not being counted.
The problem with your "participate" semantics is that you can be a member of something even if you don't participate (eg a gym), as long as you satisfy the joining criteria.0 -
Advertisement
-
So basically leaving Catholic Church is the equivalent of breaking up with someone who then still considers you their boyfriend.
great..0
Advertisement