How to "un-baptize"/ Withdraw affiliation with RCC?

kylith

Wereghost wrote: »

A Catholic Annulment, in relation to marriage, is a statement that the marriage contract was invalidly entered into and that the marriage never happened. I fail to see how the baptism of an infant could represent a decision of a spiritual or devotional nature on behalf of the infant, who has no idea what the pouring of water on the head represents and no real choice in the matter anyway.

Heck, people at confirmation age are probably too young to be baptised.

Good point. If they can make it so you were never married in the eyes of their god then they can make it so that you were never baptised in the eyes of their god.

Peregrinus

vibe666 wrote: »

If removing yourself from the baptismal register and/or renouncing your Catholic faith officially ISN'T A big deal, then why did the church specifically go out of their way to stop people doing it?

They didn't.

You could never remove yourself from the baptismal register, any more than you can remove yourself from the register of births, once you've been borne, or the register of marraiges, once you've been married. You could always renounce your faith and you still can. (How do you imagine they could stop you, FFS?)

The only change they made was to drop a requirement that you should employ a particular process to renounce your faith, failing which they would not recognise the renunciation for certain purposes. They used tp require you to jump through a particular set of hoops; they now no longer do.

Peregrinus

Zed Bank wrote: »

Semantics. I must say though, that's the most pointless argument I've ever heard.

And yet here you are engaging in it!

Peregrinus

gizmo555 wrote: »

I don't know. All the points you raise are, I'm sure, at least arguable. All I'm saying is that if the OP is sufficiently exercised about the matter, using his rights to make a complaint under the Data Protection Act is a cost-free way of getting a legally binding adjudication on it. However, as I've already noted, if he does he may not get the decision he'd like.

Yes, I agree. The key to successful (from his point of view) outcome is showing that his personal data is kept for an improper purpose, or alternatively it is being processed in a way inconsistent with the purpose for which it is kept. But based on the echoing silence I get whenever I ask for evidence of the various claims that get bandied around here, my starting assumption is that, absent special facts, it won't be easy for him to who that his personal data, in particular, is being kept or processed improperly.

Peregrinus

Wereghost wrote: »

A Catholic Annulment, in relation to marriage, is a statement that the marriage contract was invalidly entered into and that the marriage never happened. I fail to see how the baptism of an infant could represent a decision of a spiritual or devotional nature on behalf of the infant, who has no idea what the pouring of water on the head represents and no real choice in the matter anyway.

Marriages are founded on personal commitment and, if that commitment is lacking then, despite the ceremony having been held, there is no real marriage. That's basically the theory which underlies marriage annulment in the Catholic church.

But you can't assume that, because Catholics understand marriage to be founded on a personal commitment, they also understand baptism to be founded on a personal commitment and, in fact, they don't. (Or, at any rate, not the commitment of the infant being baptised.) Consequently, the lack of the infant's informed consent is not fatal to a valid baptism in the way that it would be to a valid marriage.

Surprised? Don't be. Reflect for a moment on the fact that we have no hesitation in assigning citizenship and nationality to infants without asking them what they want or doubting whether we should do so until they can understand concepts like allegiance. Baptism is admission to a particular community, in which (if we are not already grown when baptised) we will grow. It's a universal human experience that we grow up in communities; we don't grow up isolated and then decide which communities to join.

FWIW, there are Christians who consider that baptism does require a mature personal commitment, that infant baptism is meaningless and that only adults (or, at least, older teenagers) can be baptised. They're called Anabaptists. Catholics, however, are not Anabaptists, and objecting that Catholics don't believe the things Anabaptists believe makes about as much sense as objecting that Atheists don't believe the things Catholics believe.

topcatcbr

Zed Bank wrote: »

The belief that there is no "God"

I don't understand how someone can believe in "no god".

What's red round and invisible.

No tomato.

Kind of similar.

MetalDog

Well a few months ago, I wrote to the diocese in which I was baptised:
"To whom it may concern,

I no longer want to be a member of the Catholic church. I am notifying you that I have absolutely renounced my Catholicism and all belief in God and associated stories.

I understand that my certificate of baptism is a historical document and cannot be destroyed. However, I would like to know what I can do to officially leave the church. I understand my baptism certificate can be amanded to show I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church.

I would very much appreciate a response detailing the options that are open to me, including excommunication if a more rational mode of withdrawal is unavailable.
My name:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

Their response:
"Dear Dog

There is no formal process for leaving the Catholic Church. If a person renounces their Catholicism they simply stop attending religious services and making financial contributions to the work of the church.

The only complication that may arise is the issue of family events and funeral arrangements. In light of your decision, it would not be appropriate for you to act as a Godfather at a christening or be directly involved in any religious service, e.g., reading at a family Mass or acting as a sponsor for a Confirmation ceremony. Therefore it would be wise for you to inform your family and close friends of your religious status so that any arrangements would be respectful of your decision.

In filling out the national census simply fill out the section on religion according to your own situation.

If you wish any further clarification, please do not hesitate in contacting me.


Yours faithfully [diocesan secretary]"

My reply:
"Dear [Diocesan secretary],

Thank you for your response.

My family are aware of my situation although it may be prudent of me to have it in writing should the need arise.

I would just like to know if the Diocesan oficials could annotate my baptism certificate to indicate that I no longer wish to be considered a member of the Catholic Church, seeing as there no longer seems to be a formal defection procedure.

Thank you"


. . . aaand I haven't heard back. Any advice on where to go from here, short of kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse?

Oh and Peregrinus I won't even bother replying to you.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a universal human experience that we grow up in communities; we don't grow up isolated and then decide which communities to join.

Once we grow up we can usually change communities. You can apply for citizenship in other countries, get divorced and remarry etc. Why should baptism be any different?

Peregrinus

MetalDog wrote: »

. . . aaand I haven't heard back. Any advice on where to go from here, short of kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse?

Gizmo555's suggestion of a Data Protection Act process is your best bet. I don't think it is likely to have the outcome you hope for, but it will at least give you the satisfaction of obliging them to justify their practice.

MetalDog wrote: »

Oh and Peregrinus I won't even bother replying to you.

I shall try to bear that misfortune stoically!

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Once we grow up we can usually change communities. You can apply for citizenship in other countries, get divorced and remarry etc. Why should baptism be any different?

It's not any different. You can leave the Catholic church, join other churches, etc.

Ads you say, you can apply for (and obtain) citizenship in other countries, but it doesn't result in your Irish birth certificate been deleted, amended or annotated. Siimlarly, if you get divorced,your marriage certificate is not altered. Why, in your own words, should baptism be any different?

magicbastarder

i was inducted into the catholic church without my consent when i was a couple of months old. the records reflect this, probably.
however, since i have not paid my membership dues in a looong time, i don't consider myself a member, and to the best of my knowledge, the only information the state has on my preferences is that i do not consider myself a member.

the baptismal roll is a record that you were baptised into the catholic church. it is not a statement of belief any time past that.

if you ask me, the confirmation records would be more significant, as that is the point at which you actually reaffirmed your 'membership', consent issues to one side.

Molester Stallone

I was inducted into the RC church against my expressed verbal wishes. Do I have any recourse I wonder?

gizmo555

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ads you say, you can apply for (and obtain) citizenship in other countries, but it doesn't result in your Irish birth certificate been deleted, amended or annotated. Siimlarly, if you get divorced,your marriage certificate is not altered. Why, in your own words, should baptism be any different?

Sorry to harp on the data protection angle, but the registrars of births, marriages and deaths have a statutory obligation to maintain these records.
That is sufficient justification under the data protection acts for them to process our personal data.

The church, on the other hand, hasn't as far as I'm aware any statutory duty (as opposed to a duty in canon law) to maintain a register of baptisms. That's why baptism is different. It would come down to identifying the purposes for which the data was originally collected and seeing whether any or all of them still apply, given that the person baptised has renounced membership of the church.

As mentioned above, you are entitled to request a written statement (which must be furnished within 21 days) of the purposes for which your personal data are being processed by any organisation.

If anyone wanted to pursue this kind of route, I think that would be the first step.

robindch

Wereghost wrote: »

Pope Francis should do the decent thing and annul all non-consensual baptisms, past and present.

He'd be singing to a very small church if he did.

Peregrinus

gizmo555 wrote: »

Sorry to harp on the data protection angle, but the registrars of births, marriages and deaths have a statutory obligation to maintain these records.
That is sufficient justification under the data protection acts for them to process our personal data.

The church, on the other hand, hasn't as far as I'm aware any statutory duty (as opposed to a duty in canon law) to maintain a register of baptisms. That's why baptism is different. It would come down to identifying the purposes for which the data was originally collected and seeing whether any or all of them still apply, given that the person baptised has renounced membership of the church.

Oh, sure, I agree with all this. My point in mentioning that comparison with the registration of births and the registration of marriages is just to make the point that there is nothing unreasonable about keeping a register of baptisms on the same basis - i.e. you record the details of the event itself, but not of later, different events. The church isn't legally obliged to keep registers this way, as the Registrar-General is, but it's a perfectly reasonable way to keep a register, as is shown by the fact that it's the way the state has chosen to keep its registers.

As for the significance of renouncing membership, I come back to the golf club analogy. If you leave a golf club, I can't see the registrar ordering the golf club to delete any record of the fact that you ever joined, of the fact that you had a handicap of whatever it was, of the fact that you won the ladies' foursome in 2008, etc. What is their purpose in keeping this data, now that you have foresworn golf forever? I thiink the true answer is that it's part of the club's story, and they attach importance to their story and they want to remember and record it.

The (alleged) difference between the church and a golf club is that the church is (allegedly) using the baptismal record to claim someone as a current member. That, if true, would certainly open up the possibility that the Data Protection Commissioner would order the church either to stop doing that or to delete the data. And I think if the applicant hopes for the latter outcome, he needs to present some evidence that the church is doing this. He might hope to get that evidence by asking the purposes for which the church keeps the data and getting the reply "we keep it so that we can claim them all as current members!" but, to be honest, that's a pretty forlorn hope.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not any different. You can leave the Catholic church, join other churches, etc.

Ads you say, you can apply for (and obtain) citizenship in other countries, but it doesn't result in your Irish birth certificate been deleted, amended or annotated. Siimlarly, if you get divorced,your marriage certificate is not altered. Why, in your own words, should baptism be any different?

If you change citizenship or get divorced then while those original documents may remain, new ones are created to reflect your most current status and the new documents become the first point of reference when someone checks your current citizenship or marriage status. Now if you change religion to another, then maybe a new document is created to show that you changed and this what is first seen when people inquire about your religion. But if you change to no religion then no such document is created, the first point of reference is still the baptism register, even though it is an unreliable indicator of current religion. Why should baptism be any different? Why is there a way into the catholic community, but no way out?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you change citizenship or get divorced then while those original documents may remain, new ones are created to reflect your most current status and the new documents become the first point of reference when someone checks your current citizenship or marriage status. Now if you change religion to another, then maybe a new document is created to show that you changed and this what is first seen when people inquire about your religion. But if you change to no religion then no such document is created, the first point of reference is still the baptism register, even though it is an unreliable indicator of current religion. Why should baptism be any different? Why is there a way into the catholic community, but no way out?

There is a way out of the Catholic community. The point is that the Catholic community does not document departures, any more than the Irish government documents that, say, you have obtained Brazilian citizenship, or the Irish authorities document that you have obtained a divorce in the UK.

You can document your religious identity in any way you like. What you can't insist is that somebody else should document it for you. If your religious identity depends on your having a connection with a particular community, they may well be agreeable to documenting that such a connections exists. But if your religious identity depends on your not having a connection with a particular community, there is no particular reason why they should document it. You might wish that they would, but I can't see that you have any right to demand it. In any event, the leading authority on the question of whether you are in the communion of the Catholic church is not the bishop of the diocese in which you happen to live, or to have lived at one time; it is you. The most authoritative evidence, written or oral, about whether you are a Catholic or not comes from you. Why should you demand that the bishop should create written evidence of something that you yourself are in a better position to create written evidence for?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a way out of the Catholic community. The point is that the Catholic community does not document departures, any more than the Irish government documents that, say, you have obtained Brazilian citizenship, or the Irish authorities document that you have obtained a divorce in the UK.

You can officially renounce Irish citizenship by lodging a declaration with the Minister for Justice and a divorce in the UK will be recognised and documented by Irish authorities (possibly only if you bring it their attention, but they will document it once it satisfies a few criteria).

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if your religious identity depends on your not having a connection with a particular community, there is no particular reason why they should document it. You might wish that they would, but I can't see that you have any right to demand it.

Do you really think that? Any community can claim anyone as a member and that person has no right to make them correct that?

lazygal

What if you were baptised after death by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Would you want your family to challenge that Peregrenius?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you really think that? Any community can claim anyone as a member and that person has no right to make them correct that?

That's pretty much exactly what I haven't said. I have already said that if the Catholic church is claiming somebody as a member there may well be a remedy for that under the Data Protection Act.

All I'm saying here is that if the Catholic church has baptised someone, they can reasonably keep a record of the fact, and if that someone leaves the Catholic church, or considers they were never a member, the mere fact that they would prefer never to have been baptised does not seem to give them a right to have the record of their baptism either altered or deleted.

People keep saying in this thread and in previous threads that the Catholic church claims everyone it has baptised as a current member. I have asked again and again for evidence that this is the case. Nothing. Nada. Not a single example.

What I'm saying at this point is that if anyone wishes to bring a case to the Data Protection Commissioner seeking to have his baptismal record deleted or annotated to stop the Catholic church claiming him as a member, he's going to need evidence that the Catholic church is claiming him as a member, and is relying on the baptismal certificate to do so. If anybody has such evidence, I would love to hear about it. If nobody has such evidence, then those who claim to value evidence-based belief will be sceptical of claims that the Catholic church regards anyone it has ever baptised as a current member.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

What if you were baptised after death by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Would you want your family to challenge that Peregrenius?

Wouldn't bother me in the least, and I certainly wouldn't want my family to wast their time "challenging" it. What could that possibly acheive?

magicbastarder

Molester Stallone wrote: »

I was inducted into the RC church against my expressed verbal wishes.

you mean you cried when they poured the water over your head?

Molester Stallone

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean you cried when they poured the water over your head?

I was 8,

gizmo555

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for the significance of renouncing membership, I come back to the golf club analogy. If you leave a golf club, I can't see the registrar ordering the golf club to delete any record of the fact that you ever joined, of the fact that you had a handicap of whatever it was, of the fact that you won the ladies' foursome in 2008, etc. What is their purpose in keeping this data, now that you have foresworn golf forever? I thiink the true answer is that it's part of the club's story, and they attach importance to their story and they want to remember and record it.

The golf club may want to, but is it (or the church) entitled to keep your data in the face of your strenuously expressed objections and in the absence of any statutory duty to do so?

I think also the question of whether or not the church uses baptismal records to claim people who've left the church as members is a red herring. What it comes down to is what the original purposes for which the recording of the data were, and whether any of them justify keeping the data now over the objections of the persons concerned. (Especially given they were infants at the time of their baptism and couldn't have objected then.)

Peregrinus

gizmo555 wrote: »

The golf club may want to, but is it (or the church) entitled to keep your data in the face of your strenuously expressed objections and in the absence of any statutory duty to do so?

Why not? There's no general rule in the Act that anyone needs your consent or assent to keep personal data on you. There are various requirements surrounding the keeping of personal data of which you are the subject, but your consent is not one of them.

gizmo555 wrote: »

I think also the question of whether or not the church uses baptismal records to claim people who've left the church as members is a red herring. What it comes down to is what the original purposes for which the recording of the data were, and whether any of them justify keeping the data now over the objections of the persons concerned. (Especially given they were infants at the time of their baptism and couldn't have objected then.)

It's not a complete red herring, I think. There is a requirement in the Act that date be processed (and simply keeping data is "processing" it) "fairly", and you could certainly argue that it was kept in order to claim you as a member when, in truth, you are not a member that would be "unfair" processing.

But, I agree, "they want to claim me as a member" is not the only objection that is possible under the Act. I mention it mainly because its the objection most often articulated on this board. As you have suggested, the data subject could certainly seek to establish the purpose for which the data was obtained, and then - if that purpose related to the data subject's continuing membership of the church - argue that it's no longer necessary to keep it for that purpose, since he is not now a member.

The problem is, though, it's not difficult to think of perfectliy legitimate* reasons why the church would want to keep the data which do not depend on the data subject being a continuing member. (Just as it's not difficult to think of legitimate reasons why the golf club might want to.) You might hope that if you request a statement of purpose from the parish priest in the parish in which you were baptised you'll get an extraordinarily inept reply which will then found an application to the DP Commissioner to have the data deleted on the ground that the purpose has been exhausted, but it's a bit like hoping that if you sue somebody for damages he will forget to plead the perfectly valid defence that he has. It's possible, but the smart money wouldn't be on it.

* [I mean "legitimate" in the sense that it's used in the DP Act.]

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Robert McGrath

Approximately 8 seconds ago I started a new religion.

This religion is called Robertology and shares all of its doctrines and dogma with the Roman Catholic Church with one small difference. The Church of Robertology publicly believes that the abuse of children is ok, and believes that the Catholic Church should never have apologised for this.

Oh, and I have decided that every person who has posted in this thread is member of the Church of Robertology and can never leave, whether they believe in it or not. I have also decided that the friends and family of every poster on this thread, and everyone he/she has ever met is now a Robertologist, whether they have heard of the religion or not, and they can never leave either.

You should probably include me in that Data Protection complaint

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm sceptical, for two reasons. First, I personally know at least one baptised Catholic who has been received as a Jew. He was not asked to produce any documentary evidence from the Catholic church that he had ceased to be a member. Secondly, my own knowledge of Judaism suggests that while a rabbi would be very concerned about the sincerity of the individual convert's desire to be come a Jew, he wouldn't care at all about the attitude of the convert's former religious denomination, if any.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

gizmo555

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why not? There's no general rule in the Act that anyone needs your consent or assent to keep personal data on you. There are various requirements surrounding the keeping of personal data of which you are the subject, but your consent is not one of them . . .

The problem is, though, it's not difficult to think of perfectliy legitimate* reasons why the church would want to keep the data which do not depend on the data subject being a continuing member . . .

* [I mean "legitimate" in the sense that it's used in the DP Act.]

There's a set of conditions of which at least one must be met for "normal" data to be considered to processed lawfully and you're right that consent isn't always necessary. In the absence of consent, though, it seems to me the only one which might apply to baptismal records is the "legitimate interest" of the church.

But the interests of the church are required to be balanced against the freedoms, rights and interests of the data subject and I would personally consider it to be far from certain the church's interests would be found to outweigh those of the data subject.

More importantly, there's a 2nd set of conditions which apply to "sensitive" personal data. Information about religious adherence or opinion is among the categories of information deemed "sensitive". At least one of these conditions must also be met for the processing of sensitive data to be lawful. I struggle to see how any of them might apply to the retention of baptismal records in the face of objections from the data subject.