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

Fred Swanson · 28-03-2014 12:06AM

This post has been deleted.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 01:25AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wouldn't only taxing members of religions be an infringement of the right to religious liberty? Financially penalising anyone who chooses to declare membership of a religion it seems to me would be directly contrary to the constitutional guarantee of "the free profession and practice of religion". So wouldn't everyone have to be taxed?

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 02:47AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Sorry if i wasn't clear enough,

I mean that the state should compensate the victims for the entire amount (since the catholic church isn't providing the money)

Then the catholic tax should be used to compensate the state for the catholic church side of the compensation plus suitable interest rate applied. This ensures the state and as such all tax payers are not left out of pocket long term for the catholic church's failings.

Maybe I’m a bit thick, but I’m still not getting this. You seem to me to be proposing that we should start giving taxpayer funds to churches, so that we can subsequently stop giving those funds to churches and instead set them off against the churches’ debts to the state in respect of compensation for child abuse.

But surely all this would do is to create the illusion that the churches had met their obligations, when in reality they would have been fully met by taxpayers? How is that a good thing? It would relieve the churches from the odium of not paying, while in substance they wouldn’t have paid; taxpayers would.

Cabaal wrote: »

One way or another, regardless of where the money would go from the state the church tax would mean a mass exodus of the people that tick catholic, we'd likely end up with a census that more closely represents The Netherlands - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands when it comes to the catholic %.

On the subject of church tax on Germany, anyone I know of that lived/worked in Germany has not said they were catholic....even though the same people would state that they are catholic in Ireland. Amazing what people will do when it comes to money

And yet Germany, which has a church tax, has a much higher rate of religious identification/affiliation than the Netherlands, which does not. The comparison is not exactly compelling evidence in support of the proposition that church taxes tend to reduce rates of religious affiliation.

Gemany, in fact, is a particularly useful case for studying the effects of a church tax, because from 1949 to 1990 there was an excellent control; East Germany, with (obviously) a great deal in common with West Germany, socially and culturally, and initially with similar rates of religious adherence, but with no church tax.

And what do we find? By 1990, rates of religious adherence in West Germany, with a church tax, were markedly higher than in East Germany, with no church tax.

What’s going on here? Well, not just the church tax, obviously. While East Germany formally guaranteed religious freedom, religious affiliation was discouraged by the powers that be, and was to some extent an obstacle to social and economic advancement. So, if nothing else, we know that these kind of attitudes on the part of the political establishment are more effective at promoting irreligion than a church tax is.

But I think there’s another dimension to this. Because churches in (West) Germany were prosperous, due to the church tax, they had (and continue to have) a very high profile as providers of schools, kindergartens, hospitals, retirement homes, unemployment exchanges, training centres, and other social services. And, as I mentioned before, a lot of people who are not religious in their practice but who pay the church tax say that they do so because they value these things, and want to support them and see themselves as participants in providing them. In other words, the detriment to them of paying the church tax is outweighed by the benefit to them of participating in the social ministry of the church.

In short, far from undermining religious affiliation, the church tax may conceivably operate to support it.

Of course, that’s not true for everybody; many people disaffiliate in order to avoid the church tax. But the fact is that countries which have church taxes tend to have higher affiliation rates than similar countries which don’t have church taxes. We’ve noted East and West Germany already, but we can also compare, e.g., Norway (no church tax) and Denmark (church tax); guess which has the higher affiliation rates? All of which leads to the conclusion that, across the board, a church tax doesn’t seem to operate as a terribly effective incentive to disaffiliation, and may possibly be a net incentive to affiliation.

Fred Swanson · 28-03-2014 03:00AM

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 03:08AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you are married abroad and are still abroad, then even though Ireland may recognise the marriage should you come here, they wont count it in any type of census details unless you do. The only type of marriage they count by default are the marriages performed here.

Mark, if you’re “still abroad”, you won’t turn up in the Irish census at all, and therefore it will say nothing about your marriage, regardless of whether your marriage was celebrated in Ireland or abroad. The census only counts people in Ireland.

If, on the other hand, you are resident in Ireland on census night then you will turn up in the census, and your marriage will be recorded in exactly the same way, regardless of whether it was celebrated in Ireland or abroad.

Either way, there is no distinction at all in the census in the treatment of marriages celebrated in Ireland and thse celebrated outside Ireland. (They don’t even ask the question, so how could they distinguish?)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nothing you said here contradicts the idea that it is the same for baptism. The RCC recognises all baptisms, but only by default counts the ones performed in a catholic manner.

Depends on what you mean by “count”. The RCC doesn’t “count” non-Catholic baptisms in the sense of calculating how many have been performed by totting up entries in registers, for the obvious reason that they don’t have registers of non-Catholic baptisms.

But “count” in the sense of count as valid, recognise as fully effective? Yes, absolutely, they do count non-Catholic baptisms as baptisms. No question.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So there is no definition?

There’s no definition in the Code. Just like there’s no defintion of marriage in the Constitution.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what does it require? Becuase the examples given those threads where not just of supposed catholics who pick and choose a few rules, it was of people who want to be catholic in name only, and you argued for their right to be calledf catholic.

I don’t know that they “want to be Catholic in name only”. You assert that they do, but you don’t offer any evidence. My presumption is that their identification means something to them, otherwise they wouldn’t make it, and if you want me to accept that in fact it is entirely devoid of content you’re going to have to produce an argument, and some evidence.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How is defection defined in canon law then?

It isn’t defined in the Code.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People didn't know because it wasn't advertised, they simply assumed that you couldn't.

They “simply assumed”? They didn’t bother to enquire? Why might that be, do you think?

Could it possibly be that it never crossed their minds that a formal procedure for leaving the church might be necessary? And could it also be that, in assuming that you didn’t need to go through any formal procedure to leave the church, they were quite correct? Could it be that the fact that they never went through a formal procedure to leave the church is not a problem for them, or for the church; it’s just a problem for you?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My evidence is the lack of evidence they have of those defections. It's pretty simple really, if they have records of people who defect, then they have no records of people who defect, so how can they account for it?

The same way they account for Catholics who emigrate, despite having no records of emigrating Catholics, or Catholics who die, despite having no records of dying Catholics; by estimations informed by other data. It’s not rocket science, Mark.

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 03:14AM

Absolam wrote: »

Wouldn't only taxing members of religions be an infringement of the right to religious liberty? Financially penalising anyone who chooses to declare membership of a religion it seems to me would be directly contrary to the constitutional guarantee of "the free profession and practice of religion". So wouldn't everyone have to be taxed?

As matters stand, a church tax would be constitutionally prohibited in Ireland. For our little thought-experiment we have to assume that the necessary constitutional amendments are made.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 03:56AM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That first part seems doubtful; the tax would only exclude atheists from the States' register of religious adherents. No doubt those people who don't want to be associated with religion will be quite happy to declare the fact, but from the (various) churches philosophical perspectives it wouldn't at all change the undeniable fact that those souls are consecrated to god come hell or high water. Where the particular religion has that kind of view, obviously.

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 04:07AM

Absolam wrote: »

That first part seems doubtful; the tax would only exclude atheists from the States' register of religious adherents. No doubt those people who don't want to be associated with religion will be quite happy to declare the fact, but from the (various) churches philosophical perspectives it wouldn't at all change the undeniable fact that those souls are consecrated to god come hell or high water. Where the particular religion has that kind of view, obviously.

That is, though, how it works in Germany. If you want to stop paying the church tax, you fill out a form and lodge it with the tax office. The form basically says "I am not a Catholic" (or whatever religion you have been registered as). The tax office notifies the authorities of the church concerned. (Plus, they stop collecting the church tax from you.)

How the church concerned responds is up to them, but in the Catholic church the practice has been to treat this declaration as evidence of defection from communion. Hence, although still baptised, you are no longer regarded as a Catholic. SFAIK the Lutherans take a similar view, and between them the Catholics and the Lutherans account for the huge bulk of Christians in Germany.

(I'm not sure how Jewish authorities respond to such a form. I suspect the issue doesn't arise very often.)

Absolam · 28-03-2014 04:10AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

As matters stand, a church tax would be constitutionally prohibited in Ireland. For our little thought-experiment we have to assume that the necessary constitutional amendments are made.

Only 11 pages in, can I call Godwin already? We're going to remove constitutional freedom guarantees in order to directly penalise individuals of a faith and root out how many of them really are amongst us? Do we get special uniforms?

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 04:40AM

Absolam wrote: »

Only 11 pages in, can I call Godwin already? We're going to remove constitutional freedom guarantees in order to directly penalise individuals of a faith and root out how many of them really are amongst us? Do we get special uniforms?

I'm a purist when it comes to Godwin, myself; you can't call Godwin until Hitler has been invoked. But Hitler wasn't a fan of the church tax; he proposed abolishing it. The church tax is, if anything, characteristic of democracies which are generally considered quite progressive; not just Germany but Denmark, Iceland, Finland, etc.

But, yes, it's obviously ironic to have the denizens of A&A call for a church tax, even if the call is only half in earnest. The regulars on this board are usually quite strong in their support for separation of church and state, and vocal about the importance of that principle. But, clearly, anyone who advocates the adoption of a state policy with the object of reducing rates of religious adherence is not someone who accepts the separation of church and state.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 04:57AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

That is, though, how it works in Germany. If you want to stop paying the church tax, you fill out a form and lodge it with the tax office. The form basically says "I am not a Catholic" (or whatever religion you have been registered as). The tax office notifies the authorities of the church concerned. (Plus, they stop collecting the church tax from you.)

How the church concerned responds is up to them, but in the Catholic church the practice has been to treat this declaration as evidence of defection from communion. Hence, although still baptised, you are no longer regarded as a Catholic.

I get that, but the sticking point in my mind is that;

From a secular point of view regardless of whether you don't pay church tax in Germany, or sit in a pub protesting atheism on a Sunday in Ireland, you're not a catholic because you say so, or you are a Catholic because you say so.

From a religious (Roman Catholic Christian) point of view, once you're baptised, your soul is consecrated to God. Regardless of whether you are currently in communion with the Church, or whether you non communion is voluntary or enforced, regardless of how imperiled your soul is, your state of apostasy, heresy, or defection, 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 (shamelessly lifted:Actus Formalis Defectionis Ab Ecclesia Catholica ).
In short, once the water hits your hit, there's no getting out. You may not be allowed to use the facilities in Germany, but you are, in fact (fact being a somewhat esoterical concept here), a part of the Church. They just acknowledge that you think you're not. As to whether identifying someone as being a Catholic is the same as identifying someone as being a member of the Church, that may be a whole other discussion? Given that the Church sort of includes all Christian variations by virtue of identifying itself as catholic in the first place....

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 05:27AM

Absolam wrote: »

I get that, but the sticking point in my mind is that;

From a secular point of view regardless of whether you don't pay church tax in Germany, or sit in a pub protesting atheism on a Sunday in Ireland, you're not a catholic because you say so, or you are a Catholic because you say so.

From a religious (Roman Catholic Christian) point of view, once you're baptised, your soul is consecrated to God. Regardless of whether you are currently in communion with the Church, or whether you non communion is voluntary or enforced, regardless of how imperiled your soul is, your state of apostasy, heresy, or defection, 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.

Sure. And most other mainstream Christian denominations have exactly the same understanding of the effects of baptism.

But that doesn’t mean that all baptised Christians are Catholics, any more than it means that all baptised Christians are Anglican, or Lutherans, or Calvinists, or Orthodox. No Christian tradition claims this; the closest any of them come to this would be the Catholics and the Orthodox, both of whom take the view, essentially, not that all Christians are Catholic/Orthodox, but that they ought to be.

In other words, baptism does initiate an indissoluble relationship with God. But that relationship does not involve membership of any particular church or christian community; for that you need something further, which is a relationship of communion with that church or community. Baptism might involve a call to such a relationship of communion, but the call to the relationship is not in itself the relationship. And the relationship of communion, when formed, is not indissoluble.

There is, of course, a sense of “church” which means “all people, living or dead, who have been baptised”, and in that sense being baptised makes you a member of the “church”, in the same way that losing your virginity makes you a member of the class of people who have some degree of sexual experience, or dying makes you a member of the class of dead people. These changes are, indeed, irreversible.

But when the Catholic church claims that it has 4.6 million members in Ireland, or 1.2 billion members worldwide, it’s clearly not employing that sense of the term “church”. (Not least because, if it were, the numbers would be much higher.) It’s claiming that those are the numbers of baptised Christians in the communion of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, or throughout the world, as the case may be.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 07:49AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But when the Catholic church claims that it has 4.6 million members in Ireland, or 1.2 billion members worldwide, it’s clearly not employing that sense of the term “church”. (Not least because, if it were, the numbers would be much higher.) It’s claiming that those are the numbers of baptised Christians in the communion of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, or throughout the world, as the case may be.

This, I'm not so convinced of... philosophically, how can the Church claim anyone who is baptised (regardless of in which sub-faith) is not part of the Church? In its' own actual sense of the word 'Church'. I'd be interested in seeing the statistical methodology used for the Pontifical Yearbook, and probably more interested in the justification for the methodology. Not interested enough to pay $70, but still...

Kiwi in IE · 28-03-2014 10:45AM

Absolam wrote: »

Wouldn't only taxing members of religions be an infringement of the right to religious liberty?

Isn't the fact the State only provides schools in many areas that are religious an infringement on our right to religious liberty? And no, in answer to the question, it would not be if the revenue is used directly to fund their church. In fact, as it would be calculated on percentage of income, it would be a lot fairer than past methods used by the church itself, when priests used to read out envelope contributions to the entire congregation.

In regard to comments in your further posts, of course seperation of church and state is the ideal, but it is not the reality we live in. I would love to see a complete seperation of church and state and in such a scenario a church tax would be unthinkable. However while there is no other realistic option but a religious school for my child, and I cannot get an abortion should I need one, even in the case of fatal fetal abnormality or rape, and I am told it is all because 'Ireland is a Catholic country', I would like it to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case. Church tax would be one way of proving it and I don't see how it would be unfair. I assume church tax is in lieu of the begging plates, envelopes and 'sacrament' fees that the church currently uses to fund itself? It would surely make not a jot of difference to the 84% devout Catholics in Ireland who are currently contributing to the above on at least a weekly basis, if it were exchanged for a church tax?

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 12:04PM

Absolam wrote: »

This, I'm not so convinced of... philosophically, how can the Church claim anyone who is baptised (regardless of in which sub-faith) is not part of the Church? In its' own actual sense of the word 'Church'. I'd be interested in seeing the statistical methodology used for the Pontifical Yearbook, and probably more interested in the justification for the methodology. Not interested enough to pay $70, but still...

Couple of points:

1. Strictly speaking, the figures the RCC publishes aren't for "members of the Church"; they're for "Catholics". As already noted, "church" has more than one sense, including in Catholic usage. There's a theological context sense in which all baptised people are said to "belong to Christ and his church", but all baptised people are not, on that account, labelled as "Catholics". So when the church says that there are so many "Catholics" in such-and-such a diocese, (a) they are not counting all baptised people as "Catholics", but (b) they are not denying the validity of their baptism by not including them in the category "Catholics".

2. We know they're not counting them all as Catholics, because if they were the figures they claim would be much, much higher. But, also, a few moments' reflection on the purpose for which the statistics are compiled should lead us to expect that they wouldn't be counting all baptised people as Catholics.

3. Why do they compile the statistics at all? Because they need them for managment/planning purposes. Are there enough Catholics here to justify setting up a new diocese? Has the number of Catholics there declined to a point where we need to suppress or merge a diocese? What proportion of Catholics are attending mass? Do we need to pland for more schools? Fewer schools? Have our missionary efforts in Umbrellastan yielded results? For all these purposes the number you're interested in is the number of Christians whose relationship with the church is, in fact, expressed in communion with the Roman Catholic church - the church under the primacy of the bishop of Rome. So that's what you'd expect them to be counting and, right enough, that's what they are counting.

4. The claim that they count all baptised people in an effort to embiggen the Catholic church in the eyes of the world doesn't really make a lot of sense; it's a bit like claiming that large corporations are declaring inflated profits for tax purposes in an effort to impress investors with their profitability. Such a claim reflects the preoccupations of those advancing it more than the preoccupations of the RCC.

5. As for the methodology, SFAIK that's not consistent. The global figure is simply the sum of the figures returned by each diocese. Each diocese is left to decide for itself how best to estimate the number of Catholics it has. In Germany, I believe, the dioceses simply return the number of Catholics registered by the state for the church tax, but of course that option isn't available in most other places. Other dioceses may use census returns as a data point in their estimate, but not all national censuses collect data on religious affiliation. Indeed, not all countries have regular or reliable censuses. I think the bottom line is that each diocese makes the best use of whatever statistical resources are available to it. which means that some dioceses estimates are a bit rubbery, and the overall figure is correspondingly rubbery.

6. Note that "rubbery" doesn't mean "useless". For planning purposes, a rubbery estimate is better than no estimate, and even if the raw figures have to be treated with caution, changes in the raw figures over time can still be very meaningful.

7. This may be less than satisfactory, but I don't see that it can be otherwise. If you imposed a consistent method on all dioceses then it would have to be one which made use only of data points that were available in every diocese, and there are damn few of those. Hence the overall figure compiled on this basis would be less reliable, not more reliable.

8. As I've pointed out before, the last time I checked the church estimate for Catholics in Ireland correlated pretty well with the census figures for RoI and NI, so either (a) this is a happy coincidence, or (b) whatever method is being used in Ireland is, at any rate, reasonably robust. But that was before the 2011 census returns came out; I haven't repeated the comparison on the 2011 census figures and corresponding church estimates; I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested student.

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 01:38PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Isn't the fact the State only provides schools in many areas that are religious an infringement on our right to religious liberty?

Yes, it is.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In regard to comments in your further posts, of course separation of church and state is the ideal, but it is not the reality we live in. I would love to see a complete seperation of church and state and in such a scenario a church tax would be unthinkable. However while there is no other realistic option but a religious school for my child, and I cannot get an abortion should I need one, even in the case of fatal fetal abnormality or rape, and I am told it is all because 'Ireland is a Catholic country', I would like it to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case.

Couple of thoughts:

1. I have never actually seen that justification advanced in support of school patronage decisions, abortion legislation, etc . Can you point me to some examples where it is advanced, other than by fringe/marginal groups?

2. If it is advanced, isn’t the correct response to point out that it’s not a sound justification? Even if Ireland were genuinely 98% Catholic, that wouldn’t justify ignoring the religious liberty of the 2%. It seems to me that you’re given a hostage to fortune here. If you introduce a church tax and, contrary to your expectations, a majority pays it, have you rather shot yourself in the foot by not making your stand where you should have made it?

(Or are you saying that if a majority validates their beliefs by paying the tax, they are actually justified in imposing their beliefs, through the state, on all? I presume not.)

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Church tax would be one way of proving it and I don't see how it would be unfair. I assume church tax is in lieu of the begging plates, envelopes and 'sacrament' fees that the church currently uses to fund itself? It would surely make not a jot of difference to the 84% devout Catholics in Ireland who are currently contributing to the above on at least a weekly basis, if it were exchanged for a church tax?

Hm. If Catholic preferences are to be discounted for public policy purposes except when expressed by people who are happy to pay an additional tax to a Catholic organisation, shouldn’t other preferences be similarly discounted expect when expressed by people who are willing to pay a corresponding amount in tax to a body expressing their beliefs? If the test of the validity of people’s preferences is to be their willingness to pay a tax in support of them, shouldn’t that test be applied to all? Otherwise it seems to me you are privileging the views of the non-religious over the views of the religious, which is hard to reconcile with a commitment to religious liberty.

robindch · 28-03-2014 02:14PM

Cabaal wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

But that would be terribly unfair as people would then have to pay the church tax to guarantee that their kids would get a place in the local church-controlled school!

One way or another it would force change to happen

That, my dear Cabaal, is exactly the point

Absolam · 28-03-2014 02:23PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of points:
1. etc

So in short.. the numbers reported in the Pontifical Yearbook are not intended as a measure of the number of individuals 'belonging' to the religion, but as an administrative assessment of the number of individuals currently engaging with the religion?

Peregrinus · 28-03-2014 02:30PM

Absolam wrote: »

So in short.. the numbers reported in the Pontifical Yearbook are not intended as a measure of the number of individuals 'belonging' to the religion, but as an administrative assessment of the number of individuals currently engaging with the religion?

Not quite. It's the number of Christians who are Catholic, in the sense that their primary eucharistic community is the RCC. They're not necessarily currently actively involved; their link with the RCC may be pretty tenuous, but it's nevertheless there. So if you never darken the door of the church from one year to the next, but call yourself a Catholic, would like to be married and/or buried from your parish church and expect to present your children for baptism in the Catholic church, you're a Catholic. Not a very good Catholic, perhaps, but a Catholic.

On the other hand, if you were baptised, made your first eucharist and were confirmed in the Catholic church, and served many years as a parish councillor and eucharistic Minister, but have since become the author of that well-known book, Why There Is Absolutely Definitely No God And Therefore I Get To Lie In On Sunday Mornings, And The Whole Thing Is A Crock of Sh*t, you're not a Catholic.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 02:39PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Isn't the fact the State only provides schools in many areas that are religious an infringement on our right to religious liberty?

Unlike Peregrinus, I don't think so. For a start the State isn't providing religious schools; religious schools are being supported by the State. If the State were providing the schools from scratch, they wouldn't be religious schools at all. The fact that the State doesn't do this, even allowing for the historical situation, is certainly a disgrace, but hardly an infringement on religious liberty. Regardless, the State guarantees the religious freedom of students, so that they may attend a school run be a religious organisation not their own, and cannot be forced to participate in the religious agenda of such a school. I'm not sure where the guarantee falls short.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

And no, in answer to the question, it would not be if the revenue is used directly to fund their church. In fact, as it would be calculated on percentage of income, it would be a lot fairer than past methods used by the church itself, when priests used to read out envelope contributions to the entire congregation.

How does it not infringe their freedom? They're being forced to give up their money when non-religious people are not. It doesn't make a difference where it goes; if they wanted to give money to their religion they're capable of doing it themselves, but when someone is less able to put food on the table for their children as a result of expressing their religion, you can hardly say their religious liberty is unimpaired. It's practically forcing people to hide their religion.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In regard to comments in your further posts, of course seperation of church and state is the ideal, but it is not the reality we live in. I would love to see a complete seperation of church and state and in such a scenario a church tax would be unthinkable. However while there is no other realistic option but a religious school for my child, and I cannot get an abortion should I need one, even in the case of fatal fetal abnormality or rape, and I am told it is all because 'Ireland is a Catholic country', I would like it to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case. Church tax would be one way of proving it and I don't see how it would be unfair. I assume church tax is in lieu of the begging plates, envelopes and 'sacrament' fees that the church currently uses to fund itself? It would surely make not a jot of difference to the 84% devout Catholics in Ireland who are currently contributing to the above on at least a weekly basis, if it were exchanged for a church tax?

In this I concur with Peregrinus; the State does not advance the argument "Ireland is a Catholic Country' for these or any other topic. No one is going to prove Ireland is a Catholic Country, not least because it quite obviously isn't.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 02:49PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, if you were baptised, made your first eucharist and were confirmed in the Catholic church, and served many years as a parish councillor and eucharistic Minister, but have since become the author of that well-known book, Why There Is Absolutely Definitely No God And Therefore I Get To Lie In On Sunday Mornings, And The Whole Thing Is A Crock of Sh*t, you're not a Catholic.

But if you were there last week for your daughters wedding (because, despite your love of lie-ins, she wanted the whole big day out), do you reckon you'd still be counted as a Catholic in the Yearbook? Probably not in Germany (unless you paid the tax so you could book the church), but I suspect more likely in Ireland...

Mark Hamill · 28-03-2014 08:49PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by “count”.

I am clearly using "count" as in "add up the number".

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s no definition in the Code. Just like there’s no defintion of marriage in the Constitution.

But there are legal definitions of the requirements of marriage in easy to find places. So where is the definition of defection?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t know that they “want to be Catholic in name only”. You assert that they do, but you don’t offer any evidence. My presumption is that their identification means something to them, otherwise they wouldn’t make it, and if you want me to accept that in fact it is entirely devoid of content you’re going to have to produce an argument, and some evidence.

With all due respect Peregrinus, bull****. You were given example after example of people who constantly ignore any and all of tenets of catholicism (many incredulous at the notion of many of the rules). These are people that want to put their kids through first communion and confirmation, yet rebelled at the idea of having to go to mass a few times beforehand.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They “simply assumed”? They didn’t bother to enquire? Why might that be, do you think?

Could it possibly be that it never crossed their minds that a formal procedure for leaving the church might be necessary? And could it also be that, in assuming that you didn’t need to go through any formal procedure to leave the church, they were quite correct? Could it be that the fact that they never went through a formal procedure to leave the church is not a problem for them, or for the church; it’s just a problem for you?

Or could it be that formal procedures for leaving the church were never brought up in any religion class in the country? Could it be that the RCC don't like advertising them and when they were advertised (by countmeout), they decided to remove them altogether?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The same way they account for Catholics who emigrate, despite having no records of emigrating Catholics, or Catholics who die, despite having no records of dying Catholics; by estimations informed by other data. It’s not rocket science, Mark.

What other data? If they have no formal records of defection then exactly what records do they have that shows that someone defected?

alaimacerc · 28-03-2014 11:45PM

Absolam wrote: »

How does it not infringe their freedom? They're being forced to give up their money when non-religious people are not. It doesn't make a difference where it goes; if they wanted to give money to their religion they're capable of doing it themselves, but when someone is less able to put food on the table for their children as a result of expressing their religion, you can hardly say their religious liberty is unimpaired. It's practically forcing people to hide their religion.

Aside from the comedy-libertarian "stealing the very bread out of the chiselers' mouths!" histrionics, it's interesting that what's evidently seen elsewhere as an economically progressive to fund religious bodies is here construed as "forcing" people to tell porkies in order to avoid doing so.

I suspect there's an Eleanor Tiernan sketch in this.

alaimacerc · 29-03-2014 12:26AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The church tax is, if anything, characteristic of democracies which are generally considered quite progressive; not just Germany but Denmark, Iceland, Finland, etc.

But, yes, it's obviously ironic to have the denizens of A&A call for a church tax, even if the call is only half in earnest. The regulars on this board are usually quite strong in their support for separation of church and state, and vocal about the importance of that principle. But, clearly, anyone who advocates the adoption of a state policy with the object of reducing rates of religious adherence is not someone who accepts the separation of church and state.

What if it were with the objective of reducing rates of denominational-professing hypocrisy, say?

Sure, it doesn't comply with the strictest possible definition of separation of church and state to have a country's tax apparatus involved in the administration of a religious tithe. A tithe of said religion's own devising, let's not forget, and that it was more than delighted with when it was able to enforce it with impunity, and without an optout. But as compared to the status quo in this jurisdiction, and some of the fanciful guff one hears about what said separation ought to entail... (Gilmore said A Bad Thing about the church! Make that unhappen! Waaaah!) Well, let's just say that the concept neuron that primarily fires is the "who the heck cares?" one.

As to the countries that implement it at present, I know for certain that at least one of them has a state religion. (I might google the others if only I actually cared.) "Progressive" doesn't automatically imply "secular". Nor does "atheist": I won't say it's a pity there's a lack of states mandating irreligion these days, but it would at least help people whining about "aggressive secularists" to bear a little history in mind.

Kiwi in IE · 29-03-2014 01:10AM

Absolam wrote: »

Unlike Peregrinus, I don't think so. For a start the State isn't providing religious schools; religious schools are being supported by the State. If the State were providing the schools from scratch, they wouldn't be religious schools at all. The fact that the State doesn't do this, even allowing for the historical situation, is certainly a disgrace, but hardly an infringement on religious liberty. Regardless, the State guarantees the religious freedom of students, so that they may attend a school run be a religious organisation not their own, and cannot be forced to participate in the religious agenda of such a school. I'm not sure where the guarantee falls short.

I was told that my son can be removed from 'specific' religious activities (church services etc) but otherwise religious in(doctrination)struction 'permeates the day'. I bought another junior infants phonics book and Maths book, different from the ones the school uses for him to work on while the rest of the class are doing the 'Alive O' book, and he does not attend church services, but he by no means avoids it completely. He asked me the other day why we have to 'pray to the virgin Mary'. So don't tell me that the school system is not an infringement on the religious liberty of anyone who is not Catholic. With the system the way it is (which it appears we are stuck with, 'historical reasons' being the most popular excuse), if the Irish government were in any way interested in respecting people's religious freedom, there would be a policy within the education department requiring that all religious activities (prayers, songs, indoctrination, stories, church services) happen at either the beginning or end of a day, at a specific, predetermined time, to accommodate non Catholics to be able to fully remove their children conveniently.

Absolam wrote: »

How does it not infringe their freedom? They're being forced to give up their money when nonThe schools are funded by the government. We already pay education tax. The government would need to threaten to withdraw all funding from schools refusing to accept non religious families.-religious people are not. It doesn't make a difference where it goes; if they wanted to give money to their religion they're capable of doing it themselves, but when someone is less able to put food on the table for their children as a result of expressing their religion, you can hardly say their religious liberty is unimpaired. It's practically forcing people to hide their religion.

Your concern for hypothetical infringements on religious freedoms is endearing. Interesting that you appear to have no concern and even refuse to even acknowledge, actual infringements on same!

Absolam wrote: »

In this I concur with Peregrinus; the State does not advance the argument "Ireland is a Catholic Country' for these or any other topic. No one is going to prove Ireland is a Catholic Country, not least because it quite obviously isn't.

So what is it then? Secular? Name one other secular country where 92% of schools are controlled by one religious organisation and abortion is illegal.

Absolam · 29-03-2014 01:34AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Aside from the comedy-libertarian "stealing the very bread out of the chiselers' mouths!" histrionics, it's interesting that what's evidently seen elsewhere as an economically progressive to fund religious bodies is here construed as "forcing" people to tell porkies in order to avoid doing so. I suspect there's an Eleanor Tiernan sketch in this.

I'm not sure than any country 'evidently' or otherwise sees funding religious bodies as progressive (except perhaps some Middle East states), nor should they. Germany can hardly be held up as a progressive example; "Forcing citizens to pay religious tithes for the last hundred years" is hardly a great 21st Century mantra.

Hotblack Desiato · 29-03-2014 01:55AM

Absolam wrote: »

For a start the State isn't providing religious schools; religious schools are being supported by the State. If the State were providing the schools from scratch, they wouldn't be religious schools at all.

Yet the state established and funds VEC schools under religious co-patronage. They're certainly not secular. (and if this isn't unconstitutional endowment of religion, I don't know what is.)

Absolam · 29-03-2014 02:03AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I was told that my son can be removed from 'specific' religious activities (church services etc) but otherwise religious in(doctrination)struction 'permeates the day'.

So, you say he's specifically not being forced to participate in the schools religious agenda, as I said.
Since you're conflating the terms, how do you differentiate between instruction and indoctrination (I'm guessing the school may not have told you that religious indoctrination permeates the day)? How (in your opinion) does that differ from the schools' version of the two terms? Can you give an example of where the two versions conflicted? I'm not picking holes in what you say; I'm genuinely interested in whether either side is being overly zealous, or there's a more basic issue in the schools conduct.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I bought another junior infants phonics book and Maths book, different from the ones the school uses for him to work on while the rest of the class are doing the 'Alive O' book, and he does not attend church services, but he by no means avoids it completely. He asked me the other day why we have to 'pray to the virgin Mary'. So don't tell me that the school system is not an infringement on the religious liberty of anyone who is not Catholic.

What he is does in a Catholic school is somewhat different from 'the school system', and in fairness you can't expect a student in a catholic school to avoid all mention of religion completely. Freedom of religion hardly stretches to freedom from knowledge of religion. But I'm curious; he hasn't been forced to pray to the Virgin Mary, has he? That would definitely be an infringement of religious liberty, but if he's simply curious, having seen others doing it, I would say that's an education; he'd certainly be poorly taught if he didn't learn other people belonged to religions.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

With the system the way it is (which it appears we are stuck with, 'historical reasons' being the most popular excuse), if the Irish government were in any way interested in respecting people's religious freedom, there would be a policy within the education department requiring that all religious activities (prayers, songs, indoctrination, stories, church services) happen at either the beginning or end of a day, at a specific, predetermined time, to accommodate non Catholics to be able to fully remove their children conveniently.

I really don't see how 'convenience' comes into religious freedom. As long as your guarantee of religious freedom is enacted, the constitution doesn't say anything about making it convenient. The system is the way it is because the churches were prepared to put up the cash to open those schools and educate children; if the state were prepared to do the same, we'd have a different system. The State could do it too; we'd just have to pay a lot more taxes.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Your concern for hypothetical infringements on religious freedoms is endearing. Interesting that you appear to have no concern and even refuse to even acknowledge, actual infringements on same!

I know, I've always thought of myself as a cuddly advocate for sensibleness and low horses. But I am very concerned by actual infringements of liberties in Ireland, much more so than hypothetical ones. I just worry they'll disappear in the noise of people whinging about entitlements they think they should have, but don't.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what is it then? Secular? Name one other secular country where 92% of schools are controlled by one religious organisation and abortion is illegal.

Wow! So because you don't like the number of Catholic schools, and most abortion is proscribed, you've decided Ireland is a Catholic country? Don't the rest of us get a say?

Kiwi in IE · 29-03-2014 02:55AM

Absolam wrote: »

So, you say he's specifically not being forced to participate in the schools religious agenda, as I said.
Since you're conflating the terms, how do you differentiate between instruction and indoctrination (I'm guessing the school may not have told you that religious indoctrination permeates the day)? How (in your opinion) does that differ from the schools' version of the two terms? Can you give an example of where the two versions conflicted? I'm not picking holes in what you say; I'm genuinely interested in whether either side is being overly zealous, or there's a more basic issue in the schools conduct.

How am I 'conflating terms'? The school has said that religion 'permeates the day'. So how do you suggest I avoid him receiving inappropriate instruction? Sit in the class and cover his ears when they start with religious bollocks during a lesson or subject that is not a 'specific' religious activity that I am aware of and can withdraw from?

The difference between religious indoctrination and religious instruction? I don't think there is a difference so I will imagine you are referring to the difference between religious indoctrination and religious education (although I am not sure).

Education: Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god.

Indoctrination: Jesus is the son of god.

Absolam wrote: »

What he is does in a Catholic school is somewhat different from 'the school system', and in fairness you can't expect a student in a catholic school to avoid all mention of religion completely. Freedom of religion hardly stretches to freedom from knowledge of religion. But I'm curious; he hasn't been forced to pray to the Virgin Mary, has he? That would definitely be an infringement of religious liberty, but if he's simply curious, having seen others doing it, I would say that's an education; he'd certainly be poorly taught if he didn't learn other people belonged to religions.

Education you say? He did not ask me "Why do people pray to the virgin Mary?". He asked me "Why do we have to pray to the virgin Mary?". Do you see the difference? See example of education v's indoctrination above.

Absolam wrote: »

I really don't see how 'convenience' comes into religious freedom. As long as your guarantee of religious freedom is enacted, the constitution doesn't say anything about making it convenient. The system is the way it is because the churches were prepared to put up the cash to open those schools and educate children; if the state were prepared to do the same, we'd have a different system. The State could do it too; we'd just have to pay a lot more taxes.

Oh OK. So the State guarantees religious freedom, but you must sit in class all day in 97% of state schools, go for frequent short walks with your child and act as a censor in order to have religious freedom because religion 'permeates the day'? I'm not sure if simply not being physically forced to participate qualifies as genuine religious freedom.

Absolam wrote: »

I know, I've always thought of myself as a cuddly advocate for sensibleness and low horses. But I am very concerned by actual infringements of liberties in Ireland, much more so than hypothetical ones. I just worry they'll disappear in the noise of people whinging about entitlements they think they should have, but don't.

Really? Who thinks they should have entitlements? And what entitlements do they think they should have? They wouldn't have the audacity to expect to have human rights or constitutional religious freedom properly protected would they?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So what is it then? Secular? Name one other secular country where 92% of schools are controlled by one religious organisation and abortion is illegal.

Absolam wrote: »

Wow! So because you don't like the number of Catholic schools, and most abortion is proscribed, you've decided Ireland is a Catholic country? Don't the rest of us get a say?

There are none then?

alaimacerc · 29-03-2014 03:09AM

Absolam wrote: »

I really don't see how 'convenience' comes into religious freedom.

Your attitude to "convenience" seems curiously at odds with your attitude about "cost". Or would this be less about any distinction between those, and more an outrage at hypothetical costs and inconveniences to a group you identify with, and an utter lack of empathy with the real costs and inconveniences incurred by those strange weirdos that aren't as comfortable with the status quo?

Wow! So because you don't like the number of Catholic schools, and most abortion is proscribed, you've decided Ireland is a Catholic country? Don't the rest of us get a say?

A say as to what? You mean that by analogy with people's "right" to do no Catholic, think no Catholic but still somehow "be" a Catholic, if public policy is rampantly Catholic, but claims otherwise, it would be rude not to take it at its word?

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

Comments