Born Inheritances.

Hotblack Desiato

It's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants and not allow them any process to formally leave it and then claim them back after death, even if they despised it in life.

Actually it's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants or children, full stop.


Mod Note: This is a spin off thread from a thread about funeral rites. Original thread is here.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants and not allow them any process to formally leave it and then claim them back after death, even if they despised it in life.

Actually it's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants or children, full stop.

Still, that's the way the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act is written. What can you do?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Still, that's the way the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act is written. What can you do?

What are you referring to? The 1956 Act does not contain the words religion, or christian, or catholic, or church...

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What are you referring to? The 1956 Act does not contain the words religion, or christian, or catholic, or church...

Neither does your post to which I am replying.

The 1956 Act confers Irish citizenship on infants, and provides (in most circumstances) no process whereby they can later renounce it.

I'm making the point that religious identity is not the only identity that we inherit, rather than freely choose.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

It confers Irish citizenship on infants, and provides (in most circumstances) no process whereby they can later renounce it.

I'm making the point that religious identity is not the only identity that we inherit, rather than freely choose.

Pointless post is pointless,

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Pointless post is pointless,

In terms of the thread topic, I think no more pointless than Hotblack's post to which it was a reply. Whether the OP gets a church funeral or not does not depend on whether, as an infant, he was baptised but on whether, as a corpse, he is the subject of a request for a church funeral from his next-of-kin.

Cantremember

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither does your post to which I am replying.

The 1956 Act confers Irish citizenship on infants, and provides (in most circumstances) no process whereby they can later renounce it.

I'm making the point that religious identity is not the only identity that we inherit, rather than freely choose.

You're not. You're trying to be clever in a typically condescending clerical way pilgrim. Cult was the word used.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

In terms of the thread topic, I think no more pointless than Hotblack's post to which it was a reply. Whether the OP gets a church funeral or not does not depend on whether, as an infant, he was baptised but on whether, as a corpse, he is the subject of a request for a church funeral from his next-of-kin.

Pointless? Yes, it was not making a point but asking for clarification of your (incorrect, irrelevant, and obtuse) one. But thanks I'm sure for being grating just for the sake of trying to look clever.

https://www.dfa.ie/passports-citizenship/citizenship/how-do-i-renounce-my-citizenship/

You're welcome.

Peregrinus

Touched a nerve there, apparently.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Touched a nerve there, apparently.

Seems I might have, yeah. Sorry.

Cantremember

Peregrinus wrote: »

Touched a nerve there, apparently.

Cult was the word. Reminder.

Stella Virgo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants and not allow them any process to formally leave it and then claim them back after death, even if they despised it in life.

Actually it's immoral to induct people into a cult as infants or children, full stop.

try telling that to jehovah witness scum...

Turtwig

Fwiw, I thought Pere's argument about citizenship was quite good. Cults can be many things and in many ways people can draw parallels to Irish identity and being a member of a cult. The Irish are expected to behave in certain ways after all, play GAA, drink alcohol, be Catholic, to mention just a few stereotypes. We didn't get to not choose to be Irish and the expectations that places on us.

Anyhu,

Peregrinus wrote: »

Touched a nerve there, apparently.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Seems I might have, yeah. Sorry.

Cantremember wrote: »

Cult was the word. Reminder.

Stella Virgo wrote: »

[/B]
try telling that to jehovah witness scum...

Mod:

Less of this please folks, especially that last one.

It should be possible to have a disagreement without getting snipey. Unless, of course you're professional snipers.

Peregrinus

Stella Virgo wrote: »

[/B]
try telling that to jehovah witness scum...

(Actually, the JW's don't practice or recognise infant baptism.)

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

Fwiw, I thought Pere's argument about citizenship was quite good. Cults can be many things and in many ways people can draw parallels to Irish identity and being a member of a cult. The Irish are expected to behave in certain ways after all, play GAA, drink alcohol, be Catholic, to mention just a few stereotypes. We didn't get to not choose to be Irish and the expectations that places on us.

Whether someone describes a particular identity as a "cult" or not probably tells us more about the person doing the describing than it does about the identity. If I felt there was any value in the exercise, it wouldn't be difficult to characterise at least some versions of Irishness as a cult. But I don't think there's any value in it.

The real point is, though, that we are social animals - very social animals, in fact - and most of our identities, secular and religious alike, are largely embodied in our relationships. And of course nobody grows up with no relationships. Identity is a cultural inheritance which we may later modify or reject, but we never start as autonomous adults with a blank slate. Catholicism is not unique in this regard; it is in fact typical. Yes, there's no formal process for abandoning a Catholic identity but, hey, there's no formal process for abandoning an atheist, sceptical, rationalist or socialist identity either. Having to go through a formal process to acheive something is normally seen as a barrier to acheiving that thing, so I am unimpressed by those who complain about the fact that no formal process is required to abandon Catholicism.

Cantremember

Turtwig wrote: »

Fwiw, I thought Pere's argument about citizenship was quite good. Cults can be many things and in many ways people can draw parallels to Irish identity and being a member of a cult. The Irish are expected to behave in certain ways after all, play GAA, drink alcohol, be Catholic, to mention just a few stereotypes. We didn't get to not choose to be Irish and the expectations that places on us.

Anyhu,








Mod:

Less of this please folks, especially that last one.

It should be possible to have a disagreement without getting snipey. Unless, of course you're professional snipers.

It's worrying when people can't see through such a facile conflation. A cult is not a state. Being a member of a cult is not equivalent to being a citizen. The oldest trick in the book of theology is to establish some equivalence and smuggle in the whole kit and kaboodle of fairy tale guff.. " you're a citizen so really there's no difference to being in a cult that believes a supernatural being required his own son to be killed as an atonement offering to himself so that he wouldn't be cross with humanity with its sins against him from the very first sin." And how do we know all this? Because some Middle eastern gentlemen 3000 to 2000 years ago told us and we must be guided them. If you want to know about citizenship you will find in laws passed: you can read them and you can campaign to amend of repeal them. Try that with Pilgrim and the various gods of the cults.

Peregrinus

As I say, those who describe a particular movement as a “cult” usually reveal more about themselves by doing so than they do about the movement.

There’s an obvious contradiction in claiming, in the one breath, that Catholicism is a “cult” and that it confers membership on everyone who has ever been baptised, regardless of their current beliefs, practices or attitudes to Catholicism. A cult is a relatively small group of people who submit themselves to excessive control by an authoritarian leader and, usually, who isolate themselves from wider society. A movement which claims to include millions of people who have had nothing to do with it for many years may be many bad things, but it’s not a cult.

Any suggestion that religious identity is fundamentally different from national identity because religion is inherently a “cult” must be greeted with derision. Religion, nationality, ethnicity and the like are all largely or entirely cultural constructs. Their respective identities have a great deal in common, and frequently overlap. I’m hardly the first to notice this, or to point it out. Yes, national citizenship is enshrined in laws, but if you ask people to back up the claim that Catholicism claims everyone who has ever been baptised, you’ll find them citing church laws, decrees, etc. Is that terribly different?

As I say, I think I’ve touched a nerve here. There has been strong reaction to my suggestion that the assignment of cultural identities to children and the absence of formal procedures for renouncing them as adults are both pretty standard, but nobody has actually attempted a coherent argument. Instead we just get people throwing around terms like “cult” that, as suggested above, don’t do much to support the claim, and denouncing me and my comments as pointless, condescending, grating, clever - all in all, a lot more heat than light.

Hence the feeling that I’ve touched a nerve. I’m not quite sure why people are so sensitive about this particular A&A dogma being questioned (the regulars on this board aspire to welcome scepticism, after all) but perhaps if the discussion continues the reason will emerge.

But, I must concede, the whole question is off topic to the thread, which is about how the OP can persuade his family not to arrange a religious funeral for him when he dies. So if the mods would prefer that the discussion not continue at this point, as a devout member of the Boardie cult I will manifest a faithful submission of intellect and will to their sacred decree.

Cantremember

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I say, those who describe a particular movement as a “cult” usually reveal more about themselves by doing so than they do about the movement.

There’s an obvious contradiction in claiming, in the one breath, that Catholicism is a “cult” and that it confers membership on everyone who has ever been baptised, regardless of their current beliefs, practices or attitudes to Catholicism. A cult is a relatively small group of people who submit themselves to excessive control by an authoritarian leader and, usually, who isolate themselves from wider society. A movement which claims to include millions of people who have had nothing to do with it for many years may be many bad things, but it’s not a cult.

Any suggestion that religious identity is fundamentally different from national identity because religion is inherently a “cult” must be greeted with derision. Religion, nationality, ethnicity and the like are all largely or entirely cultural constructs. Their respective identities have a great deal in common, and frequently overlap. I’m hardly the first to notice this, or to point it out. Yes, national citizenship is enshrined in laws, but if you ask people to back up the claim that Catholicism claims everyone who has ever been baptised, you’ll find them citing church laws, decrees, etc. Is that terribly different?

As I say, I think I’ve touched a nerve here. There has been strong reaction to my suggestion that the assignment of cultural identities to children and the absence of formal procedures for renouncing them as adults are both pretty standard, but nobody has actually attempted a coherent argument. Instead we just get people throwing around terms like “cult” that, as suggested above, don’t do much to support the claim, and denouncing me and my comments as pointless, condescending, grating, clever - all in all, a lot more heat than light.

Hence the feeling that I’ve touched a nerve. I’m not quite sure why people are so sensitive about this particular A&A dogma being questioned (the regulars on this board aspire to welcome scepticism, after all) but perhaps if the discussion continues the reason will emerge.

But, I must concede, the whole question is off topic to the thread, which is about how the OP can persuade his family not to arrange a religious funeral for him when he dies. So if the mods would prefer that the discussion not continue at this point, as a devout member of the Boardie cult I will manifest a faithful submission of intellect and will to their sacred decree.

Typical balderdash.
Spurious self serving definitions and long winded nonsense to cover a few basic facts: a citizen is not a member of a cult. Oxford Englsh dictionary: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular object,
I note your definition is not present. Hardly surprising.

Your usual tactic of long winded contributions which say very little but serve the purpose of obscuring a topic is noted. The attempt to drag in ridiculous religious terminology into boards is likewise typical: dogma there isn't, rules there may well be.

The difference again Pilgrim is that citizenship is a matter of law whereas your religion is one of revelation: a dude told someone that "god" told him such and such. Is that simple enough?

Turtwig

Cantremember wrote: »

A cult is not a state. Being a member of a cult is not equivalent to being a citizen. .

Where did anyone say it was? You mistook an analogy for an equivocation. If someone was talking about volcanoes and another person used a geyser to illustrate a point he wanted to make about volcanoes, after all they both erupt, would you suddenly assume a geyser spouts lava? That's effectively what you did here.

He used a mode of comparison to show how inheriting citizenship has many similarities to inheriting religious identity. That doesn't mean they're both one and the same.

Cantremember

Turtwig wrote: »

Where did anyone say it was? You mistook an analogy for an equivocation. If someone was talking about volcanoes and another person used a geyser to illustrate a point he wanted to make about volcanoes, after all they both erupt, would you suddenly assume a geyser spouts lava? That's effectively what you did here.

He used a mode of comparison to show how inheriting citizenship has many similarities to inheriting religious identity. That doesn't mean they're both one and the same.

I mistook nothing. Analogy is an equivocation. Geddit? Specially useful to religious types who really don't want to talk about their beliefs that God the father impregnated a virgin with God the son through the action of God the spirit so that God the son could be offered as a sacrifice to God the father as an atonement for the sins of humanity particularly the sin of Adam called original sin and when God the son ...etc etc. citizenship is defined by laws open to rational scrutiny. Revelation isn't. Geddit?

Peregrinus

Cantremember wrote: »

Typical balderdash.
Spurious self serving definitions and long winded nonsense to cover a few basic facts: a citizen is not a member of a cult. Oxford Englsh dictionary: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular object,
I note your definition is not present. Hardly surprising.

My definition is present in the OED; it’s definition 2.b. Yours is definition 2.a (and is noted as being used “chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts”). Since definition 2.b. is pejorative and definition 2.a is not, and since Hotblack wasn’t talking about history, archaelogy or anthropology, I think definition 2.b is likely to be the one intended by Hotblack.

Cantremember wrote: »

Your usual tactic of long winded contributions which say very little but serve the purpose of obscuring a topic is noted. The attempt to drag in ridiculous religious terminology into boards is likewise typical: dogma there isn't, rules there may well be.

The difference again Pilgrim is that citizenship is a matter of law whereas your religion is one of revelation: a dude told someone that "god" told him such and such. Is that simple enough?

As I say, plenty of vituperation here, but not much coherent argument. What you say here is indeed “simple”, but I’m afraid not in a good way. You fail to make any connection whatsoever between your expostulations and the subject under discussion, which is how cultural identities are formed and in particular how children’s cultural identities are formed. And your refusal or inability either to drop the discussion or to address the topic tends to reinforce my feeling that, yes, I’ve touched a nerve.

Peregrinus

Turtwig wrote: »

He used a mode of comparison to show how inheriting citizenship has many similarities to inheriting religious identity. That doesn't mean they're both one and the same.

This. My challenge is to Hotblack's position that constructing religious identity in infants is immoral. My point is that we routinely assign (a) citizenship, and (b) a wide variety of culturally-constructed identities to children - including atheism, secularism, etc, and this isn't generally viewed as immoral, or denounced by Hotblack or other boardies. I'm expecting somebody to make the case that constructing religious identity is immoral, but other identities, not so. All I'm getting so far is that assigning citizenship is not immoral because law. That's not much of a case, since it's trivial that laws can have immoral effects or outcomes. Plus, as a case, it's only defence of the assignment of citizenship. Even if we assume without proof or argument that the assignment of citizenship is morally justified , where does that leave other identities? And how does it prove that the construction of religious identity, or any identity, is immoral?

I'm sure there's a serious discussion to be had about this. So far, all I'm getting is abuse for having the temerity to raise the issue.

CramCycle

The assigning of citizenship to children was for their protection. Not to do so would leave the states ability to protect the child in a legally precarious position.

If the child has parents, they can act to notify the state that the child is not in fact Irish and they are a, b, or c. When the child is older, they too can act in this way should another citizenship be open to them. Being Irish does nothing as a multicultural society other than entitle the child to the protection of the state where or if required.

That said, what any of this has to do with a person's wishes for the treatment of their remains is beyond me.

Absolam

CramCycle wrote: »

The assigning of citizenship to children was for their protection. Not to do so would leave the states ability to protect the child in a legally precarious position.

Funnily enough, religion has an analogous position; inducting infants into the religion via baptism etc to protect them from eternal damnation / purgatory.
Both are done with a childs best interests in mind, just slightly different (though not mutually exclusive) points of view.

CramCycle

Absolam wrote: »

Funnily enough, religion has an analogous position; inducting infants into the religion via baptism etc to protect them from eternal damnation / purgatory.
Both are done with a childs best interests in mind, just slightly different (though not mutually exclusive) points of view.

Oddly enough any catholic baptism I have been to in the last few years was claimed by the parents to be due to parental pressure, the day out or because it was the done thing. Baptism in a truly catholic sense requires no day out, no register just water and someone who can recite a few lines. It's a splash of water, I must start a business to undercut my local churches business if this is all people want. A christening on the other hand is the act of indoctrination in which as far as the church is concerned, there is no way out unlike citizenship.

Anyway, what have the last few posts to do with the OP and can anyone tell me of it happening that someone's wishes for their treatment post mortem has differed from their requested treatment in this country?

Peregrinus

CramCycle wrote: »

The assigning of citizenship to children was for their protection. Not to do so would leave the states ability to protect the child in a legally precarious position.

Well, I think you could quibble with this. Historically, is citizenship something assigned for our benefit, or for the king’s benefit? Does citizenship confer rights, or impose obligations?
The real answer, of course, is both. Citizenship is a relationship between the individual and the state/the community; it’s a two-way thing. And, whether we intend it for the child’s benefit or not, you can question how we are morally justified in engaging a child in a relationship which it cannot understand, never mind consent to.

CramCycle wrote: »

If the child has parents, they can act to notify the state that the child is not in fact Irish and they are a, b, or c.

So? That’s just assigning citizenship B rather than citizenship A to the child. Why would that be any more defensible?

CramCycle wrote: »

When the child is older, they too can act in this way should another citizenship be open to them. Being Irish does nothing as a multicultural society other than entitle the child to the protection of the state where or if required.

Well, Irish citizenship isn’t definitive of all forms of citizenship, and yet we assign them all in infancy. In Ireland, “loyalty to the state and fidelity to the nation” are fundamental duties of all citizens; this is the basis for a treason charge which, admittedly, most of us will probably never face, but non-citizens will definitely never face. But other forms of citizenship can be more onerous. A US citizen who lives outside the US and is required by US law to pay US tax on his worldwide income, and who is required by US law to register for the draft, might not accept that his citizenship does nothing but entitle him to protection. As an Australian citizen, I get fined if I don’t turn up to vote in elections; I am obliged to vote even if I am unable to form a preference as between the candidates, or face criminal penalties. In many countries citizens are required to perform military or other service, sometimes for periods of years. Etc, etc. And in many cases people are not free to avoid these obligations by renouncing their citizenship. It’s undeniable that citizenship can be a great deal more onerous than being regarded as a member by a church in which you have no interest.

CramCycle wrote: »

That said, what any of this has to do with a person's wishes for the treatment of their remains is beyond me.

Oh, I concede that it’s completely off-topic for the thread.

Peregrinus

CramCycle wrote: »

. . . A christening on the other hand is the act of indoctrination in which as far as the church is concerned, there is no way out unlike citizenship.

Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.

Whereas there are many countries whose citizenship cannot be renounced at all, or whose citizenship can only be renounced by people who meet particular conditions which many or most citizens cannot meet. (Ireland is in the latter group.) Irish citizenship, and indeed most citizenships, are in truth much "stickier" than Catholic church membership.

Cantremember

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.

Whereas there are many countries whose citizenship cannot be renounced at all, or whose citizenship can only be renounced by people who meet particular conditions which many or most citizens cannot meet. (Ireland is in the latter group.) Irish citizenship, and indeed most citizenships, are in truth much "stickier" than Catholic church membership.

Indeed, indeed. I note the ambiguity of "as far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being catholic". Excommunication, of course. But as anyone who has followed the thread knows the point was that having had membership of a cult imposed by parents shortly after or at birth, that the RCC had blocked a means for the individual to formally renounce that membership in recent years. Personally I regard it as silly that any group would try to keep people as members if they choose to stop believing in the group beliefs of (insert god the father impregnating etc., original sin etc etc). But the point is again the arrogance of the claim: like it or not pilgrim, the arrogance of any group making such a claim is what rankles with people. Really, pouring water over a child's head and reading out a formula that the child is now cleansed from original sin is beyond belief. Well, for most people.

Cantremember

Peregrinus wrote: »

My definition is present in the OED; it’s definition 2.b. Yours is definition 2.a (and is noted as being used “chiefly in historical, archaeological, or anthropological contexts”). Since definition 2.b. is pejorative and definition 2.a is not, and since Hotblack wasn’t talking about history, archaelogy or anthropology, I think definition 2.b is likely to be the one intended by Hotblack.

As I say, plenty of vituperation here, but not much coherent argument. What you say here is indeed “simple”, but I’m afraid not in a good way. You fail to make any connection whatsoever between your expostulations and the subject under discussion, which is how cultural identities are formed and in particular how children’s cultural identities are formed. And your refusal or inability either to drop the discussion or to address the topic tends to reinforce my feeling that, yes, I’ve touched a nerve.

As usual, you refuse to face the point. The second definition in my OED is "a person or thing that is fashionable". What you attempted to do, and continue to do, is the usual theological method of looking to broaden out an issue and hope to move the discussion to a different area. Being baptised into a cult is fundamentally and essentially different from citizenship and your attempt to claim that the similarities are what are important is a refusal to face the essential religiously claimed realities of baptism: it is a cleansing of original sin incurred by adam and made possible by the atoning death of god the son who was born of a virgin etc etc. You are, by my guess, a trained theologian and probably with a smattering of canon law. The point that has to be faced about baptism, Pilgrim (you will understand that the Latin is just a gloss that we can dispense with now) is that it is a supernaturalist rite. Citizenship isn't. And I have made that point to you repeatedly. You can write books about the similarities between cats and dogs, between mars and earth, between baptism and joining the golf club but they are beside the point. They're interesting to a certain cast of mind and give an opportunity to show a type of cleverness but they don't get to the nub of baptism. You are after all, pilgrim, someone who believes.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.

Not to the point where their corpse is refused a catholic funeral, which is really all that we want.

I never expected the 'c' word to give rise to all this, but there is a very easy remedy - all the RCC has to do is reinstate Count Me Out and guarantee to respect the expressed wishes of those who go through the process of defection.

Refusing to do so is entirely unreasonable and is very cult-like.

Whereas there are many countries whose citizenship cannot be renounced at all, or whose citizenship can only be renounced by people who meet particular conditions which many or most citizens cannot meet. (Ireland is in the latter group.) Irish citizenship, and indeed most citizenships, are in truth much "stickier" than Catholic church membership.

Any citizen who truly wishes to renounce his or her Irish citizenship can very easily do so. The conditions attached are to prevent people becoming stateless. Being stateless is a bad thing to the extent that the UN exhorts its member states to prevent it as far as possible.

You know what, maybe it's that the RCC regards being 'churchless' as something terrible - they seem quite willing to prevent members of other religions receiving catholic rites. As usual though the only position with regard to belief which gets no respect whatsoever is non-belief.

Peregrinus

Cantremember wrote: »

Indeed, indeed. I note the ambiguity of "as far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being catholic".

How is that ambiguous? Seriously? Can it have more than one meaning?

Cantremember wrote: »

Excommunication, of course.

Actually no. Excommunication does not mean you are no longer a Catholic. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed on Catholics, but they remain Catholics - just Catholics who are for the time being subject to the penalty of excommunication. The penalty has a variety of effects in canon law, but exclusion from the church is not one of them.

Cantremember wrote: »

But as anyone who has followed the thread knows the point was that having had membership of a cult imposed by parents shortly after or at birth, that the RCC had blocked a means for the individual to formally renounce that membership in recent years.

No, no, no. It works like this:

- In general, there is no process, formula, ceremony or the like you have to go through to leave the Catholic church. This is a bit of a disappointment to people who feel the need for bell, book and candle to mark their departure, but there you are; they must bear it as best they can. They cannot reasonably impose their psychological needs on others.

- For a time, there was a process you had to go through if you wanted your departure to be recognised for certain purposes to do with Catholic marriage rules - the idea was to have clarity in the application of the marriage rules. (For all other purposes, there was no requirement to go through this or any other process in order for your departure to be recognised.) This gratified those who felt the need for bell, book, candle, etc; they thought of this as “the route” by which you could leave the church. But, in fact, it never was.

- Most people who leave, leave because they have lost interest, and they are not motivated to go through any processes, and didn’t in fact go through them. The (perhaps foreseeable) result was that the great bulk of people who opted out were treated for certain purposes of Catholic marriage law as still being Catholics. Recognising that this was producing unrealistic results - the operation of the marriage rules was clear, but it bore less and less relationship to the facts on the ground - they dropped the requirement to go through a process to have your leaving recognised.

- This freaked out the bell, book and candle crowd, who believed - and in some cases apparently still believe - that if no formal process was required to leave, then they couldn’t leave. In the real world, most people recognise that requiring people to go through a formal process to achieve something is an impediment, and dropping that requirement is liberalisation.

Cantremember wrote: »

Personally I regard it as silly that any group would try to keep people as members if they choose to stop believing in the group beliefs of (insert god the father impregnating etc., original sin etc etc). But the point is again the arrogance of the claim: like it or not pilgrim, the arrogance of any group making such a claim is what rankles with people.

If only somebody would make such a claim, and then your outrage would have a real-world target!

Cantremember wrote: »

Really, pouring water over a child's head and reading out a formula that the child is now cleansed from original sin is beyond belief. Well, for most people.

And the good news is, they don’t have to believe it.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not to the point where their corpse is refused a catholic funeral, which is really all that we want.

You don’t have to have been a Catholic, or have ever been a Catholic, to have a Catholic funeral. This notion that “leaving the church” is necessary or effective to avoid the possibility of a Catholic funeral, is completely wrong.

The OP in the funeral thread actually has this right; he asks what he can do to stop his family from giving him a religious funeral. That puts the agency in this matter where it belongs. The OP will not have a Catholic funeral unless his family ask for it; if they do ask for it, he may have a Catholic funeral regardless of whether he himself is, or ever was, a Catholic. Trying to shoehorn this into a “brutal oppressive Catholic church” meme seems to me to deny the agency and autonomy of the individual and of his family. Shouldn’t secularists and freethinkers be trying to embrace this, not avoid it? Isn't it an essential aspect of leaving a church that you stop assigning responsibility to them for decisions affecting yourself?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I never expected the 'c' word to give rise to all this, but there is a very easy remedy - all the RCC has to do is reinstate Count Me Out and guarantee to respect the expressed wishes of those who go through the process of defection.

Refusing to do so is entirely unreasonable and is very cult-like.

See my post to Cantremember above. The count-me-out process was dropped because very few leavers wanted or were prepared to go through it, and treating those who hadn’t gone through it as still being Catholics for certain purposes was unrealistic. It had precisely the outcome you complain about, in fact, and that was entirely foreseeable. You should welcome its demise.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Any citizen who truly wishes to renounce his or her Irish citizenship can very easily do so. The conditions attached are to prevent people becoming stateless. Being stateless is a bad thing to the extent that the UN exhorts its member states to prevent it as far as possible.

Actually, what you say here is not true. One of the conditions for renouncing Irish citizenship is that you have to be ordinarily resident outside the state, which means that there are millions of Irish citizens who cannot renounce, no matter how many other nationalities they qualify for. Furthermore you have to declare that your reason for renouncing is that you are acquiring another nationality; if you are actually motivated by any other consideration you have to lie about it, or your renunciation will be ineffective.

But even if what you said was true, the analogy would be being allowed to renounce your church membership provided you joined another church, which I hardly think you would consider acceptable.

Being stateless may be something that the UN urges its member states to prevent but, actually, that could be motivated as much by a concern for the interests of states as for the interests of individuals. If you wish to renounce your citizenship because you object in principle to the concept of allegiance to a particular state, you consider patriotism to be divisive and harmful, etc, etc, you’re cactus, both as far as Irish law and the attitude of the UN go. But that’s the closest analogy I can think of to renouncing church membership because you reject religious belief.

But could I point out - again - that I introduced citizenship as merely an example illustrating a much more general truth? All of our culturally-constructed identities are inherited. We acquire our religious identity in much the same way - indeed, by much the same process - as we acquire our nationality, our language, our morals, our values, etc. (And, yes, our citizenship, but don’t get hung up on that particular instance.) These things are inculcated in us both explicitly and implicitly by our family, community and wider society, and as infants we are by instinct disposed to accept this inculcation and to co-operate with it. This is equally true whether our religious identity is “Catholic”, “Atheist” or anything else. (I’m not arguing here that “atheism is a religion”; just that it’s a position on a set of religious questions.) The process of growing up involves engaging with what we have inherited in this regard, testing it, critiquing it, accepting and affirming it, modifying it, rejecting it, sometimes to the dismay of our parents or others. I’m waiting for an explanation of why religious identity - indeed, theistic religious identity - is, uniquely, an aspect of culture in which this process should be regarded as profoundly immoral.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: I have to point out that this isn't true. As far as the church is concerned, it is certainly possible for a baptised person to stop being Catholic.

How? Even if excommunicated you would still be considered catholic, just not able to receive any sacraments. Countmeout doesn't work any more (assuming it really worked at all).

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How? Even if excommunicated you would still be considered catholic, just not able to receive any sacraments. Countmeout doesn't work any more (assuming it really worked at all).

Same way you get out of most relationships. You move on. You do other things. You sever your links, or let them wither. You think of yourself differently, and present yourself differently. You act in ways inconsistent with the continuation of the relationship.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Same way you get out of most relationships. You move on. You do other things. You sever your links, or let them wither. You think of yourself differently, and present yourself differently. You act in ways inconsistent with the continuation of the relationship.

How does any of that stop you being a catholic, as far as the church is concerned? In such a case, the church will just consider you a lapsed catholic and while this may imply an automatic excommunication, you are still a catholic according to the catechism.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How does any of that stop you being a catholic, as far as the church is concerned? In such a case, the church will just consider you a lapsed catholic and while this may imply an automatic excommunication, you are still a catholic according to the catechism.

What are you looking at in the catechism?

Peregrinus

Just to expand on that last post; rereading it looks a bit dismissive of your query, which I don't want to do. My point is that the Catechism doesn't squarely address the question that you want it to address.

In general the Catholic church thinks of itself as a collective entity, not a bunch of individuals - the people of god, the mystical body of Christ, yadda, yadda. Defining who exactly is in and who is out and their relative degrees of in-ness and out-ness - it's not a simple binary - isn't actually a major preoccupation; it has no implications for the church's self-identity, understanding of its role, etc. They don't have, either centrally or locally, comprehensive lists of Catholics or, even in theory, the data from which they could compile such things. They don't need them. They're generally not going to take a position on whether Mark Hamill is a member or not unless and until, for their own purposes, they need to. So, does the Catholic church claim Mark Hamill as a member? The strong probability is that they have made no claim about this, one way or the other - at least, not since Mark Hamill was baptised. They have no reason to.

When do they need to take a position on whether someone is a Catholic? Usually in one of two circumstances. First, Mark Hammill turns up claiming some right or privilege or treatment that under canon law is only available to Catholics - e.g. he wants to be a godparent. In that case he wants to be accepted as Catholic, they'd prefer to accept him as Catholic, there isn't often much argument. Secondly, Mark Hammill is taking some public position which is very embarrassing to the church, and is claiming to do so as a Catholic, and they want to disown him if they can. This latter case is pretty rare.

The latter case excepted, it's hard to envisage a circumstance in which the church needs to affirm that Mark Hammill is not a Catholic. In most circumstances most people (including the church) are happy to accept Mark Hammill's word on that point; he is, after all, the leading authority on his own religious identity. It's nonsense, and arguably demeaning, to suggest that Mark Hammill's assertion that he is not Catholic is ineffective or invalid unless ratified or accepted or rubber-stamped by the church.

It's for that reason that there is a lack of process for the church to identify non-Catholics, and a lack of much discussion about what the qualifications for not being a Catholic are. It's simply not a big preoccupation for the church.

For what it's worth, the theological position on this is that to be a Catholic you have to be (a) baptised and (b) in a relationship of communion with the Catholic community under the leadership of the bishop. If they really, really have to make a decision about whether someone is a Catholic or not, what they look at (assuming he has been baptised) is the state of his connection with the church. The relationship can be more or less strong and more or less active, which is why participation in the church is not a simple binary, and somebody who hasn't darkened the door for many years can still have (and may still want) some degree of residual relationship. But there's general agreement that being in this relationship is not consistent with a settled and executed intention not to be in it. As a result if you don't regard yourself as a Catholic and don't want to be a Catholic then, pretty much by definition, you aren't. They won't necessarily know this, of course - they can't read your mind. But, if you tell them this, then they will know. But that still won't lead them to decree that you are Not A Catholic unless and until for their own purposes they need to take a position on that, which is probably not very likely to arise.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to expand on that last post; rereading it looks a bit dismissive of your query, which I don't want to do. My point is that the Catechism doesn't squarely address the question that you want it to address.

I didn't take it as a dismissive, just as looking for a reference, which I'll give now, paragraph 1272 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CotCC):

Catechism of the Catholic Church &#167 wrote: »

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

So, according to the CotCC, once baptised a catholic, always a catholic, no sin can ever erase that. If you have something from the CotCC that spells out how someone can stop being a catholic, then I'm all ears.

Hotblack Desiato

You're ducking and dodging again P. Just answer the simple question please.

Why won't the RCC respect the expressed wishes of deceased ex-catholics? They may not have family able or willing to speak up for them after their death. It's not the case where you live, but catholic rites are the default in Ireland, it's actually hard to avoid.

Brian Shanahan

Stella Virgo wrote: »

[/B]
try telling that to jehovah witness scum...

Every religion thinks that way. They've long copped on that "get them early" is the only chance they have to peddle their nonsense.

Brian Shanahan

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How? Even if excommunicated you would still be considered catholic, just not able to receive any sacraments. Countmeout doesn't work any more (assuming it really worked at all).

Exactly, excommunication is the removal of certain rights due to a person as a catholic, not the removal of the status of being a catholic. It is more akin to a person being put into prison in their own country after conviction for a crime, certain rights are removed, but once the state deems that person to have served the punishment due (or be rehabilitated) they are then reinstated into society with their full rights intact.

redfacedbear

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So, according to the CotCC, once baptised a catholic, always a catholic, no sin can ever erase that. If you have something from the CotCC that spells out how someone can stop being a catholic, then I'm all ears.

Why does it matter what the RCC think though?

I'm no longer Catholic because I consider myself to be so. I really couldn't give a flying fudge whether they think my Catholicism is lapsed rather than ex - it makes not an iota of a difference to my life and it's only one of a huge number of differences I have with them (and one of the least damaging I would think).

robindch

redfacedbear wrote: »

[...] it makes not an iota of a difference to my life [...]

It doesn't to most people.

Nonetheless, the RCC still claims you as a catholic, albeit a lapsed one. Most people don't mind that, but some do, and I think, arguably, they're well-justified in doing so.

Turtwig

Cantremember wrote: »

Try that with Pilgrim.

Cantremember wrote: »

The difference again Pilgrim

Cantremember wrote: »

You're trying to be clever in a typically condescending clerical way pilgrim.

Cantremember wrote: »

like it or not pilgrim

Cantremember wrote: »

Pilgrim (you will understand that the Latin is just a gloss that we can dispense with now) is that it is a supernaturalist rite. . . . You are after all, pilgrim, someone who believes.

Mod:
I have to ask why you are referring to Peregrinus as Pilgrim. If it's meant to be personal or undermining him/her in some way then please cease from using the label and apologise.

Thanks.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no, no. It works like this:

- In general, there is no process, formula, ceremony or the like you have to go through to leave the Catholic church. This is a bit of a disappointment to people who feel the need for bell, book and candle to mark their departure, but there you are; they must bear it as best they can. They cannot reasonably impose their psychological needs on others.

- For a time, there was a process you had to go through if you wanted your departure to be recognised for certain purposes to do with Catholic marriage rules - the idea was to have clarity in the application of the marriage rules. (For all other purposes, there was no requirement to go through this or any other process in order for your departure to be recognised.) This gratified those who felt the need for bell, book, candle, etc; they thought of this as “the route” by which you could leave the church. But, in fact, it never was.

- Most people who leave, leave because they have lost interest, and they are not motivated to go through any processes, and didn’t in fact go through them. The (perhaps foreseeable) result was that the great bulk of people who opted out were treated for certain purposes of Catholic marriage law as still being Catholics. Recognising that this was producing unrealistic results - the operation of the marriage rules was clear, but it bore less and less relationship to the facts on the ground - they dropped the requirement to go through a process to have your leaving recognised.

- This freaked out the bell, book and candle crowd, who believed - and in some cases apparently still believe - that if no formal process was required to leave, then they couldn’t leave. In the real world, most people recognise that requiring people to go through a formal process to achieve something is an impediment, and dropping that requirement is liberalisation..

Have you anything from the Vatican to say this document from 2006 is no longer valid?
I agree with your comparisons to citizenship, and also your assertion that "for all practical purposes" a person who has rejected catholicism is no longer seen as a catholic by church authorities. But I am not convinced that such people are officially considered "not catholics" in some other unpractical way. RCC still seems to claim jurisdiction over their souls unless the formal process has been completed. They differentiate between a "lapsed catholic" (the membership is in a temporary state of suspension) and one who has formally abandoned the membership.
The lesser availability of the formal exit process nowadays, seems to result from it becoming too fashionable for their liking. Not because of some doctrinal change, such that it is no longer required.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didn't take it as a dismissive, just as looking for a reference, which I'll give now, paragraph 1272 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CotCC):

So, according to the CotCC, once baptised a catholic, always a catholic, no sin can ever erase that. If you have something from the CotCC that spells out how someone can stop being a catholic, then I'm all ears.

I look in vain, Mark, for the word “Catholic”, the word “church” or the word “membership” in the extract you quote. Yes, it is Catholic (and indeed universal Christian) belief that baptism has indelible spiritual effects. But eternal membership of the Catholic church is not considered to be one of them.

As I say, there’s nothing in the Catechism to “spell out how one stops being Catholic”, because there is no particular process or step required, and because that’s not really a big concern. (Even when the count-me-out process was in place, it wasn’t mentioned in the Catechism.) There’s equally nothing in the Catechism to say that church membership is irreversible.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why won't the RCC respect the expressed wishes of deceased ex-catholics?

What makes you think they won’t?

Canon law forbids giving church funerals to “notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics” (Canon 1184). (“Notorious” here doesn’t mean infamous; it just means well-known, publicly known.) In cases of, um, less notoriety, I suspect most priests would decline to celebrate a church funeral for someone who he knew objected to having one on account of his emphatic rejection of the Christian faith.

The problem here is a practical one. How is a priest to know that someone is a non-Christian who actively did not want a church funeral? There is no register of professing non-Christians to consult. In practice the people who know about this are the deceased’s family; a priest is not going to second-guess them as to what the deceased wanted, or would have wanted. (Nor, in general, should he try; they always have better information than he does.) Which is why, as I said before, the OP has got this right. His issue is with his family; they are the ones who will make his funeral arrangements.

The most practical thing the individual atheist can do, if he feels he can’t trust his family, is (a) make a will, and (b) appoint a trusted atheist friend to whom he is close as his executor, and (c) ensure that this friend knows of his funeral wishes. Then, when he dies, the designated executor will have some standing to try and assert his dead friend’s funeral wishes, to arrange a secular funeral and, if need be, to point out to a priest that the deceased has left a record of his objection to having any church funeral.

If there is a systemic problem in Ireland (or anywhere else) of atheists not being able to trust their families, and perhaps not even their atheist friends, then perhaps some body or group concerned with the interests of atheists and the status of atheism can fill a gap here, operating a register where people who wish to record their objection to a church funeral. There’ll still have to be a mechanism for ensuring that, when the time comes, the entry in the register is drawn to the attention of whatever priest the family approaches, and I don’t see how you’re going to make sure that happens. But perhaps something practicable could be set up.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Have you anything from the Vatican to say this document from 2006 is no longer valid?

It was superseded by this document.

The earlier document is an interpretation of what is required by certain provisions of canon law, which called for a “formal act” in connection with leaving the church. (The old “count me out” website used to guide people through the making of a "formal act".)

The later document amends those canon law provisions, by removing any requirement for a “formal act”. Hence the early document no longer has any application - the laws it interprets have ceased to exist.

recedite wrote: »

I agree with your comparisons to citizenship, and also your assertion that "for all practical purposes" a person who has rejected catholicism is no longer seen as a catholic by church authorities. But I am not convinced that such people are officially considered "not catholics" in some other unpractical way. RCC still seems to claim jurisdiction over their souls unless the formal process has been completed. They differentiate between a "lapsed catholic" (the membership is in a temporary state of suspension) and one who has formally abandoned the membership.

The lesser availability of the formal exit process nowadays, seems to result from it becoming too fashionable for their liking. Not because of some doctrinal change, such that it is no longer required.

No, no, we looked at this before. The numbers who went through the “formal exit process” seem to have been tiny. The problem was not that it was becoming “too fashionable”. The problem - and I think this was entirely forseeable - was that most people who left couldn’t be arsed to go through the process. Indeed, they couldn’t be arsed to find out that there was a process.

I think the people who devised this process - not looking at anyone in particular, Cardinal Ratzinger - lived in a mindset in which people who left the Catholic church did so to become evangelical protestants, or militant atheists, or whatever, and it was for them a significant act of intellectual independence and autonomy which they wish to mark in a formal and ritual way. I think the reality, though, is that most people who leave the Catholic church do so because they have lost interest, they find it irrelevant, and eventually they realise that they never needed it. Whatever connection they ever had has long since withered away into indifference. These people have no reason, no motivation, to write to the bishop and tell him about their feelings and their decision (which is what the “formal act” required) and few of them ever did. The result was that they were being treated for certain canonical purposes as being Catholic, a state of affairs which did not correspond to reality. Hence the change in 2009.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was superseded by this document.

The earlier document is an interpretation of what is required by certain provisions of canon law, which called for a “formal act” in connection with leaving the church. (The old “count me out” website used to guide people through the making of a "formal act".)

The later document amends those canon law provisions, by removing any requirement for a “formal act”. Hence the early document no longer has any application - the laws it interprets have ceased to exist.

What you are calling "the later document" does not say anything about removing the formal act.
It only refers to the marriage vows, and whether a person who has "lapsed" but not formally defected, should be married according to the normal RC ceremony, or the mixed marriage ceremony. If they are being treated as non-RC, then the RC partner must make a special vow to do all in their power to bring up the kids as catholics.
Also by removing any ambiguity* about which form of ceremony is correct, they would hope to close off a loophole that might allow people married in the normal ceremony to claim an anullment afterwards, on the basis that one of them was lapsed at the time.

* having said that, I can't make out from the wording whether a lapsed catholic, ie not formally defected, is to be treated as a non-catholic or not, when getting married according to the RC ceremony. It seems to be saying that once a person has been baptised, they are to be treated as catholics for the purposes of the marriage ceremony. But as long as the canon lawyers themselves know what they mean, they will be happy enough that they have closed the loophole. Either way, it is only for the purposes of which marriage ceremony to use.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

What you are calling "the later document" does not say anything about removing the formal act.

Yes it does. The eighth paragraph:

"Therefore I decree that in the same Code the following words are to be eliminated: "and has not left it by a formal act" (can. 1117); "and has not left it by means of a formal act" (can. 1086 § 1); "and has not left it by a formal act" (can. 1124)."

Those are the three canons which used to call for a formal act of defection in certain contexts. In each case this decree removes the phrase imposing a requirement for a formal act of defection.

recedite wrote: »

It only refers to the marriage vows, and whether a person who has "lapsed" but not formally defected, should be married according to the normal RC ceremony, or the mixed marriage ceremony. If they are being treated as non-RC, then the RC partner must make a special vow to do all in their power to bring up the kids as catholics.

Also by removing any ambiguity* about which form of ceremony is correct, they would hope to close off a loophole that might allow people married in the normal ceremony to claim an anullment afterwards, on the basis that one of them was lapsed at the time.

The issue was this:

1. I said earlier that there are not many circumstances in which the church needs to take a position on whether (say) Recedite is a Catholic or not.

2. But one circumstance where they sometimes do need to is in relation to the validity of marriage.

3. Since the seventeenth century, the Catholic church has had a rule that, to marry, a Catholic must either have a Catholic church wedding, or get a dispensation allowing them to marry in another ceremony. If they do neither of these things, then their marriage is invalid. But no such rule applies to non-Catholics.

4. Suppose the following fact situation applies: (A) Recedite is baptised in infancy in a Catholic ceremony. (B) Recedite marries wife no. 1 in a registry office. He does not obtain a dispensation from canonical form. (C) Unhappy differences arise; Recedite and wife no. 1 divorce. (D) Recedite now wishes to marry wife no. 2, a Catholic, in a Catholic ceremony. She has never been married before. Wife no. 1 is still alive. Can Recedite and wife no. 2 have a church wedding?

5. The canonical answer is, if Recedite was a Catholic at the time of his first marriage, that marriage is invalid, because it was not a Catholic church wedding and he did not get a dispensation. But if he was not a Catholic at the time, the first marriage is valid, and Recidite is not free to marry (unless there are some other grounds on which to annul it).

6. Hence, it matters whether Recidite was a Catholic at the time of his first marriage.

7. The point of the “formal act” procedure was to try and bring some certainty to this. What canon 1117 etc used to say was that, if Recedite had not gone through the formal act procedure before his first wedding, he is to be treated as still a Catholic at the time of his first wedding, therefore his first marriage is invalid, therefore he is free to marry now.

8. While this did introduce certainty, it also produced bizarre results since, as already pointed out, practically nobody went through the formal act procedure. The result was that if Recedite had been baptised and Anglican or a Lutheran or not baptised at all, his first marriage is valid but because he is an ex-Catholic who is completely irreligious and indifferent to recording the fact his first marriage is invalid. That makes no sense whatsoever, and appears to give ex-Catholics licence to walk out on their marriages which people who were never Catholic do not have, which is scandalous.

9. Hence the reason the formal act requirement was deep-sixed in 2009. Now, if the same fact situation arises, they will actually have to look at the nature of Recedite’s connection to the church before and at the time of his first wedding in order to take a view as to whether he was a Catholic or not at the time. This means less certainty, but more chance of a finding which bears some connection to reality.

shruikan2553

Citizenship is a bit different. It is usually just saying you were born in a certain place or have a family there. It exists for legal reasons and you can denounce citizenship (for most countries anyway)

By being a part of a religion you are saying you agree with that set of beliefs. Something which a child can't even comprehend never mind believe it.

Having a certain citizenship just says I'm from somewhere or spent a lot of time there while having a religion says I think something. I don't see how I can be told "this is what you think based on 0 evidence"